Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Colorado Gold ^ | 8-1-2005 | Don

[Mrs. Don-o]

The deliberate killing of civilians for any reason whatsoever, whether as a means or as an end, is gravely morally wrong.

Did the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki save 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 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 the deliberate incineration of a city, together with all its innocents, cannot be justified because God forbids murder.

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.

From the point of view of moral law, the deliberate killing of civilians --- whether with bullets, or conventional bombs, or knives, or nukes, or fueled-up jet airliners on a deliberate collision course --- is megabortion.

[AppyPappy]

Both cities were centers for the war industry.

[teacherwoes]

The US was not out to kill civilians. Both cities were legitimate targets. Hiroshima was the home of Headquarters, II Army Corps, the 5th Division and number of other units. It was one of the few cities left for bombing.
Nagaski was naval shipbuilding and repair center and had been bombed before.

Did the dropping of the bombs save lives? The Japanese still had over 2 million men ready and Allied estimates predicted Allied casualties from 200,000 to a million and the war would continue until the end of 1946.

You have the right to your opinion. All I know is that I wouldn't want to be part of the Allied invasion fleet against Japan. And I'm sure many of the people who were slated to go were glad they didn't have to invade.

[Cyber Liberty]

Mrs. Liberty and I are going to visit the museum in Dayton this summer....

[CWOJackson]

Excellent. If you like aircraft you will love it. I've been to aviation museums all of the world and nothing even comes close to this one.

[Cyber Liberty]

I've been there before, when I was a kid. They had the only one of these left (Still do. I checked):

Valkyrie

[CWOJackson]

Oh, yes! Walking under the Valkyrie was always impressive.

[Don W]

I FINALLY figured out your tagline. LOL!

[Mrs. Don-o]

Both cities were centers for the war industry.

This is true. I have seen lists of military targets in both cities, and they didn't look insignificant to me.

Focusing on the destruction of these miltary targets would have been morally justified -- yes, even if there was quite a bit of honestly "collateral" damage. I would go so far as to say the USA was morally obliged to destroy as much of Japan's 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.

The number of casualties isn't what makes it murder. The choice of weapons (conventional or atomic) isn't what makes it murder. It's the fact that the decision-makers decided to indiscriminately kill civilians as a means to an end.

By the way, it's very much to America's credit that we DON'T do that 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.

That's what constitutes the one of the main differences between the USA and the Islamo-fascists. I'd like to keep that distinction clear.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

Yes GOD forbids MURDER.

But Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT murder.

They were legitimate military targets.

Only the arrogance of an ignorance engendered by the passage of decades of intervening time would pronounce the absolutes of morality in a WAR of survival.

The DEAD have no morality, they have no power, they have no say.

The math is simple, DEAD enemies vs. DEAD allies.

That is WAR.

[Mrs. Don-o]

If you will look at post #109, you will see a distinction between collateral deaths (which may be morally tolerated) and indiscriminate killing (which is forbidden.)

An awful lot of collateral deaths could have been justified in WWII, especially considering the phenomenal murderousness of the Axis Powers. I don't deny that.

The objection is, that the civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not collateral deaths. These deaths were intended, inasmuch as (1) the US chose to use indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction and (2) the US intended that the psychological effect of a butchery of such magnitude would shock the Japanese High Command.

Who can deny that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima would have been considered a dud, if (by some fluke) only the military targets had been destroyed, and the civilians remained pretty much unscathed?

We must make a distinction between killing, and murder. Killing --- and, realistically speaking, quite a lot of it --- may be justified if, at he same time, we are honestly trying to shield the civilian population as much as possible. As, in fact, we are doing in Iraq, where our military has clearly tried to minimize harm to noncombatants (even under horribly difficult circumstance.)

I salute the US military for this. This is courageous, and honorable, soldiering.

That's my point. Honorable soldiers don't target civilians. George Washington didn't target civilians. Robert E. Lee didn't target civilians.

The indiscriminate killing of civilians is, in fact, prohibited by the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice. It's against God's law, international law, and the law of the USA.

[NorCoGOP]

While most may not remember the details, they do know about that famous B-29 bomber which dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

There were TWO B-29's involved the actual dropping of bombs...

Enola Gay on Hiroshima (bomb nicknamed "Little Boy")...

And Bock's Car over Nagasaki (bomb nicknamed "Fat Man")...

Minor error, but an error nonetheless....

[driftless]

First you said it wasn't in the context, and then you said it was. Which is it? Most likely anyone using the phrase "Jap" means it in a derogatory way. But even you stated that certain people can use what are considered derogatory words if it is in the right context. I don't hate Japanese people, so I don't see how calling someone a Jap is any worse than calling someone a Brit as long as you don't hate that person or group. I call Germans "Krauts" even though I have German ancestry. A "Kraut" was (and maybe still is) considered very derogatory fifty years ago.

Remember the race merchants feel perfectly fine calling certain groups "people of color". But if you called someone a "colored" person, you'd be accused of being a racist by those same people.

[El Gato]

where is that plane?

Bockscar is in the Air Force Museum, Wright-Patternson AFB, Dayton Ohio. It's not far from the bicycle shop where the Wrights worked on their airplane, and even closer to the fields where they tested "kite" versions and later flew the powered craft from.

[El Gato]

I believe the Pacific War was a racist war of the first order.

Oh it was indeed. But major big time racists were the guys with the red meatballs on their aircraft and the rising sun flag on their ships. They considered the Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc, little more than monkeys to be ruled by the warrior elite (themselves). Europeans, other than Germans, they held in near total contempt, and Americans were inferior as well, and soft to boot. They learned otherwise.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

I don't need anyone to explain collateral damage to me.

I have spent quiet hours listening to the wind and water beat against the white hull of the U.S.S. Arizona memorial at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

I have stood at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial on an anniversary of the bomb, in US Navy uniform, and written "Remember Pearl Harbor!" in the visitor book.

I have stood in the Broken Stone Arch of the Catholic church upon the hill of Nagasaki, where the air burst was centered, and where it displaced the stone arch exactly the width of the stone.

I don't need anyone to explain the difference between MURDER and WAR.

Apparently you do.

That you, and those of your ilk, would dare to question the HONOR and MORALITY of our ancestors who fought to the death, and defeated, BY FORCE OF ARMS, a nation run by murdering animals who would have gladly killed off the entire population of Japan to defend their "way of life". Shows the failure of you, and such folks as you, to have any frikkin clue of the realities of TOTAL WAR.

There is one morality in WAR, that is Victory.

Please spare me your Pollyannish "morality" blather.

Without the use of Atomic bombs, MILLIONS of lives more would have been lost. MILLIONS. If you doubt that, your ignorance is indeed, invincible.

You dishonor the memory of those who gave all, that you could live, to be free, to be so proud, of your "moral" "superiority".

[Romulus]

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.

An American air force general, one Frederick Anderson, rationalised the "strategic bombing" slaughter of German civilians with the comment that the policy was: "not expected in itself to shorten the war ... However, it is expected that the fact that Germany was struck all over will be passed on, from father to son, thence to grandson; that a deterrent for the initiation of future wars will definitely result."

Isn't it funny how what goes around comes around? The Germans learned the lesson all too well -- pounded into them by an America that's long forgotten its services as moral instructor to the German people. And sure enough, they declined to be a part of the current business in Iraq -- and are despised for it by the sons and grandsons of those bomber crews.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's US law, and it's God's law.

You can leave Pollyanna out of it.

[El Gato]

They had the only one of these left (Still do. I checked):

IIRC, they only built two. One crashed during a photo shoot, when an F-104 probably got caught in it's wingtip vortexes and crashed into it. The other is at the USAF Museum, WPAFB, OH.

I've seen it several times, all of them while it was parked outside, and it's an impressive beastie.

[Romulus]

There is one morality in WAR, that is Victory.

What a curious thing to believe. This is the expression of a utilitarian mindset, an 18th century philosophy that reduced morality to a purely relative and pragmatic construct. Having embraced this argument, you cannot reasonably claim to be fighting for anything higher than your private self-interest.