Posted on 08/05/2005 5:08:42 AM PDT by OESY
Not a fact. If one is going to "indiscriminately kill civilians" one does not warn said civilians in advance, as the United States did, to vacate the target area.
>>Your views on the subject are unsustainable in the face of the newly declassified evidence.
No amount of evidence justifies killing civilians with the atomic bomb...
Is a Samurai sword OK ?
Go to hell....
Time to call the Viking Kittens.
I am not at all making a pacifist argument here: I am not a pacifist, and I would argue against pacifists and say that there is such a thing as a "Just War" and also such a thing as an "Unjust Peace." I would go so far as to say the USA was morally obliged to directly target and destroy as much of Japan's murderous war-making capacity as possible.
However, the killing of civilians was certainly part of the U.S. strategic intention. The shock of seeing an entire city, together with its inhabitants, turned in a moment into a raging inferno, was decided upon in order to break the Japanese will to resist.
Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the only option which could have saved the lives of thousands of US troops, and thousands of Japanese civilians as well, in the short or long run? We can't be sure of that. Using the atomic bomb to destroy a place that had far fewer people but huge psychological value (e.g. the top of Mt. Fuji) might have also saved those lives.
Maybe, maybe not. If we'd done it, we'd have soon found out. But turning an entire city into an Auschwitz crematorium cannot be justified.
Furthermore, in the case of the deliberate targeting of a city as such, together with its inhabitants, the resulting deaths cannot be considered "collateral damage." This is because the deaths were not only foreseen, but intentional.
When we're talking about the direct and deliberate killing of innocent persons, the numbers make no moral difference, and the means are just a technical detail. Whether with abortion, or bullets, or conventional bombs, or a baseball bat, or knives, or nukes, or fueled-up jet airliners on a deliberate collision course --- targeting the innocent is always gravely morally wrong.
This pertains directly to the honor of the soldier; the warrior ethic; and the legitimacy of lethal force.
Without belaboring the motives of President Truman, or Secretaries Byrnes and Stimson in authorizing the dropping of these bombs, we should not forget that Generals Dwight Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur, Omar Bradley, Curtis LeMay, Henry Arnold, and George Marshall, and Admirals Lewis L. Strauss, Ernest King, and William D. Leahy all opposed the use of these bombs on both the grounds that they were militarily unnecessary as well as morally repugnant.
By the way, it's very much to America's credit that we DON'T practice indiscrimate destruction in places like Iraq. The USA forces (as far as I know) have strained every muscle to protect civilians, even under the most desperate circumstances.
There is detailed, heavily documented book by Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (Vintage Books, 1996), that argues that Japan was ready to surrender, was sending peace offers through the Russians (Russia had not yet declared war on Japan), and needed only the assurance that the emperor would not be tried as a war criminal, as in the event he was not. But Truman refused to change or clarify the demand for "unconditional surrender." Further, Alperovitz says, the U.S. knew that the war could be ended without an invasion of Japan and therefore the argument that the bombing was necessary to force a surrender without an invasion was specious. He says, and lays out a detailed argument, that the real purpose was to end the war before the Russians declared war on Japan, which they had pledged to do by mid-August, and to show the Russians what the bomb could do in order to make them easier to deal with after the war.
If true, this is indefensible.
Yes.
I disagree. After dropping the bomb on Hiroshima, we warned Japan again that we would drop another A-Bomb if it didn't unconditionally surrender. Japan ignored our warning. So if Japan refused to surrender after we wiped out 80,000 people with one bomb, what makes you think they would have surrended if we had blown off the top of a mountain without killing anyone? (The only logical answer is that Japan had more repsect for mountains than for people, which is why an invasion of Japan would have resulted in millions of casaulties.)
Note - the Trinity Test was over a year ago at that time.
I am in the rather difficult position of maintaining both that
I am not Truman's judge or Stimson's judge or Tibbets' judge. Bu I know Who it is who says that shedding innocent blood is an abomination --- and I know He judges rightly.
But far beyond any facts we are dealing here with a culture myth, and culture myths that validate what is indefensible are almost impervious to any other idea, notion, fact or force. That this culture myth was woven by FDR and Truman's men and is now defended by those who would otherwise have nothing to do with either man or their Democratic policies is something beyond ironic veering into the tragic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457450/posts?page=7#7
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes against humanity......"
You may be a nice guy IRL, but I can only echo the sentiments of other FReepers replying to your inane statement:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457450/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457450/posts?page=23#23
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457450/posts?page=32#32
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457450/posts?page=31#31
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457450/posts?page=74#74
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457450/posts?page=78#78
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1457450/posts?page=105#105
and will just repeat key highlights:
"Where were you when we did what had to be done to convince the Japs to quit? (If you didn't live through the experience, then STHU!!!)"
"As the grandson of a Pacific War Veteran, let me be the first to say: you're an [expletive deleted] idiot."
[Oh, in exchange for their support, FDR commits the US to the armed support of their colonies (e.g., Singapore, Java, ...) if the Japanese cross south of the Isthmus of Kra ... Oh, yes, they do that on Dec. 5, 1941 ... Odd, Congress knew nothing of that commitment until the Pearl Harbor Investigations. Seems this fact is little known nor taught in America public schools.]
Those are odd actions of a declared neutral nation (viz., the United States) ...
Japan decided to fight on her own terms rather than submit to pressure. Go south to get especially needed oil, and guard the left flank ... i.e., destroy the Pacific Fleet ...
Whether Pearl Harbor was or was not a "sneak" attack remains actively debated ... So it goes.
First of all, we had the information that the Japanese were already trying to find terms of surrender through diplomatic channels via the Russians, who at that point had not declared war on Japan.
Second, we knew that the major sticking point on "unconditional surrender" is that they did not want the Emperor/god himself tried for war crimes. And that's an assurance we could have given them: he was not, in fact, put on trial after the war.
Third, this every-faithful-Japanese-with-a-sharpened-bamboo-stick island-by-island defense which we anticipated, was predicated on their religious belief in the utter sanctity of Japanese soil, in particular Mt. Fuji. If Mt. Fuji had been destroyed, it would not just have been an awesome geological phenomenon. It --- arguably -- could have broken the psychological hold of their fanatical national/paganism.
Neither of us have clairvoyant powers. I am just saying that there is evidence that other options were available. Again I reference the Alperovitz book. And many of America's military leaders --- some of whom were rather sharply critical of FDR and Truman and their left-Democrat civilian advisors --- thought the same.
That historical narrative has and is undergoing a SIGNIFICANT revision. You should read the article (thread) previously cited in post #100. I could post excerpts, but I trust that your obvious interest will guide you to reading and reconsidering.
Sorry thats just Bull S***, No mention is never made of the thousands of front line troops,still intact in the CBI,China Burma India, (some of them had still refused to surrender for months following the official end of the war.
No mention of the Japanese pulling most of their first rate troops and planes back to their home islands or the preparations being made for the Invasion{aircraft and armaments being moved in to caves/bunkers dug into mountain sides(dug by allied POW slave labor)children being trained as human weapons or the Kill All order given concerning allied POWS and Internees
Just more Anti American propaganda by people with a agenda
Thank you. Very well said and written.
I'll print it up on my slow, Iron Age printer and read it carefully when I come back from shopping.
Meanwhile, as I understand it, civilian deaths are not collateral if (1) these deaths formed part of your intention, whether as a means or as an end; or (2)the weapon itself was (objectively) indiscriminate, in that its target is everything and everyone within a wide diameter of destruction.
The "reactionary" Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani and conservative Catholic historian Warren Carroll saw it this way; and they are strictly objective and traditionalist in the way they evaluate moral acts.
I'll try to catch you again after shopping, cooking, and supper!
Uh...well...no your not! Intellectual debate is predicated upon issues of fact and the truth. Their seems to be a disconnect in your mind about the cause and effect of a situation, particularly war. The 2 nukes were not a crime against humanity or anything else because Japan and the US were in a state of WAR! They started it...we ended it...rather flamboyantly! If you cannot understand the facts then there is no point of wasting time talking about it. If your prejudices disallow you to grasp the truth then it is just sad!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.