Tim Carney also wrote a first part to this article on the 68th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/it-was-wrong-to-bomb-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/article/2533978
It was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Ending a war is a good thing. Killing civilians a bad thing.
Deliberately targeting civilians is murder, and is never morally licit, even in pursuit of a good thing such as ending a war.
The tens of thousands of Japanese non-combatants we killed 68 years ago this week with two nuclear bombs were not “collateral damage” of military strikes. They were the intended targets.
We hoped that mass murder would bring the Japanese emperor to surrender. It worked, and American and Japanese soldiers’ lives were probably saved by it — which is why most people disagree with me on the ethics of the A-Bomb.
But what if we could have ended the war without the A-Bomb? John Denson at Mises.org argues that we could have:
Japanese leaders, both military and civilian, including the Emperor, were willing to surrender in May of 1945 if the Emperor could remain in place and not be subjected to a war crimes trial after the war. This fact became known to President Truman as early as May of 1945.
I’m no historian, and if anyone can refute the facts in this piece, please do — because the article seems to make the clear argument that the atomic bomb was inexcusable.
“Deliberately targeting civilians is murder, and is never morally licit, even in pursuit of a good thing such as ending a war.”
World War II was all about deliberately targeting civilians, and the US did not start it. For that matter the targeting of civilians started with the Spanish Civil War - see Guernica. And that wasn’t the US, either.
The morality expressed in “don’t target civilians” went out the window years before August 1945.
So the notion that other than the “bang for the buck”, what the US did by dropping the atomic bombs was something new, unprecedented, or in departure from all of the things that had gone on before, all of which were started by the Germans and the Japanese, is not based on law or logic.
I think I have a perspective that many people don’t have as to reality. I was in line at a replacement depot, about seventh of a long one, on Leyte, to get our field gear and assignment to one of the divisions being prepared for the invasion of Japan. We had heard about the atomic bombs but no one I knew believed the war would end without the invasion of Japan. There were still minor cleanup skirmishes on some of the islands. When a Lt. came out and told us to go back to our tent there was a big feeling of relief. As much as I can remember no one doubted that it was the bombs that ended the fighting. People aren’t told that practically every major city in Japan was geared to provide war materials. I believe that the Japs in control of their wars and materials might have been planning on a very costly invasion of USA lives in order to extract a very favorable cease fire. To say wait a bit longer and be patient when USA troops were still being in mop ups just doesn’t get to the reality of men dying. I lost my only brother in the fighting on Okinawa. I wish we would have had the bombs ready then, what a difference a few months can make in a war.
"CLEAR"??
What's "clear" was that the Japs were NOT prepared to surrender without getting the A-Bomb "memo"....The alternative was 100-200k American dying by taking the island.
War's a b*tch. America didn't start it.
OTOH, America helped rebuild Japan from the ground up and protected them from being a Communist slave-state.
They started the war, we finished it....end of story.
Truman had some real issues, I think. He pulled out our very best general from Korea, thereby dooming the entire north to slavery which lasts even today.
I have a piece of this argument/discussion because I was in a line of replacements on Leyte getting geared for the invasion of when we were sent back to our tents because the war was over on that day. My brother was killed a few months before on Okinawa. Those, no matter how high in rank or position, who thought and argued for delay and wait-and-see were very wrong in that there were still spotty fighting and dying such as the Philippines but much more ominous was the probable need to invade Japan to put a final end on the fighting anywhere in Asia and I believe there was no escaping such an invasion. People can have their own remorse over the use of the A-Bomb but it is my understanding that targets chosen were actually contributing to provisions for the Jap military. In fact almost every major city in Japan was a a war factory. Before complaining about the toll on civilians those people like Ike should have recalled what destruction was done and needed in Europe. The Japs were much more fanatical fighters than the Nazi were and Asia was covered with the blood caused by their brutality. I believe that Truman was much more concerned about any more USA lives being lost than the military. He always had the nonprofessional soldier on his mind.