Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Emperors Faithful wrote:That was Gailbraithe's favourite word (Apart from BLAME and VICTIM).

Let's make this happen, people.

OT:

Emperors Faithful wrote:act of barbarism designed to instill terror and fear in the populace.

I agree that this is exactly what bombing those two cities was, with the caveat that I don't necessarily think it was barbarism. The question is whether or not dropping those nukes and Japan surrendering was the best-case scenario for ending that conflict with the least amount of casualties.

Monster Rain wrote:

I agree that this is exactly what bombing those two cities was, with the caveat that I don't necessarily think it was barbarism. The question is whether or not dropping those nukes and Japan surrendering was the best-case scenario for ending that conflict with the least amount of casualties.

It certainly reduced casualties that would have occurred on our side of the fence.

FITZZ wrote: Perhaps this is an oversimplification of a difficult time,and I am in no way attempting to minimize the terrible nature of the use of atomic weapons.
However,it's always been my train of thought that if some one hits you..you hit them back..hard...until they no longer present a threat.
In the case of Imperial Japan,they were prepared to continue fighting at the cost of a great many more lives,so I basically feel that the bombings were a "necessary evil".

Indeed Japan violated EF's own rule. After pearl Harbor why didn't they stop? After the invasion of the Phillipines why didn't they stop? After defetaing uch of the US cruiser fleet in Iron Bottom why didn't they stop.

But evidently that was ok.

Frazzled wrote:
Indeed Japan violated EF's own rule. After pearl Harbor why didn't they stop? After the invasion of the Phillipines why didn't they stop? After defetaing uch of the US cruiser fleet in Iron Bottom why didn't they stop.

But evidently that was ok.

He never said anything like that, he even directly responded to your previous point in a way that explicitly stated that he wasn't absolving the Japanese of anything.

You're either misrepresenting his position intentionally, or you never bothered to understand it the first place.

Its really a very simple argument. Japan had been defeated and their surrender was not necessary in order to secure American interests as they related to Japan itself; though it could be argued that surrender was necessary due to Soviet influence. Nowhere does that line of argumentation broach the topic of Japanese culpability for their war crimes. Nowhere does it imply that it was acceptable for the Japanese to prosecute and aggressive campaign of military action against the United States.

Albatross wrote:It's possible to ask stupid rhetorical questions. It doesn't matter that Japan wasn't capable of launching a successful military strike upon the USA at that time, they would still have been a threat to the region given enough time and breathing space, a region which, I might add, includes your country - an ally of the USA. I would have thought you'd be more grateful to the Americans, actually. All US/UK 'we saved your asses' joshing aside, I am extraordinarily grateful not to be living under the yoke of Nazi oppression, and that the Americans played such a huge role in that by sacrificing so many of their young men is truly humbling. They didn't have to do it. But they DID do it, and they did the same for your country in the pacific theatre.

The US went to war with Japan becuase they were attacked and becuase they were defending their interests, you'd be pretty naive to believe that they were doing so to look out for Australia. In fact it was Australia that declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, which was definitely done out of a sense of self-preservation.

Your response? 'They should have sacrificed MORE men, because killing civilians is mean'. My response? 'Grow up'.

I've said that they could have considered alternatives to wholescale slaughter. I have never said that they should have invaded Japan rather than use nukes at all.

You added that Japan attacked the US without a formal declaration of War. THAT was irrelevant.

Not entirely. It was meant as an illustrative example of unprovoked Japanese aggression. Not only did they attack Pearl Harbour, but they did so without prior warning. It was an unprovoked surprise attack. That the US has not formally declared war on any nation since then is not relevant to THIS discussion. Hope this clears things up for you.

You're not opposed to nuking cities, but if a country attacks you without giving you a fair warning then you think that's unfair?

Yeah, there's no way you can possibly know that, so I'm just going to put that down to naivete.

Fair enough, I have no way of possibly knowing that the alternatives could have worked. But I do know that they were never explored, and I'm not even sure they were considered in the slightest.

Exactly. You're not sure. I don't think that the Americans took the decision to vapourise the populations of two urban centres lightly, but then it suits your argument to paint the Americans as callous in this instance. All I know is that it undoubtedly saved the lives of American, British and Commonwealth servicemen (one of whom was my Grandad, incidentally) , and that's all I really care about. The Allies responsibility was to keep THEIR people safe, not the Japanese. Japan could have kept its people safe by not attacking most powerful alliance in history.

I'm not the one purposefully mistunderstanding the point of others. And at least I haven't resorted to calling other posters children.

Neither have I, technically. I DO think that perhaps you are young and idealistic, though. that sort of thing tends to fade the more aware you become of just how cruel and ugly a place the real world can be. When the most important moral decision a person has had to make runs along the lines of 'Joanne likes me, but Brad likes Joanne - should I ask her to the prom?', it's kind of hard to take them seriously when discussing whether or not the US should have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if you take my meaning.

But hey, this is the internet.' 'A cat can look at a king' applies here more than in any sphere of cultural life.

I guess this is the point where should capitulate and show reverence to you superior experience in making heart-wrenching moral decisions.

That has nothing to do with what I quoted.

If you'd care to reiterate your original point then I'd be very grateful.

I would go to any and all lengths to defend myself. I would also apply that philosophy to the defence of my country, were I in charge of it.

Albatross wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

...of Japanese people. Am I supposed to care?

I'm very happy to know that you're not.

It was more like downright disgusting given that steamrollers have actually been used in such a manner, and not more than 30 years ago.

Colour me bothered.

Golly, mister! You sure are a tough one.

Frazzled wrote:Indeed Japan violated EF's own rule.

I have a rule?

After pearl Harbor why didn't they stop? After the invasion of the Phillipines why didn't they stop? After defetaing uch of the US cruiser fleet in Iron Bottom why didn't they stop.

Actually, these attacks were intended to stun the US into accepting some form of armistice or agreement at the very outset of the war, Japan had no grand ambitions concerning US territory. The fact that these actions only sparked outrage and an iron will to prosecute the kind of war Japan realised it probably couldn't win is impressive.

But evidently that was ok.

I can't recall justifying Japan's actions anywhere in this thread.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:It's possible to ask stupid rhetorical questions. It doesn't matter that Japan wasn't capable of launching a successful military strike upon the USA at that time, they would still have been a threat to the region given enough time and breathing space, a region which, I might add, includes your country - an ally of the USA. I would have thought you'd be more grateful to the Americans, actually. All US/UK 'we saved your asses' joshing aside, I am extraordinarily grateful not to be living under the yoke of Nazi oppression, and that the Americans played such a huge role in that by sacrificing so many of their young men is truly humbling. They didn't have to do it. But they DID do it, and they did the same for your country in the pacific theatre.

The US went to war with Japan because they were attacked and because they were defending their interests, you'd be pretty naive to believe that they were doing so to look out for Australia. In fact it was Australia that declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, which was definitely done out of a sense of self-preservation.

Australia declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, same reason the British, Indian, Russian, and South African governments did.

As a show of support for the US and to make their stance quite clear. Remember after the declaration against Afghanistan? Countries that had noone who died within the WTC complex were declaring war, same as we did.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Your response? 'They should have sacrificed MORE men, because killing civilians is mean'. My response? 'Grow up'.

I've said that they could have considered alternatives to wholesale slaughter. I have never said that they should have invaded Japan rather than use nukes at all.

Then stop weaseling around and make a coherent statement. You're all over the place with this.

You're calling the usage of nuclear weapons "wholesale slaughter", yet also decrying that "they shouldn't have invaded Japan".

Put frankly: By that point in time, Japan had a warped sense of the "Bushido" code that had been instilled into its citizens in the years leading up to the war. Was it likely that every single Japanese civilian would have attacked the Allied forces landing ashore? Of course not. No resistance movement has ever really had 100% support among the populace.

But it wouldn't have stopped the occupying forces; who'd already been fighting the Japanese, seeing the atrocities committed by their forces or the sheer bastard acts of Japanese loyal populaces against their comrades; from potentially launching a campaign of retaliatory attacks against the populace, or even starting ethnic cleansing during that occupation.

I mean, do you really think the Chinese or the Koreans would have been sympathetic towards the Japanese populace if they'd been part of the occupying/invasion forces, as was planned?

The usage of nuclear weapons ended up being the biggest savior of the Japanese. It earned them a sympathetic casting to their story; victims of an unspeakable new weapon that was only ever used on them.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

You added that Japan attacked the US without a formal declaration of War. THAT was irrelevant.

Not entirely. It was meant as an illustrative example of unprovoked Japanese aggression. Not only did they attack Pearl Harbour, but they did so without prior warning. It was an unprovoked surprise attack. That the US has not formally declared war on any nation since then is not relevant to THIS discussion. Hope this clears things up for you.

You're not opposed to nuking cities, but if a country attacks you without giving you a fair warning then you think that's unfair?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Just saying, couldn't they just have dropped the bomb somewhere empty and said "next one's a city"? At least then there would've been a chance to surrender without the massive death toll...

Given that the US was killing roughly the same amount of people, just as indiscriminately, on a nightly basis with traditional fire bombing. I have to ask, why bother? The only factor that has changed is efficiency, and given the cost of the atomic bomb project and the relative shortage of atomic bombs probably not even that.

Kanluwen wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Albatross wrote:It's possible to ask stupid rhetorical questions. It doesn't matter that Japan wasn't capable of launching a successful military strike upon the USA at that time, they would still have been a threat to the region given enough time and breathing space, a region which, I might add, includes your country - an ally of the USA. I would have thought you'd be more grateful to the Americans, actually. All US/UK 'we saved your asses' joshing aside, I am extraordinarily grateful not to be living under the yoke of Nazi oppression, and that the Americans played such a huge role in that by sacrificing so many of their young men is truly humbling. They didn't have to do it. But they DID do it, and they did the same for your country in the pacific theatre.

The US went to war with Japan because they were attacked and because they were defending their interests, you'd be pretty naive to believe that they were doing so to look out for Australia. In fact it was Australia that declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, which was definitely done out of a sense of self-preservation.

Australia declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, same reason the British, Indian, Russian, and South African governments did.

As a show of support for the US and to make their stance quite clear. Remember after the declaration against Afghanistan? Countries that had noone who died within the WTC complex were declaring war, same as we did.

I think that's what I said.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Your response? 'They should have sacrificed MORE men, because killing civilians is mean'. My response? 'Grow up'.

I've said that they could have considered alternatives to wholesale slaughter. I have never said that they should have invaded Japan rather than use nukes at all.

Then stop weaseling around and make a coherent statement. You're all over the place with this.

*snip*.

I've said it's not as simple as Nuke or Invade. There WERE alternatives to nuking two cities, and they were NOT considered.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

You added that Japan attacked the US without a formal declaration of War. THAT was irrelevant.

Not entirely. It was meant as an illustrative example of unprovoked Japanese aggression. Not only did they attack Pearl Harbour, but they did so without prior warning. It was an unprovoked surprise attack. That the US has not formally declared war on any nation since then is not relevant to THIS discussion. Hope this clears things up for you.

You're not opposed to nuking cities, but if a country attacks you without giving you a fair warning then you think that's unfair?

What's the relevance to nuking cities here, compared to unprovoked aggression?

He's not talking about just randomly nuking cities for fun here.

No, he's arguing that since the Japanese showed unprovoked aggression (which is a whole other issue) that justifies the use of Nuclear weapons. That's complete bollocks.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Yeah, there's no way you can possibly know that, so I'm just going to put that down to naivete.

Fair enough, I have no way of possibly knowing that the alternatives could have worked. But I do know that they were never explored, and I'm not even sure they were considered in the slightest.

Exactly. You're not sure. I don't think that the Americans took the decision to vapourise the populations of two urban centres lightly, but then it suits your argument to paint the Americans as callous in this instance. All I know is that it undoubtedly saved the lives of American, British and Commonwealth servicemen (one of whom was my Grandad, incidentally) , and that's all I really care about. The Allies responsibility was to keep THEIR people safe, not the Japanese. Japan could have kept its people safe by not attacking most powerful alliance in history.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I've said it's not as simple as Nuke or Invade. There WERE alternatives to nuking two cities, and they were NOT considered.

And that is an outright lie.

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I've said it's not as simple as Nuke or Invade. There WERE alternatives to nuking two cities, and they were NOT considered.

And that is an outright lie.

Go ahead.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Amaya wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I've said it's not as simple as Nuke or Invade. There WERE alternatives to nuking two cities, and they were NOT considered.

And that is an outright lie.

Go ahead.

Are you really so ignorant as to actually believe that US Commanders actually went "Hey, let's nuke Japan!" and literally considered nothing else?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Australia declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, same reason the British, Indian, Russian, and South African governments did.

As a show of support for the US and to make their stance quite clear. Remember after the declaration against Afghanistan? Countries that had noone who died within the WTC complex were declaring war, same as we did.

I think that's what I said.

Then you'd both be wrong. Britain (and therefore India and South Africa) declared war on Japan because it had been attacked. The Soviet Union (Russia) didn't declare war on Japan until 1945.

Screw it EF. You're not looking for any kind of discussion. You're just wanting to piss and moan about nuclear weapons being unacceptable, yet the US wasn't punished.

Simply put:
The world had no clue what the feth the end result of nuclear weapons would be. We had no clue what the long-term effects would be, nor the concept of fallout(as evidenced by the fact that the invasion plans for Japan originally called for 15+ coordinated nuclear strikes and no NBC protection for the invasion forces) or radiation sickness.

The nuclear bomb was, at that time, just a really big bomb.

I raise a glass and say 'thank god for the bomb and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.' It's my belief that the bombing of those two cities is one of the primary reasons that one has never been used offensively since then. The Cuban Missile Crisis might've ended on a very different note if the effects of nuclear warfare were still an abstract notion, rather than grim reality.

Kanluwen wrote:Screw it EF. You're not looking for any kind of discussion. You're just wanting to piss and moan about nuclear weapons being unacceptable, yet the US wasn't punished.

Where have I called for the US to be punished? I think an apology is in order yes, especially if people are making similar demans about Japan, but I've never said anything about punishment.

If you don't want to have a discussion then you don't really need to waste my time by posting.

Simply put:
The world had no clue what the feth the end result of nuclear weapons would be. We had no clue what the long-term effects would be, nor the concept of fallout(as evidenced by the fact that the invasion plans for Japan originally called for 15+ coordinated nuclear strikes and no NBC protection for the invasion forces) or radiation sickness.

The nuclear bomb was, at that time, just a really big bomb.

Which was used deliberately on civilians.

Bookwrack wrote:I raise a glass and say 'thank god for the bomb and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.' It's my belief that the bombing of those two cities is one of the primary reasons that one has never been used offensively since then. The Cuban Missile Crisis might've ended on a very different note if the effects of nuclear warfare were still an abstract notion, rather than grim reality.

That's true, if there hadn't been first hand accounts of exactly what kind of devestation the bomb was capable of, then Nuclear War may not have been avoided. That doesn't excuse their initial use though.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Australia declared war on Japan immediately after the US declaration, same reason the British, Indian, Russian, and South African governments did.

As a show of support for the US and to make their stance quite clear. Remember after the declaration against Afghanistan? Countries that had noone who died within the WTC complex were declaring war, same as we did.

I think that's what I said.

Then you'd both be wrong. Britain (and therefore India and South Africa) declared war on Japan because it had been attacked. The Soviet Union (Russia) didn't declare war on Japan until 1945.

Aside from the Soviets you are mistaken. Britian (and her colonies) declared war on Japan immediately after Pearl Harbour on December the 8th.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Which was used deliberately on civilians.

They didn't target non-strategic cities just to kill civilians. They were strategically viable targets that would weaken the Japanese military.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Screw it EF. You're not looking for any kind of discussion. You're just wanting to piss and moan about nuclear weapons being unacceptable, yet the US wasn't punished.

Where have I called for the US to be punished? I think an apology is in order yes, especially if people are making similar demands about Japan, but I've never said anything about punishment.

If you don't want to have a discussion then you don't really need to waste my time by posting.

Feth that. Why should we apologize for striking legitimate military targets?

That's what you need to wrap your head around. They were legitimate targets due to what was housed within those towns. This wasn't "Hey, let's bomb civilians!", this was "Okay, these places house military targets.

Hiroshima, for example housed the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.
Sounds like a pretty important target, huh?

Nagasaki, similarly, was a potential target because of it being one of the largest shipping ports in southern Japan and housed wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Again: Military targets.

Simply put:
The world had no clue what the feth the end result of nuclear weapons would be. We had no clue what the long-term effects would be, nor the concept of fallout(as evidenced by the fact that the invasion plans for Japan originally called for 15+ coordinated nuclear strikes and no NBC protection for the invasion forces) or radiation sickness.

The nuclear bomb was, at that time, just a really big bomb.

Which was used deliberately on civilians.

And, as previously stated, the Geneva Convention recognized collateral damage when targeting military targets.

Which Hiroshima and Nagasaki both were, due to their importance to the Japanese war effort.

Round and round we go.

Was dropping the nuclear bomb the most brilliant thing, with the information we have now?
Of course not.

But they didn't have the hindsight we've got looking back at it.

Kanluwen wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Screw it EF. You're not looking for any kind of discussion. You're just wanting to piss and moan about nuclear weapons being unacceptable, yet the US wasn't punished.

Where have I called for the US to be punished? I think an apology is in order yes, especially if people are making similar demands about Japan, but I've never said anything about punishment.

If you don't want to have a discussion then you don't really need to waste my time by posting.

Feth that. Why should we apologize for striking legitimate military targets?

That's what you need to wrap your head around. They were legitimate targets due to what was housed within those towns. This wasn't "Hey, let's bomb civilians!", this was "Okay, these places house military targets.

Hiroshima, for example housed the Second Army and Chugoku Regional Army and the Army Marine Headquarters was located at Ujina port. The city also had large depots of military supplies, and was a key center for shipping.
Sounds like a pretty important target, huh?

Nagasaki, similarly, was a potential target because of it being one of the largest shipping ports in southern Japan and housed wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.

Again: Military targets.

To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

The weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by their very design indiscriminate and used indiscriminately. It's not like they dropped the bomb over the barracks in Hiroshima (it was actually dropped over a bank) and were shocked to find most of the city destroyed.

Apologizing for the carpet bombing of Tokyo would probably be appropriate in this case as well. Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

Emperors Faithful wrote:To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

The only thing preposterous here is your contrived ignorance about the war. It was a small island nation on a war footing, of course industrial port cities are going to be military targets. And again, small island nation. Where exactly are you going to find a valid military target a suitable distance from civilian populations? Military production needs to be accessible to workers, and is going to involve a lot of converted factories, so, in a city. Shipyards? Oh, right, Nagasaki...

Apologizing for the carpet bombing of Tokyo would probably be appropriate in this case as well. Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

Only because they weren't given the chance. The Japanese did kill a pregnant mother as well as her five children in Oregon with their attempts to hit the US via bomb carrying balloons.

Emperors Faithful wrote:To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

And to suggest they weren't perfectly legitimate military targets is just as preposterous.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by their very design indiscriminate

Having a large area of effect isn't the same as indiscriminate.

Emperors Faithful wrote: and used indiscriminately.

No, it was used fairly intentionally on specific targets.

Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

I don't know whether ot laugh or cry at the ridiculousness of that statement.

Neither. It's an intellectually flaccid statement made either to demonstrate how utterly ignorant the poster is on the topic, or simple trolling because they're just trying to make trouble and have no interest at all in engaging in any intellectual honesty in the discussion.

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

And to suggest they weren't perfectly legitimate military targets is just as preposterous.

An entire city is not a legitimate military target. Locations in a city can be, but not the city itself.

Emperors Faithful wrote:The weapons used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were by their very design indiscriminate

Having a large area of effect isn't the same as indiscriminate.

in·dis·crim·i·nate (nd-skrm-nt)
adj.
1. Not making or based on careful distinctions; unselective: an indiscriminate shopper; indiscriminate taste in music.
2. Random; haphazard: indiscriminate violence; an indiscriminate assortment of used books for sale.
3. Confused; chaotic: the indiscriminate policies of the previous administration.
4. Unrestrained or wanton; profligate: indiscriminate spending.

To say that nuclear bombs are precise weapons is a very silly arguement.

Emperors Faithful wrote: and used indiscriminately.

No, it was used fairly intentionally on specific targets.

Of course it was used intentionally, though I have no idea why you'd think that an entire city is a specific target.

Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

I don't know whether ot laugh or cry at the ridiculousness of that statement.

Granted they weren't given the opportunity (Japan with nuclear weapons doesn't bear thinking about), but the US really didn't have any grounds to practice carpet bombing cities against Japan.

schadenfreude wrote:Both German and Japanese war crimes were a very widespread systemic problem. The Germans organized it into camps, the Japanese encouraged their soldiers to carry it out using their own initiative. I really don't think either side was worse, but I do understand why people are more creeped out by the Nazis.

So yuo admit that when you made your first post you hadn't read the thread?

The Japanese went medieval on their victims, which is something the world is very accustomed to. Medieval style genocide is old news that has been around for thousands of years, so it's hardly shocking to anybody.

The Germans industrialized genocide and brought it to 20th century efficiency. That's new, and so totally alien to "normal genocide" that it really scared people.

It's really not got anything to do with what's scary and new, or what people are used to. Genocide in wartime was not particularly studied, or at all well known. Any instance would have been shocking.

The point of difference, mentioned many times in this thread, and directly to you, is that when army wigs out and gets really brutal, then you can get a lot of people killed. But when the state uses modern industrialial processes it is capable of wiping an ethnic minority out entirely.

And the difference is a big deal. The Japanese were never going to wipe the Han off the face of the Earth. The Germans really would have killed ever Jew.

Personally I don't see it as any worse than the old way of doing genocide. I'll break it down into a math problem.

That stuff is just weird, dude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:Nukes are very bad, and thousands of innocent civilians get killed. Nobody would ever argue that we should never use such an indiscriminate weapon unless it is absolutely necessary. And nobody is! We like to strike with precision, and kill only the ones we deem must be killed, of course nobody is suggesting otherwise in this day and age.

Albatross kind of did, actually. He and Emperors Faithful are kind of the two extremes of the argument, and in between there's a whole lot of people realising how hard a choice it was.

But at the time, could any one of you hand on heart say you definately wouldnt have authorised the drop?

I can say I'm really glad it wasn't my decision to make.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I’m not allowed to say this in front of my wife, but I don’t fundamentally disagree with the bombing of Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither do I disagree with the bombing of Berlin, Frankfurt and Dresden.

In the current of the times, these acts were inevitable, and cannot be fairly judged by modern people.

Except that Dresden was highly criticised at the time, and led to many of the Allied countries considering exactly what should be done to defeat the Germans. Churchill himself called for such operations to be abandoned.

1. Military theory held that civilian morale would be broken by mass bombing.

It did, but once these operations had failed against the British, against the Russians, and then failed to have any effect in the protracted campaign against the Germans, they should have been reassessed and then abandoned. They weren't, until after Dresden, because lots of folk get pretty stupid when they get their war face on.

2. It nearly worked. The British were very worried about London during the Blitz. Only the high casualties to the RAF prevent the bombing campaign of 1943 from crushing German morale, according to Dr. Goebbels, who you will surely concede knew something about the topic. The Japanese did surrender after the second A bomb.

Yes, the nuclear weapons dropped on Japan were different, because nuclear weapons really are entirely different to traditional strategic bombing. When the enemy has the power to entirely destroy a city with a single bomb, the world has changed. This can be seen in the fact that the Japanese were the only nation to surrender in the wake of a terror campaign, and why they need to be seen very differently to strategic bombing. The effect of nuclear bombing in forcing surrender does not justify any traditional bombing, which failed in every instance.

3. All these cities contained valid military targets, such as factories, ports, army headquarters, and major rail junctions. The Geneva Convention allows for “collateral damage” in the case of attacking a valid target.

The claims that Dresden contained valuable military targets is dubious at best.

To be honest, there was also a spirit of vengeance. The enemy sowed the wind, and they were made to reap a very bitter whirlwind. A lot of Allied civilians of the time would have said, "They started it".

And this is a very stupid way to conduct a war. If nothing else, flying bomber raids over cities with no military value because 'they started it' is a waste of your own bomber pilots. When you consider operation you need to consider the benefits and the costs, and that is the beginning and the end of it. To the extent that a nation considers itself moral, it needs to factor in enemy civilian losses in the 'costs' column. Nothing that could potentially be gained from the Dresden bombing can be considered

Bookwrack wrote:

Apologizing for the carpet bombing of Tokyo would probably be appropriate in this case as well. Japan never did anything of the sort against US citizens.

Only because they weren't given the chance. The Japanese did kill a pregnant mother as well as her five children in Oregon with their attempts to hit the US via bomb carrying balloons.

Are you refferring to the attempted Firebombing of Oregon? Becuase that didn't result in any civilian casualties. Or any casualties at all.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:To suggest that the only military targets worth bombing were in cities is preposterous.

And to suggest they weren't perfectly legitimate military targets is just as preposterous.

An entire city is not a legitimate military target. Locations in a city can be, but not the city itself.

Who made you the ultimate authority on war? Cities of strategic and military importance were routinely bombed in WW2, and there was no such thing as precision bombing at the time.

You are using the benefit of hindsight, and you are claiming superior judgment and morality to the people who made the tough decision at the time; a stance showing extreme hubris. Their decision also seems to have been vindicated historically as the best option available. Your grounds for claiming that there was any more humane way to end the war are extremely dubious.

Mannahnin wrote:
Who made you the ultimate authority on war? Cities of strategic and military importance were routinely bombed in WW2, and there was no such thing as precision bombing at the time.

Even so, conventional bombs were predominantly used to attack specific military targets. There was no attempt to do so with the A-bomb, it was dropped over a bank.

Using a Nuke to hit a factory would be like taking out a suburb to hit one house. It's certainly not an precision weapon.

You are using the benefit of hindsight, and you are claiming superior judgment and morality to the people who made the tough decision at the time; a stance showing extreme hubris.

Just becuase it happened in the past doesn't mean that I cannot be critical of it. That would exempt a lot of 'tough decisions'.

Their decision also seems to have been vindicated historically as the best option available.

By who? A link more reliable than this one would be appreciated.

http://the-undercurrent.com/paper/the-moral-goodness-of-the-atomic-bombing-of-hiroshima

Your grounds for claiming that there was any more humane way to end the war are extremely dubious.

Actually, my attempts to name alternatives have been largely ignored and misinterpreted as call for a conventional invasion.

You suggested that the bomb could have been used elsewhere, or early warning been given.

The first runs into serious issues of whether its damage potential would be adequately witnessed or believed. The second runs into the belief issue, as well as the possibility of the bomber being intercepted or shot down.

There's a difference between being critical of a decision and pretending moral superiority to the people who made it, based on hindsight and with more than five decades' remove.

Mannahnin wrote:The first runs into serious issues of whether its damage potential would be adequately witnessed or believed. The second runs into the belief issue, as well as the possibility of the bomber being intercepted or shot down.

1) With such a terrible weapon I think using it on a target where there is a chance it might be underestimated is enough of a risk to avoid such horrific casualties. If the first such example was ignored, then a following attack on a city would have been more justified.

2) Japan did have not the capability to do so with US bombers at that altitude. (And I'm not sure if you meant intercepted and shot down?)

There's a difference between being critical of a decision and pretending moral superiority to the people who made it, based on hindsight and with more than five decades' remove.

All I've said is that dropping the bomb on a civilian target (seeing as an entire city can't be a military target) was an immoral act. I'm not trying to stand on a pulpit parading any moral superiority.

I still disagree that a city can't be a military target, particularly in the context of city bombings in WW2.

1. It's well-established that no one in the world knew just how terrible it was. Your assessment of the risks involved (IMO) cannot be better than the assessment made at the time, and most likely is inferior. You lack the training and experience of those people.

2. They couldn't know that for sure.

You do benefit from hindsight, which gives you greater historical perspective but hinders your ability to judge the situation on its merits at the time. You cannot accurately assess the morality of the decision without looking at it in context of the information they had with which to make it.

All war is immoral and evil. But sometimes you have no better alternative. The same principle holds true with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Emperors Faithful wrote:To say that nuclear bombs are precise weapons is a very silly arguement.

You'll also find just becuase a weapon isn't indiscriminate doesn't also make it precise. Indiscriminate in the context of military means something specific. Words in specific use often mean something different the laymens version. Just look at the law. If you don't know who a weapon is going to kill makes it indiscriminate. Firing a machine gun up into the air is indiscriminate. A roadside IED is indiscriminate. They knew fairly well who it was going to kill. It could be indiscriminate in that they didn't understand fully the impact the fallout would have, but it wasn't designed that way.