Use of Nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A more humane way to end the war just as quick?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
reply to post by Yog-Sothoth

 

... And the justification of the WWII bombs makes it so easy to justify usage again.. which is the scary part..

But that clearly isn't true because they haven't been used again in the 65years since.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by signal2noise

 

Let's see what Emporor Hirohito says in the Imperial Rescript of surrender, ( though the word surrender was never used by Japan).

"the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."

Not necessarily to Japan's advantage is right!
There you are, apparantly Hirohito WAS influenced to finally end their hopeless war by the A bomb. Hirohito was the only guy who's opinion counted.
Too bad the God/Emporor didn't figure it out sooner. As far as I'm concerned, the deaths of most Japanese civilians are on Hirohito, and certainly those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He could have ended it anytime he chose.
[edit on 20-5-2010 by OldDragger]

[edit on 20-5-2010 by OldDragger]

reply to post by Freeborn


and that is evident because the ones wielding this power have not been tested with the moral/political dilemma that faced America in WWII.

The absence of usage of nuclear weapons on nuclear weapons states speaks for itself.

The US (or any other nuclear power) has not been faced with a conventional force that compares/overshadows that of the US or has the ability to inflict large losses to US troops (occupation/invasion forces) till date.. There were instances of this situation being almost reached during Vietnam and Russo-Chinese river conflict of the 60s(?). And the Russian conflict involved sovereign territory, so nuclear weapons use to defend sovereign integrity is in my opinion not comparable to the WWII usage

reply to post by Daedalus3


McCarthur proposed nuclear weapons in Korea didn't he? I'm sure nukes were brought up re: Vietnam and Cuba as well. Each time they were not used.
I'm sorry, but it seems that you keep bringing up events after the war instead of using the context of during the war. If you wish to debate the morality of using the bomb on japan, it seems irrelevant to cite future events ( like the cold war) as reasons.
I think the quote from Hirohito settles the question as to the bomb prompting the Japanese surrender. In that light, it ended the satrvation, the firebombing, the enslavment on the mainland, and negated the need to invade Japan. The use of nuclear weapons ended WW2, THAT, in any rational context is a good thing.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by OldDragger]

reply to post by CalibratedZeus


Many good points. Stalin was eager to participate in the occupation of Japan, and would not have yielded any territory it captured.
Rather than being THE reason for the bombs, it' another reason for their use.

Originally posted by OldDragger
McCarthur proposed nuclear weapons in Korea didn't he? I'm sure nukes were brought up re: Vietnam and cuba as well.

And that is my point.. Usage of nuclear weapons when conventional weapons still exist as an alternative, along with the multitudes of variables (Russian Invasion of Manchuria etc.), prolonged conventional bombing, blockade, live demonstration etc..
Its just too many options to view it as a desperate attempt and quite frankly using bombs on cities seems desperate to me.

I'm sorry, but it seems that you keep bringing up events after the war instead of using the context of during the war. If you wish to debate the morality of using the bomb on japan, it seems irrelevant to cite future events ( like the cold war) as reasons.

No need to be sorry.. The reason I brought future events up is because you said that it has not been used 65 years hence, and so I stated examples of when and why they weren't used in that period, and how those situations are not comparable to the WWII usage. So I am sorry if I didn't convey that purpose..

Citing future perceived consequences is always a luxury that hindsight provides. It does not mean that we do not retrospect on the event, its fallout and use that to draw parallels to nuclear weapons usage today and even perhaps even generic weapons usage and the perceived fallout based on what happened in the past.
Its but natural.. as opposed to burying event in unquestionable justification. Its a topic that generates public opinion on the users, the victims and shapes ideology, some of it dangerous and violent..

I think the quote from Hirohito settles the question as to the bomb prompting the Japanese surrender. In that light, it ended the strvation, the firebombing, the enslavment on the mainland, and negated the need to invade Japan. The use of nuclear weapons ended WW2, THAT, in any rational context is a good thing.

Hirohito survived a coup and broadcast his surrender to the people of Japan under very risky circumstances..
Whether the bomb was the sole reason to surrender.. whether the terms of the surrender if changed would have prompted a surrender earlier without the loss of lives in those 2 cities.. its all up for debate..

Nobody denies that the bomb contributed to the surrender. The question is if was the only way to achieve that surrender or even if a conditional surrender was an option.

You call the instant death of estimated 150k people "humane" ??? Wow...just, wow. Seems we need a war in our own countries to realize what suffering means.

Only well fed, bored aNd ignorant westerners like us could be able of such a thought.

reply to post by Dynamitrios


Only well fed, bored aNd ignorant westerners like us could be able of such a thought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have unkowingly provided a great definition of revisionism.So, you are MORE morally outraged by the Hiroshima than Nanking.
Read some history. In detail.

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Dynamitrios

 

Only well fed, bored aNd ignorant westerners like us could be able of such a thought.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have unkowingly provided a great definition of revisionism.So, you are MORE morally outraged by the Hiroshima than Nanking.
Read some history. In detail.

Here you go.. some of the ideology that brews in that vast expanse beyond the US..

And am IMHO, I am vexed by Hiroshima more than Nanking because Nanking perpetrators were vicious men, executing on mutual genetic hatred that has existed for 1000 years.. Madmen with their racist agendas..
The absolute bottoms of what humanity can offer..

The Americans at the end of WWII on the other hand can be looked at as the most morally just, righteous country on the planet.. the epitome of what humanity had to offer.. No other country, (even on the allied side) could compare.. but then these bombs..

The thought i was reffering to, was the name of the title, to call the bombing of cities with nukes a more "humane" way to end a war.

Surely there were cruelties more gruesome commited by others, but pointing the finger on others and saying "Yah but look what THEY have done in the past" is the complete wrong approach, which doesnt justify using a weapon of mass destruction on any populace. For me the topic was and is, nuking for peace, which is a controversy in itself

I think the real reason for the Atomic bomb was not to end the war. It was to wake up Godzilla so that he could keep the Japanese in their place for a much longer time.

But after the Oxygen-destroyer ended him, Japanese auto makers took their revenge on the U.S. by attacking Detroit car makers (remember it was Mitsubishi who built the Japanese Zero warplane).

However the options of usage against a state with no nuclear deterrent (borrowed) are extensive... And the justification of the WWII bombs makes it so easy to justify usage again.. which is the scary part..

I will say it again. No nuclear weapon can be used as part of a strategic, or tactical plan, in the 21st century, without leading to an escalation that will bring about the end of mankind as we know it. Therefore, I do not believe they will ever be used again.

The only thing I see as possible is if a terrorist group were to plant a true nuke (not a dirty bomb), and set it off. The variables on this (what country is the target, what group pulled it off, etc.) make it very hard to determine whether or not nuclear escalation would follow.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Yog-Sothoth]

Originally posted by Shark VA84
We are obviously not going to see eye-to-eye on this hermano.

No we are not. Nor will you apparently answer questions asked of you.

You are under the assumption that an official surrender was necessary to end the war in the Pacific.

Have you done any research at all into how many weapons Japan still had left after they surrendered? Would you have been comfortable leaving them with their government intact and all of those weapons?

For historians, sure. In reality, we had crippled Japan's military to the point that a mutual stand down could have been achieved.

We may have crippled their ability to conduct offensive operations, but they still had more than enough weapons to keep on fighting a defensive war for some time.

People yearn for revenge though. The agressors must be punished, eye for an eye, etc. Japan had to surrendor and face severe repercussions or else the general public would be in an uproar.

That is usually how it goes for the people who attack first and then lose. Apparently you are one of those peopel who feel that Japan's initiation of World War II was justified.

I am not implying that Japan would have, without a doubt stood down and withdrawn their troops. However that option was not explored to its fullest extent.

That is because that option wasn't realistic. Do you really think that the government of Japan would have caved in without being convinced of what they were up against if they did not?

It matters not if the civilian population would have fought to the end. The American government was well aware of the mentality of the general public and the propaganda circulated and enforced by the government.

It does matter, without a civilian popuation poised to defend Japan, the Allies could have gone ahead with the invasion with the expectation of fewer casualties.

That does not warrant the use of a nuclear weapon. If option A (invasion) and option B (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) both result in staggering and catastrophic loss of human life, civilian or military, then other alternatives should be investigated and attempted fully.

What other options would you have proposed if you would have been the one to plan for the defeat of Japan in 1945? What other option would have guarnteed an end to the war in a reasonable amount of time. Since you claim to be former military this should be easy for you.

This is a highly subjective matter, so as I said, we are unlikely to ever meet in the middle on this.

Probably not.

Have you done any research at all into how many weapons Japan still had left after they surrendered? Would you have been comfortable leaving them with their government intact and all of those weapons?

Yes, I have. Comfortable, no. Satisfied enough that we would avoid an immediate loss of thousands, if not millions of lives; absolutely. As I suggested previously, the Allies were poised to strangle Japan. If Japan took further aggressive action, then we were more than prepared to squash whatever forces left the mainland.

We may have crippled their ability to conduct offensive operations, but they still had more than enough weapons to keep on fighting a defensive war for some time.

Defensive being the key word. Blockading the island does not involve an invasion. I never suggested they would not be prepared to defend themselves, only that offensive action was not immediately necessary.

That is usually how it goes for the people who attack first and then lose. Apparently you are one of those peopel who feel that Japan's initiation of World War II was justified.

What brand of logic draws the conclusion that because I am against the eye-for-an-eye mentality that I believe Japan's initiation of the conflict was justified? A poor one if you ask me. I am merely saying that that mentality leads to further conflict and serves to do nothing more than satisfy the ego of an individual. Maybe you should do some research on psychology homeboy. If you sleep better knowing that hundreds of thousands of people died because they deserved it then like I said, we will never meet in the middle. That mentality breeds hatred, ignorance and conflict. It is dispicable and childish in my own opinion.

That is because that option wasn't realistic. Do you really think that the government of Japan would have caved in without being convinced of what they were up against if they did not?

The government knew that they were outgunned and incapable of doing anything else than defending their homeland (before the dropping of the bombs). The ego wrapped into their very national identity makes surrendering as tough a, if not a tougher decusion than suicide. If they continued an offensive campaign we would have annihilated them, thus taking away concern over their continued offensive capabilities.

It does matter, without a civilian popuation poised to defend Japan, the Allies could have gone ahead with the invasion with the expectation of fewer casualties.

Again, why was an invasion necessary other than to sell the big win to the world. The A-bombs were as much a display of our power as they were a means to end the war. If you deny that this world-wide display of power did not play into their decision to drop the bomb then you are either naive, ignorant, incompetent or a combination of the above. Our military and government would value this display highly, and many of the soulless bastards high up the chain of command could give a f# about civilian casualties. Trust me, I've served, I've seen the logic that drives many operations in the current day.

What other options would you have proposed if you would have been the one to plan for the defeat of Japan in 1945? What other option would have guarnteed an end to the war in a reasonable amount of time. Since you claim to be former military this should be easy for you.

The end to the war WAS guaranteed, just not pegged to a certain date. Even if the conflict and blockade dragged out into months or years, it is much more honourable to bring peace through those means than through a nuclear weapon. From the sounds of it, you seem to be a history buff with a good understanding of the conflict. Our argument is multi-layered with much, if not all of the subject matter in debate being highly subjective. I apologize for not responding to your last set of questions in detail, I do not always have the time to go into detail on ATS. You take a very cold, calculated and demanding approach to the end of the Pacific section of World War II. I take a more empathetic, understanding and multicultural approach. I would prefer if you stow any "well the world is cold and calculated etc etc etc" Bullsquat for someone else if you planned on whipping it out. I have been exposed to more of this cold, calculated and brutal world than you have apparently. I've had my di# so low in the dirt I was tapping oil reserves. That approach may guarantee the outcome of some events, but it is not always the best and most humane. Good talk, adios dude.



[edit on 22-5-2010 by Shark VA84]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Shark VA84]

There is nothing humane about detonating a nuclear weapon. The effects travel across the globe. We can not detonate a nuclear weapon in the middle east for this simple fact..........the fallout will travel to our Asian countries. Nukes should be outlawed completely.

Former Nuclear Weapons Specialist.

Originally posted by Shark VA84
Yes, I have. Comfortable, no. Satisfied enough that we would avoid an immediate loss of thousands, if not millions of lives; absolutely. As I suggested previously, the Allies were poised to strangle Japan. If Japan took further aggressive action, then we were more than prepared to squash whatever forces left the mainland.

Shark,
You need to look into what the average Japanese was consuming in 1940 vs what they were getting in 1945. Use that information to explain how the Japanese would have been better off if we blockaded them and let the war continue for years.

Defensive being the key word. Blockading the island does not involve an invasion. I never suggested they would not be prepared to defend themselves, only that offensive action was not immediately necessary.

So you would have been comfortable with the loss of life that would occur with a blockade in place?

What brand of logic draws the conclusion that because I am against the eye-for-an-eye mentality that I believe Japan's initiation of the conflict was justified? A poor one if you ask me. I am merely saying that that mentality leads to further conflict and serves to do nothing more than satisfy the ego of an individual. Maybe you should do some research on psychology homeboy. If you sleep better knowing that hundreds of thousands of people died because they deserved it then like I said, we will never meet in the middle. That mentality breeds hatred, ignorance and conflict. It is dispicable and childish in my own opinion.

Wow, serious armchair psychology in place here. I never once saw the word revenge used in all the discussions on the use of the bomb. All I saw was that the leaders sought to end the war as quickly as possible to avoid any further loss of lives on both sides.

The government knew that they were outgunned and incapable of doing anything else than defending their homeland (before the dropping of the bombs). The ego wrapped into their very national identity makes surrendering as tough a, if not a tougher decusion than suicide. If they continued an offensive campaign we would have annihilated them, thus taking away concern over their continued offensive capabilities.

If they knew that, as you claim, then why did they not ever acknowledge their position? All they ever discussed was how to continue the war and seek to make it end on terms that they could live with.

Again, why was an invasion necessary other than to sell the big win to the world. The A-bombs were as much a display of our power as they were a means to end the war. If you deny that this world-wide display of power did not play into their decision to drop the bomb then you are either naive, ignorant, incompetent or a combination of the above. Our military and government would value this display highly, and many of the soulless bastards high up the chain of command could give a f# about civilian casualties. Trust me, I've served, I've seen the logic that drives many operations in the current day.

Obviously you have done no real research into the decision to drop the bomb. I suggest you look into what the Trumman library has in it's records for the use of the bomb.

You also fail to take into account what would happen to the Japanese people if they would have been blockaded. Are you ever going to comment on that subject?

The end to the war WAS guaranteed, just not pegged to a certain date. Even if the conflict and blockade dragged out into months or years, it is much more honourable to bring peace through those means than through a nuclear weapon.

The only thing that would have happened is that the Japanese would continue to attack in whatever way they were capable of. Their kamikazes would have attacked any ships attempting to enforce a blockade, so would you be willing to accept these further casualties? Would you be able to tell the casualties families that their loved one had to die even though we had a way to end the war quickly?

From the sounds of it, you seem to be a history buff with a good understanding of the conflict. Our argument is multi-layered with much, if not all of the subject matter in debate being highly subjective. I apologize for not responding to your last set of questions in detail, I do not always have the time to go into detail on ATS. You take a very cold, calculated and demanding approach to the end of the Pacific section of World War II. I take a more empathetic, understanding and multicultural approach. I would prefer if you stow any "well the world is cold and calculated etc etc etc" Bullsquat for someone else if you planned on whipping it out. I have been exposed to more of this cold, calculated and brutal world than you have apparently. I've had my di# so low in the dirt I was tapping oil reserves. That approach may guarantee the outcome of some events, but it is not always the best and most humane. Good talk, adios dude.

Wow, so when all else fails you fall back to the you know more than me because you claim to have done more? Whatever.

Can you tell me what you did in the military? I am curious as to how that experience translates into your opinion in this matter.


[edit on 22-5-2010 by Shark VA84]

[edit on 22-5-2010 by Shark VA84]

reply to post by Shark


You take a very cold, calculated and demanding approach to the end of the Pacific section of World War II. I take a more empathetic, understanding and multicultural approach. I would prefer if you stow any "well the world is cold and calculated etc etc etc" Bullsquat for someone else if you planned on whipping it out. I have been exposed to more of this cold, calculated and brutal world than you have apparently. I've had my di# so low in the dirt I was tapping oil reserves. That approach may guarantee the outcome of some events, but it is not always the best and most humane.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That cold, calculated thinkg was needed to end the war,
I think your personal demons have colored your views. You can't seperate your own experience from trying to understand the situation faced by others 75 years ago. You may know some dates and events from the Pacific war, but I don't think you understand it. Put simply, you are a revisionist. In my view, you have no perspective on the original question that started this thread. Don't mean to be insulting, but it's obvious you don't see beyond yourself.

[edit on 22-5-2010 by OldDragger]

you both may be right, but I still refuse to believe that 2 atomic bombs were the most effective and humane way to end the war. It's easy to call my point of view revisionist, as your side of the argument has been proven by history. The simple fact is that none of us KNOW for certain that the A-bombs were the only effective means to ending conflict in the Pacific theatre. This boils down to our own perceptions of what is ethical, acceptable and humane. I stated earlier in this thread that I would prefer to die taking an objective than to extinguish cities full of civilians, no matter how hostile those civilians are.

I've got a decent background on WWII, specifically the Pacific theater. My gramps served in the Marines, was on Pelelieu, Iwo and Guadal. Before he passed, he would tell me tales of the trials and tribulations of his service in the Pacific. He happened to be one of those revisionists that believed the A-bombs were out of line as well.

[edit on 23-5-2010 by Shark VA84]

Originally posted by COOL HAND
So you would have been comfortable with the loss of life that would occur with a blockade in place?

Well, let me take a shot at this because I think most arguments revolve around this pivotal point..

I would not have been comfortable with any option and I doubt anyone would have been, but given a choice (and there was always a choice), I would prefer a blockade to using nuclear weapons on two cities and I would prefer a blockade to an invasion wasting countless lives.

I agree, the casualties in a blockade would be the common man, woman, child and not the soldier, but given a choice ANY Japanese (or any innocent citizen of any oppressed country) would prefer to take their chances with a possible death by starvation as opposed to vaporization by nuclear weapons; their own or that of their fellow citizens, however small that number would be as opposed to the 'potential' loss due to a blockade..

blockades, embargoes, sanctions are cruel actions with potential consequences that go beyond the original intent of the action, but they are the generally accepted approach to continued conflict and war.
Any example of the failures of such actions in the recent past can be countered with the question 'What is the alternative? War? Occupation?'

And there are just as many instances of continued international pressure in the from of sanctions, blockades etc. being the catalyst for change and prosperity in the targeted countries..

If they knew that, as you claim, then why did they not ever acknowledge their position? All they ever discussed was how to continue the war and seek to make it end on terms that they could live with.

The concern is that they were in negotiations with the Russians for surrender, but not an unconditional one.

The only thing that would have happened is that the Japanese would continue to attack in whatever way they were capable of. Their kamikazes would have attacked any ships attempting to enforce a blockade, so would you be willing to accept these further casualties? Would you be able to tell the casualties families that their loved one had to die even though we had a way to end the war quickly?

Well that is where the conditional surrender comes in.. And these casualties would have been in the hundreds? Thousands?

Another pivotal point here..

You (and some others?) weigh few lives of your serving countrymen who have signed up knowing the risks against mass civilian casualties of another country?

Originally posted by Xeven
Actually assassination of leaders of enemy nations would be the fastest and humane way to end wars. If we had killed Saddam, his sons and maybe a few other standout power mongers in pre war Iraq there would have been no need for that war. Lots of American and Iraqi people would still be drawing breath as I type. Trillions of dollars would have been saved.

America's no assassination policy is inhumane and maybe even a crime against humanity.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Xeven]

What???

ROFL... killing the leaders just amounts to total anarchy - people are not quite the uninformed pleebs you think. Removing a leader just creates a power vacuum that would make every power hungry idiot create an army to seize control.