Were Hirosmima and Nagasaki Ethical actions?

jmpet

Valued Senior Member
Were Hirosmima and Nagasaki Ethical actions?

I say yes. I say this simply because I believe in LIFE. The lives lost from those two A-bombs is less than the cost of life if we had to physically take Japan- on both sides. It gave Japan a reason to respectfully admit defeat.

Does this mean nuclear weapons- and their use- is ethically justified? Or is it the sword of Damacles?
 
that depends. there are some rumours that america blocked japan from oil and also that they were goaded into the attack by the u.s. there is also some question that they were not allowed to surrender so that they could test the a-bomb. if either or any of this is true, then of course not.

if that isn't the case, then the bombs would be justified considering the situation that there would be more lives if they would have fought a ground war..
 
Last edited:
Sometimes they are, but WWII was an extreme situation not likely to arise again in this world, not as long as most major nations have nukes.
 
These Events have provokes an overwhelming fear of nuclear weapon use. For that, I am grateful.

Few things done in WWII were morally/ethically justifiable.
 
there is also some question that they were not allowed to surrender so that they could test the a-bomb. if either or none of this is true, then of course not.

Not necessary, they had already tested one bomb and knew what it would do, they had no more material for more than the two they used on Japan.

I'm pretty sure everyone was hoping Japan would surrender after the first bomb, or they could have just dropped two the same day.

Arthur
 
So so (sic) far we all agree these were justifiable actions to take in an extreme situation?
 
Justifiable is a perspective thing. In 1945 after nearly 4 years of Total War, yeah maybe. Japan totally would have done it to the U.S is how I see it. Event still, the whole politics around the event stinks, U.S and Russia I mean as well as Japan itself.
 
It was questionably justifiable. The blockades of oil and steel were meant to counteract Japanese aggression. There would have been probably on the order of ten or fifteen times the casualties if there had been a land invasion. A total blockade might have worked, in the end...but who would provide the ships, with the Soviet Union flexing their own muscles? What if they'd decided to just keep driving to the Channel? And so forth.
 
Last edited:
birch said:
that depends. there are some rumours that america blocked japan from oil and also that they were goaded into the attack by the u.s. there is also some question that they were not allowed to surrender so that they could test the a-bomb.
Those are not rumors, but essentially established historical fact. There were reasons, of course.
birch said:
if that isn't the case, then the bombs would be justified considering the situation that there would be more lives if they would have fought a ground war..
That assumption is invalid. There was little possibility of a ground war, especially since Japan was about to starve. Its islands had been disconnected, its transportation destroyed, and its food supply isolated.
 
Justifiable is a perspective thing. In 1945 after nearly 4 years of Total War, yeah maybe. Japan totally would have done it to the U.S is how I see it. Event still, the whole politics around the event stinks, U.S and Russia I mean as well as Japan itself.

Indeed. If the US did not want to compete with Japan, they should not have militarily forced them to open up their society to the outside world.
 
One thing that never seems to come out in these discussions is that the outcome would quite possibly have been worse for Japan if we had not had nuclear weapons. Talk of a possible ground invasion tends to be posed in the fashion of an excluded middle fallacy - either we used the nukes, or we would have invaded. I don't think we would have invaded even if we didn't have (or had decided not to use) the fission bomb. We would have continued the ruinous incendiary raids by hundreds of B-29s.

We settled for a slightly less that completely unconditional surrender after using two of these horrifying new weapons on them. We might have just gone on raining fire from the sky with our conventional bombs and bombers for months longer, resulting in even more death and destruction than resulted from the actual outcome.

The firebombing of Tokyo:

Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 335 B-29s took off[3] to raid on the night of 9–10 March, with 279 of them[3] dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost.[3] Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs.[4][5] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

This destruction was caused by conventional weapons.





After the nuclear attacks, we resumed conventional firebombing, with the last raid on August fifteenth 1945, the day they surrendered. It took seven months of firebombing with conventional weapons, and two fission bombs, before they were willing to meet our terms.

From the Wikipedia link: "In 2007, Japanese Prime Minister Abe Shinzō wrote that that "by not capitulating to the United States once defeat became inevitable, the Japanese government essentially permitted the firebombing of Tokyo" [13] Thereafter, survivors banded together and unsuccessfully sued the Japanese government for compensation; however, efforts continue."
 
Repo makes an excellent point here: nuclear weapons seem to get placed in a special category of human evil because of the 'nuclearness'. Fallout is the one special, horrible difference - and it strikes at our sensibilities more than conventional weapons because of the potential for far-reaching damage. However, conventional fire-bombing could have caused far more damage far more easily: the toll of under 200,000 people is nothing compared to the firebombing campaign. Which is better?
 
The Tokyo raid was a horrible, horrible thing. But there wasn't a hint from the Japanese that they were willing to surrender in the aftermath, with more of the same a sure thing.

Hundreds of people gave up trying to escape and, with or without their precious bundles, crawled into the holes that served as shelters; their charred bodies were found after the raid. Whole families perished in holes they had dug under their wooden houses because shelter space was scarce in those overpopulated hives of the poor; the house would collapse and burn on top of them, braising them in their holes.

The fire front advanced so rapidly that police often did not have time to evacuate threatened blocks even if a way out were open. And the wind, carrying debris from far away, planted new sprouts of fire in unexpected places. Firemen from the other half of the city tried to move into the inferno or to contain it within its own periphery, but they could not approach it except by going around it into the wind, where their efforts were useless or where everything had already been incinerated. The same thing happened that had terrorized the city during the great fire of 1923: ...under the wind and the gigantic breath of the fire, immense, incandescent vortices rose in a number of places, swirling, flattening sucking whole blocks of houses into their maelstrom of fire.

Wherever there was a canal, people hurled themselves into the water; in shallow places, people waited, half sunk in noxious muck, mouths just above the surface of the water. Hundreds of them were later found dead; not drowned, but asphyxiated by the burning air and smoke. In other places, the water got so hot that the luckless bathers were simply boiled alive. Some of the canals ran directly into the Sumida; when the tide rose, people huddled in them drowned. In Asakusa and Honjo, people crowded onto the bridges, but the spans were made of steel that gradually heated; human clusters clinging to the white-hot railings finally let go, fell into the water and were carried off on the current. Thousands jammed the parks and gardens that lined both banks of the Sumida. As panic brought ever fresh waves of people pressing into the narrow strips of land, those in front were pushed irresistibly toward the river; whole walls of screaming humanity toppled over and disappeared in the deep water. Thousands of drowned bodies were later recovered from the Sumida estuary.
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/tokyo.htm
 
America did freeze Japanese bank accounts, which stopped Japanese oil access-since they're a coral archipelago, and don't have oil there.

Japan regarded this as an act of war, and FDR did it knowing it would be regarded as such.. So we really did pick a fight with them, because, well, I think we wanted to ensure our control of the Pacific... Japan was trying to build a western-style empire, after all...

I seem to remember Germany not wanting Japan to attack the U.S.

They actually ran cars on charcoal in Japan so that the battleships could sail...

As far as firebombings, there was also Dresden...and Dresden was no military target.
The Geneva Convention would not be amused.

I..dunno. When you look at WW2, it all gets very gray, as most wars do, morally speaking, when they don't get outright evil if looked at from different angles.

:shrug:
That's why I'm always against wars of choice.
 
Last edited:
Yeah lets nuke people to save us having to kill them.

You are an American?. the only nation to use atomic warheads in battle, I only wish it was back in the days of bow and sword.


peace.
 
Yeah lets nuke people to save us having to kill them.

You are an American?. the only nation to use atomic warheads in battle, I only wish it was back in the days of bow and sword.


peace.

American Long range Doctrine was developed during WWII. Their Navy basically came up with it in the interwar years and when it was proven so successful in Pacific campaigns. When a handful of German Panther and Tiger tanks could tie up a whole armoured battalion, the shortsword was forever abandoned by the Army and the Airforce, in favour of the Dai-Katana.

Only the Marines, then and now maintain some "close up" skill. They were completely exhausted by 1945 after punching way above their weight for 4 years in the pacific. Japan possibly could not be successfully invaded till well into 1946, perhaps even 1947 after being starving up for a while. It would have been a more horrible end no matter how you look at it.

I think these two bombings saved the world from a nuclear war. They provided the whole human race with enough psychological damage to not use them again, so far. That's why it's a good thing to question their use as much as possible during WWII.
 
Back
Top