Xone: Not at all. Anticipating the invasion of the southern island of Kyushu, the Japanese prepared Operation Decision (Ketsu-Go) which envisaged the deployment of over 2 million troops along the coast to repel Allied landings. Using the atomic bomb on these massed troops, causing say ten times the amount of (military)troop deaths on Kyushu, than the number of civilian deaths at Hiroshima + Nagasaki, would have been justified.
This may clarify: #83.
The Hiroshima blast had a 3 mile diameter destruction zone. Kyushu is a big island. How were the Americans to determine within bombing accuracy standards the location of mobile assets? The bomb wouldn't have any effect on the artillery in caves dotting the hills. If there was no surrender, now the Allies have to attack across a radiation zone, or bypass that section and leave it as a salient. This is the problem with using a strategic asset in a tactical scenario. There was no real time targeting, horrible bombing accuracy compared to today, the atonic bombs weren't tactical weapons. It may have functioned as a demonstration, but it still took the Japanese 9 days to surrender with two cities destroyed.
I don't subscribe to the use of Just War theory in cataclysmic events. This particular post exemplifies why. The lack of knowledge of war, the naivete associated with its proponents is painful. Mass of troops means two different things to a JW proponent in this case and to a military person. One thinks that a atomic bomb could kill 2 million men in the defense on a 13000 sq mile island because they are 'massed on the coast'. History shows that that won't be the case but in their zeal for the JW theory rational thought is dissolved.
I believe in protecting civilians lives and property during a war but I won't sacrifice objectives to end the war to that protection as I don't hold that those action are faithful to the men that will be exposed to death/injury in order to accomplish the objective in a roundabout way. I will face judgement when I die, but the blood of my Savior is sufficient should I be found sinful in that case.
” ‘By this doctrine then, Japan prevails in the war.”
” ... say ten times the amount of (military)troop deaths on Kyushu, than the number of civilian deaths at Hiroshima + Nagasaki, would have been justified. ...”
Don’t worry.
Americans have never felt bound to follow their own doctrine anyway.
Some claim that greater flexibility is thus afforded. There are downsides to everything, though, and the indiscipline thus invited has led to chaotic and sometimes deadly consequences.
None of which faces the question squarely. To wit: why are military deaths to be preferred to civilian deaths?
Distinctions cannot be made. This has been true for far longer than many are willing to believe; the last 500 years or so can be seen as one long effort by moralists to deny reality. Even our allies regard us as unrealistic, for merely thinking about making the effort. And our enemies think we’re morons ... noting their proclivities, any attempt to do so invites failure, if not outright disaster. That last word is a great deal stronger than defeat, and it was meant to be.
Arguing that the death of friendly forces is preferable to the death of enemy civilians is a leap into surreal territory. The difference is categorical, not one of degree. But that is precisely the argument made by those who disagree with the employment of atomic bombs in August 1945. No amount of moral posturing - the content of Post 83 is a mercifully short example of such - can dilute such foolishness.