Posted on 05/27/2016 10:00:33 PM PDT by detective
“I notice unanimity among “conservatives” that dropping the bombs was moral.
The Allies’ demand for unconditional surrender was immoral.
Murdering civilians is immoral.
Consequentislism is also immoral. I.e., “dropping the bombs saved lives.””
If by “conservatives” you mean patriot Americans who fought and won WWII then you are correct.
We should thank God that someone like you was not in any command or decision making position during WWII.
If you had been, America would have been conquered by the Germans and the Japanese.
Actually, you should check on that. The Supreme Council declined to meet after the Hiroshima bombings. Yet, they decided to meet BEFORE the Nagasaki bombings.
Prior to the Russia attack, the Japanese were hoping Russia would help them end the war with the U.S. Once Russia invaded, the knew they had to surrender.
You are also ignoring the conventional bombings all summer that had reduced so many Japanese cities to rubble. Hiroshima and Nagasaki's destruction were a small part of the total.
Keep in mind, I am not saying it was immoral, or the U.S. shouldn't have done it. But the major reason was a shot across the bow of the Soviet Union. Why were those dates picked? The USSR had committed to the Allies to declare war on Japan by that time. (The real crime is that the Allies hadn't obligated the USSR to invade sooner for all we did for them. Many U.S. lives could have been saved.)
That is not a moral argument. The survival of the United States is less important than refraining from committing murder. What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Or is that stuff just for Sunday school?
Demanding unconditional surrender violates the principles of a Just War.
It is a basic principle of Christian morality that a desirable end cannot justify the commission of an evil act.
The very fact that all the justifications offered for the dropping of the bombs are invalid according to Western Christian morality—i.e., consequentialism—calls the decision into question.
“Conservatives” rail against “relativism” and “moral expediency,” and then offer nothing else to defend the A-bombings.
The rules of a just war to which America has usually adhered, forbid the direct killing of enemy innocents even in war.
I would call your attention to the fact that the U.S. and Europe are currently governed by National and International Socialists, and have been ever since we “defeated” Hitler.
The willingness to commit murder in order to “survive” purchases nothing but a few years of “survival,” but does nothing to bring about moral or cultural progress.
The Atomic bombs (along with Russian attacks)did save
millions of Japanese.
“Gas attacks of the size and intensity recommended on these 250 square miles of urban population,” the US Army report declared, “might easily kill 5,000,000 people and injure that many more.” In the first attack, which would be launched 15 days before the Kyushu landings, American bombers would drench much of Tokyo and other cities in an early morning attack with 54,000 tons of lethal phosgene gas. Tokyo would be the largest poison gas target, because an “attack of this size against an urban city of large population should be used to initiate gas warfare.”
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p12_weber.html
...Allen, T.B. and N. Polmar, “Poisonous invasion prelude,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Aug. 4, 1995 [New York Times special features].)
Some sources say only tactical use had been approved.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-online-forum/
“Politics” told Truman that if one American life could have been saved by the use of the Atomic bombs...it must be done...
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/no-other-choice-why-truman-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-japan-13504
& agreed...without the Atomic Bombs there would be fewer of us Baby Boomers.
After visiting several interesting countries of Europe my Father was on a cruise ( ; ) ship to Japan when the Atomic Bombs were used.
?!
The U.S.S.R. initiated hostilities against the Empire of Japan on Aug. 08, 1945 (i.e., two days after Hiroshima, and the day before Nagasaki). Specifically, the Soviets began the invasion of the Manchurei. You think that THAT was the reason the Japanese surrendered?
Regards,
Exactly right. Civilians can never be targeted directly.
Obviously when you're targeting a munitions factory or something bombs go astray. But you can never plan for or intend for the bombs to hit civilians or civilian areas.
I'm sure that's the case. Given the Japanese mindset, that was probably an accurate assessment.
However, the morality of an act is a different question from what support it may have had. If you are a Christian, you have to make a convincing case how dropping those bombs jives with classical Christian just war theory that civilians cannot be targeted.
My father was in the mountains of Italy standing under the Allied bombs, one of which almost killed him. Not too far from the massive strategic blunder and moral failure that was Montecassino. For a long time, I was very resistant to admitting he was right about what happened there--that it was a huge mistake. But he was: that order should never have been given.
You’ll be a lonely voice here, but you’re absolutely right about that.
If Barkie is so concerned about the brutality of government, then I can’t wait until he goes to Russia and China and Cambodia, and a dozen other Marxist paradises, where innocent human life was extinguished at the scale of a hundred million people in the 20th century.
Before WWII, Japan built runways on atolls in the Pacific.
Sound familiar?
” ... However, the morality of an act is a different question from what support it may have had. ...”
Posters like Arthur McGowan, amihow, and claud are moral ciphers.
Worse, they are dunces:
First, win the war. Then debate morality.
And don’t forget all those Godzilla movies!
From Obama’s perspective, Operation Downfall would have meant that much fewer White people voting.
I wouldn’t comment on the morality of ignorance, but the Japanese were opposed to occupation of Japan, and up to moment of surrender, still hoped to hold on to Manchuria. Left to their own devices, they would have rearmed and been a lingering threat. They envisioned Japan 1970 as a new and improved version of Germany 1940. And they were working on Atomic Weapons, and most certainly would have had them by 1970.
Every country whose butt we’ve kicked was better off for it.
Until the socialists took over.
About the president in japan.
In college I worked on the paint crew. Often Jack, the retired boss, would come back and help out. Jack had fought in the Pacific in WWII and would tell me some of his war stories. We were talking about thanksgiving plans one day when jack said he would pray at dinner. Jack wasn’t a religious guy so I asked what he would be giving thanks for.
He said, “Every year I thank God for the atomic bomb”. His group was in training for the invasion of Japan when the bombs were dropped and Japan surrendered. Jack and the guys knew the odds of surviving the invasion were slim.
“So you are thankful the bomb saved your life?”
He replied, “Yes, but more than that. We knew they were training women and children to attack us. We were more afraid of having to live the rest of our lives with having killed little kids than the fear of our own deaths.”
The bomb was terrible, but the military was planning on possibly a million US casualties and several million more Japanese soldiers and civilians. In fact, the army ordered so many purple hearts that they are still today awarding medals from 1945.
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.