Doesn't answer the morality question. War is hell, fine but..
Oh I think it does answer the morality question. The ball was in Japan's court - their choice....their morality question.
Morality? Millions willing to die for a tyrant, Pearl Harbor. Millions of lived were saved by forcing them to surrender, that is the morality.
So it would have been more moral to continue the carnage while waiting for the Japanese "leaders" to decide whether they wanted to surrender or not? Sheesh, Japanese soldiers continued to hide and resist, even into the 1960's in some highly isolated cases, and some folks think there may be one or two more still hiding in the Phillipine Islands...
You raise a good point. I have asked myself this several times, and I never found a satisfying answer. Fact is, that Japan didn´t surrender after Hiroshima, and that the Japanese military was ready to cut the throats of all allied POWs. They were just like the most desperate Nazis willing to let all their people die, because they realized they had lost anyway. While the bombing of Dresden really didn´t help to end the war, nor did it help to save allied lives, Hiroshima without a doubt did so.
I have come to the point to say that I can´t answer the question whether Little Boy should have exploded over the sea or an uninhabited island. It didn´t happen, Little Boy killed dozens of thousands. So it´s useless to answer this question. We know enough to avoid a 3rd use of nuclear weapons if ever possible, and that should be fine.
And war answers the morality question? It is immoral to not bring an end to war if you have the capability to do it.
That's a funny question. What particular moral are you questioning? Does it have a name? What EXACTLY would you accuse our nation of?
The way I see it, once somebody attacks you in a particularly immoral way, (sneak attack on unwary sailors who were serving during peacetime, while at the same time Japanese Ambassadors were in Washington D.C. talking peace), you are forced into a situation that requires an even deadlier response. Either that or you quiver and shake and surrender.
The Japanese were a brutal people, with a highly capable military machine. Before you talk about "morals", think about the 'Bataan Death March', (where the Japanese captured thousands of U.S. soldiers and tortured them, beheaded them, and executed them.
Think about the fact that one in three American POWs were executed by the Japanese in one way or another. Either beaten, worked, hacked or shot to death.
Think about what happened near the end of 1944, when as American warplanes were flying over the Philippines thousands of American POWs thought they were about to be rescued. But the Japanese herded them into 'hell ships', which the AMERICANS would eventually sink, unaware of the treachery the Japanese were up to. / The Shinyo Maru with 750 POWs was sunk on September 7, 1944. Next the Arisan Maru was sunk on October 24th; 1,785 American POWs died. When nearby Japanese destroyers saw the POWs in the water they pushed them away and let them drown. Then the Oryoku Maru was sunk on December 13th; 319 American POW's died.
Think about the 9,000 Japanese helium filled balloon bombs, (fugos), that were released towards America with the intent to kill thousands of American civilians and terrorize the nation. A family of six picnickers in Oregon were killed by a Japanese 'fugo', and it is believed that some of the forest fires in the West and Northwest were caused by these Japanes terror balloons.
As other FReepers have pointed out, the Japanese were told to fight to the death, and never surrender. At Okinawa 100,000 of them did just that, and they killed 21,000 U.S. soldiers in the process. Had we attacked the main Japanese Islands with conventional warfare, we would have seen far greater numbers of deaths on both sides. It was estimated by military commanders that up to one million Americans would have died in the bloody battles to capture the main Islands, and up to two million Japanese civilians would have died.
So when you consider the potential numbers of U.S. and Japanese deaths in a conventional attack, as President Truman did, it is crystal clear that he chose the 'moral' way to end the war. The A-bomb way was faster and far less deadly for both sides.
Also consider the fact that the Japanese had been given a warning before the first bomb dropped, (something they themselves were too contemptable to do = Pearl Harbor). After the first A-bomb struck they still refused to surrender. (This proves beyond any doubt they would have defended their islands to the last man, seeing millions of people die). Truman truly chose the 'moral' way to end that horrific war. It's just that today many Americans are too uninformed to understand any of this. And they are also too brainwashed by their liberal, commy educators to believe that America ever did anything right. Oh, and did I also mention that many Americans today are too priviledged and wimpy to understand that war is a kill-or-be-killed predicament?
You know, I understand and appreciate your question, but for my part, I think it's pretty supercilious to second guess a jury, let alone a Monday-morning-quarterback half a century removed...particularly when that quarterback (as a recognizable faction or class) has a demonstrated agenda (not that I'm saying you're the quarterback!).
I can think of nothing more self-congratulatory than judging history by contemporary standards.
People make decisions based on the sum total of what they have to work with at the time, even though somethings may get overlooked or ignored. To not respect that is as vain as claiming your favorite color is the 'best' color.
I think the bomb was a fine moral answer to the people who gave the Bataan Death march to the world.