WSJ: Hiroshima - Nuclear weapons, then and now.

opinionjournal.com ^ | August 5, 2005 | Editorial

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well, of course dropping any kind of bomb with the intention of killing civilians is murder.

Well, of course.

But, two questions:

(1) What if a lot of the civilians (or, say, all of the civilians age 7 and over) are enrolled in some sort of military project, whether it's training for street-to-street combat, constructing booby-traps, making or assembling armaments in home workshops: that is, if the civilians have been blended with the military so that it is impossible to distinguish one from the other? Can they be directly targeted?

(2) What if, as long as the war goes on, the enemy's killing about 200,000 civilians per month in the areas occupied by their military? (We're talking about deliberate starvation, slave-labor camps where people die of disease and exhaustion, and people just plain being shot in the head.) If you can end the war in a matter of days by hitting military targets but causing 150,000 deaths in collateral damge (not intended but foreseen --- and you gave them a warning), is that OK proportionality-wise?

Ears perked.

[Reeses]

non-moral actors such as lions

Actually some animals have morals, lions being one of them. All animals that hunt in packs have behavior rules they must follow to continue to belong to the group. If a lion participating in a group hunt attempts to hide a kill from the group, that lion would be ejected. As a lone hunter they would not make as many kills and would not as likely pass on their genes and moral culture. That is the origin of morality in man as well.

The important thing is what morals really are: required rules to belong to a tribe, rules that further the tribe's existence in exchange for the many benefits of cooperative hunting. Different tribes experiment with different morals at different times. If the morals work, the tribe expands. Otherwise the tribe and their culture are soon wiped out.

Yes, morals are very important. But they only apply within the tribe. You may be a kind, caring, moral person, but you must also be willing to kill outsiders with abandon that threaten your tribe.

There are many experiments in morality going on in America today. Some changes would end up destroying our tribe. Saying that America will never again nuke civilians is an dangerous experiment. What would keep another country from starting a war with America knowing that only their military would be at risk?

[Mia T]

HIROSHIMA'S NUCLEAR LESSON
bill clinton is no Harry Truman



Who in heaven's name is writing missus clinton's speeches?
A "handling the hillary dud factor" AFTERWORD

the MAD hillary series
WHY MISSUS CLINTON IS DANGEROUS
FOR THE CHILDREN,
FOR AMERICA,
FOR THE WORLD

madhillary.com (coming soon)
madhillary.blogspot.com
_{COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005}

MAD hillary talks series #1 ALFRED E."What, me worry?" CLINTON + CRAZY HIL MAD COVER STORY THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON TO OVAL OFFICE	MAD hillary talks series #2 HILLARY'S MIDDLE-FINGER MINDSET Do you really want THAT finger on the button?
MAD hillary talks series #3 "What, me worry?" THE THREAT OF TERRORISM AS CLOSE AS A CLINTON TO OVAL OFFICE	MAD hillary talks series #4 NANO-PRESIDENT the danger of the unrelenting smallness of bill + hillary clinton
MAD hillary talks series #5 SCHEMA PINOCCHIO how the clintons are handling the hillary dud factor

deletehillary.blogspot.com
virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
hillarytalks.blogspot.com
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update

coming soon! deletehillary.com
[FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU! FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME!]

 

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2005

[Mrs. Don-o]

Your idea of where morals come from --- if it were true ---would certainly spell the ruin of America, since America is not a herd or pack or tribe. It is not even, in the European sense of the word, a traditional "nation": a society based on shared language, shared history, shared ancestors, and shared attachments to a particular piece of land. Americans are increasingly polyglot, famously rootless, and drawn from many different races and tribes.

The very fact that we human beings can organize ourselves into cities and states, congregations and churches, institutions with centuries or millennia of continuous history and global reach, tends to minimize the explanatory power of mere lupine or simian sociobiology.

There is every reason for us to require from each other such basic decencies as "Honor thy father and thy mother," "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not bear false witness," and --- in the lives of individuals, tribes and nations --- "Thou shalt not commit murder."

Since you are apparently arguing for a sociobiological origin for moral law, to the exclusion of a divine origin, you --- correct me if I'm wrong --- also deny that human beings have a spiritual dimension, going beyond instinct and impulse, beyond pack and tribe, even at privileged moments going beyond time and space.

It seems to me that a person who denies the existence of human spirit (and thus spiritual law) is not a very careful observer of human beings as we actually are. A person who entirely denies the spirit is obviously not a realist.

[visitor]

here's the link referenced in your post...rto

http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/vol46no3/article07.html

[visitor]

thanks for the .gif ...rto

http://lang.dailybulletin.com/opinions/cartoon/archive/0805/05/gordon450.gif

[hollywood]

Post #65 appears to address your concerns regarding the intention (of both the USA and some Japanese) to shield civilians during the bombings.

[elbucko]

"I never (?) said I was a scholar on it... LOL

I beg to differ, by your own admission you claim expertise....."LOL", to wit:

"I'm American of hispanic descent, a conservative (former republican), and educated on this issue (and others)."

So which is it? Do you know what your debating about or not?

But very few have been able to actually argue anything but "my grandpa was gonna head to japan

Therefore, had "grandpa" perished in the invasion of Japan, the person posting that sentence would not now exist. Think about it.

Did I even defend the Japanese government or military? Not one bit...

Nor did you condemn them for their complicity in their own predicament by having started the war in the first place. I realize that it is a minor and annoying fact for you that the Empire of Japan attacked the United States on the 7th. of December, 1941, but it is an incident to take into consideration. Is it not?

"Easy to to make that decision isn't it? How can 100's of millions of Asian civilians die if we attack the Japanese MILITARY??"

You obviously misunderstood my statement or its comprehension is beyond your meager faculties. When the bombs were dropped it signaled the end of the Japanese Empire throughout all Asia. The Japanese occupation of Korea, China, Indochina and Burma and occupied islands in the Pacific were now certain to end. The dropping of the A-bombs on Japan freed those Asian peoples under Japanese domination. I would wager that the number of Japanese killed by the atomic bombs did not even come close to the Asian civilians killed and tortured by the Japanese army from 1932 to 1945. You seem to have the proclivity to mentally exclude facts that do not fit your dogmatic notions of the subject and all its effects and ramifications.

but that's just your character flaw...

Careful, if you want to make this personal, I'm prepared for that too, Tonto.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Post #65 appears to address your concerns regarding the intention (of both the USA and some Japanese) to shield civilians during the bombings.

Yes, indeed it does. Please see mine at #166 and #187.

[elbucko]

Whereas the bombing of Hamburg and Dresden --- city block by city block --- is a different situation altogether.

Not really, not in war and not in context. The Germans began the bombing of civilians in London during the Battle of Britain and on into the Blitz. The Germans bombed London on Christmas Day, 1940. Those of you who wail incessantly about civilian causalities give no thought to the fact that it was the policy of the German government that precipitated the inclusion of the innocent in warfare. In short, don't start what you can't finish and don't use tactics on your enemy that you don't want used against you. The actual blame for the destruction of Hamburg, Dresden and Cologne lies with Adolph Hitler and the German High Command. Not the Allies.

Furthermore, what you think of as deliberate targeting of civilians is nonsense. Those of you who know nothing of aerial bombing just can't, or won't, understand that in WWII bombing was incredibly inaccurate. The only way for the RAF to hit its intended industrial/military target was to drop a lot of bombs all over the place. The idea of precision bombing is only in the imagination of the ignorant. Even today, with modern laser guided munitions, the expectation of precision is beyond the reality.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oops, I meant 151 and 166.

You can do a user search on me if you want to see some of the questions I'm asking. I have no interest in either IvorySnow Pacifism or a leftist blame-America perspective. I'm asking questions here about the moral conduct of war. I'm looking for insight --- not trying to score points.

Anyhow, thanks for contributing to the discussion.

[MNJohnnie]

don't think that completely obviates any responsibility to try to protect noncombatants, or to avoid objectively indiscriminate destruction. I do keep in mind that Eisenhower and Leahy were opposed to using the bomb (Eisenhower personally argued with Truman about it). Leahy said it and using other WMD such as germ bombs, was unbefitting a civilized country), and no less a personage than Curtis "Bomb them Back to the Stone Age" LeMay said the bomb was unnecessary to force Japan to surrender. MacArthur agreed the act was unnecessary.


Well as a Historian I can tell you the above is absolute, 100% NONSENSE. Please provide even one source to back up these assertions/p>

[MNJohnnie]

You can do a user search on me if you want to see some of the questions I'm asking. I have no interest in either IvorySnow Pacifism or a leftist blame-America perspective. I'm asking questions here about the moral conduct of war. I'm looking for insight --- not trying to score points.

Anyhow, thanks for contributing to the discussion


Again, if that is the case, Please provide citations to back up your "facts". The statement that you claim both Eisenhower and Lemay made about the bombs are complete fictions.

[Mrs. Don-o]

OK, this may be a time consuming process, but here come the citations, one at a time:

"Most of Truman's advisers supported dropping the bombs, though there were exceptions. At one point during the Potsdam conference in Germany, Truman ate lunch with Gens. Dwight Eisenhower and Omar Bradley.

"Though Truman didn't ask either about using the bomb, Eisenhower indicated he was opposed to using it because he thought Japan had already lost the war, Truman biographer David McCullough wrote. Earlier, Eisenhower told other top U.S. officials the weapon was so horrible he hoped the United States would not be the first to use it."

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:HYrQOLX16eAJ:www.tri-cityherald.com/BOMB/bomb25.html+Eisenhower+atomic+bomb&hl=en

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dwight Eisenhower's view on using the Atomic Bomb:

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan.

"I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act....

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions." Source: The White House Years: Mandate for Change: 1953-1956: A Personal Account. Author: Dwight David Eisenhower (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313.

Available in hardcover from Amazon

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=br_ss_hs/102-9190237-0617733?platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-above%26dispatch%3Dsearch%26results-process%3Dbin&field-keywords=%22Mandate+for+Change%22+Eisenhower&Go.x=7&Go.y=11

[Mrs. Don-o]

Admiral William D. Leahy:

Leahy believed the atomic bomb would probably not work. After the atomic bombings of Japan, Leahy condemned the use of the atomic bomb for practical reasons:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." (William D. Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441).

And on Aug. 8, 1945 he wrote in his diary: "there is a certainty that it [the a-bomb] will in the future be developed by potential enemies and that it will probably be used against us."

He also objected to the a-bomb's use for moral reasons:

"in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages" (William D. Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441).

-------------------------------------------------------

For further information:

William D. Leahy, I Was There

Henry H. Adams, Witness to Power: The Life of Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy

The Papers of William D. Leahy. Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

[MNJohnnie]

Easy to to make that decision isn't it? How can 100's of millions of Asian civilians die if we attack the Japanese MILITARY??"

Christ give me strength! What is it about Americans that makes them so aggressively ignorant yet opinionated? Let's start here.

Certainly using the bomb saved far more lives - of troops on both sides and of Japanese civilians "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458409/posts

Historical fact constantly ignored by the Hate America First crowd. Cannot be repeated often enough.

The Japanese transportation network in 1945 primarily relied upon coastal shipping. Between the bombing and the sub attacks, the ability of the Japanese to feed themselves was collapsing. If we had applied the Hysteric Left's fixation on Economic Sanctions to 1945, MILLIONS of Japanese civilians would of died of starvation and disease. So when you hear the usual suspects from the Hysteric Left whining about the bomb, keep in mind THEIR solution would of resulted in one of the most barbaric acts of genocide in world history.

In addition, the Japanese Govt was busy waging a "100 million bullets of fire" propaganda campaign. Basically they were organizing ALL Japanese into a civilian militia. They were basically planning to turn the whole population of Japan into the 1945 equivalent of suicide bombers. The were feeding the population heavy doses of "The Americans will rape, torture and murder you so you might as well die fighting" style propaganda. Considering what happened to the Japanese Civilian populations on Siapan and Okinawa, the idea that we "Could of just fought the Japanese MILIRTARY" is so breath taking ignorant that it is almost incomprehensible.

War is too serious and complex an issue to be left to the psuedo-intellectual posturing of the Hysteric Left

[hollywood]

Glad to participate. I noticed in post #166 that the intent and/or the effectivity of the leaflet-dropping program was questioned. Earlier in the thread, the bombing was denounced as, basically, indiscriminate; then, when proof is offered to counter the 'indiscriminate' claim, the proof is questioned. It appears that the jury already has its verdict before the trial, and will not hear further arguments contrary.

[MNJohnnie]

Which does NOTHING to validate all your claims about Lemay, Eisenhower et al. As for Leary, he is in NO position to render a judgement on the situtation! He was not a combat commander or even IN the Pacific. He was a White House flunky. His "moral qualms" have no bearing on the historical reality that existed in Aug 1945. He claims that "the Japanese were about to surrender" are absolutely fraudulent. In FACT even after BOTH bombs the Japanese Army tried to stage a Coup to prevent the Emperor's orders to surrender from being broadcast! There is NO historical evidence at ALL to support his claim that the "Japanese were about to surrender". Finally all you "Peace at any price" types need to read THIS. http://tigger.uic.edu/~rjensen/invade.htm "Well before the invasion of Saipan, the Joint Staff Planners had been at work on a document outlining their concept of the final stages of the Pacific war. "Operations Against Japan Subsequent to Formosa" was released for comment on 6 June 1944,^43 and approved for submission to the JCS on 30 June 1944,^44 two weeks after the landings on Saipan. Consequently, there was no mention of the battle in the original document. It was soon clear, however, that the number of both military and civilian deaths during an invasion of Japan would be high. The major fighting for Saipan was over in early July, as several hundred frightened Japanese civilians committed suicide by leaping to their deaths from the cliffs above Marpi Point. Before the point was secured, 4th Division Marines had observed numerous instances of armed Japanese soldiers forcing the civilians over the cliffs to the jagged rocks below,^45 and later in the war, MacArthur's intelligence would report on captured documents and prisoner interrogations which detailed Japanese units killing their own wounded if they could not be evacuated from field hospitals.^46 Altogether, this model for the invasion of Japan had cost the U.S. 3,426 dead and 13,099 wounded to kill 23,811 Japanese defenders. Less than 300 Japanese were taken prisoner, most because they were too badly wounded to either fight on or commit a form of ritual suicide, hara-kiri.^47 These losses had a sobering effect on the JCS's Joint Strategic Survey Committee presiding over the refinements made to "Operations Against Japan Subsequent to Formosa," which through the spring of 1945 (long after its name, but not content, was rendered obsolete by the rush of events), was used as the primary outline for the series of campaigns culminating on Japan's soil. In its 30 August 1944 annex, the planners noted the number of Japanese troops which could be made available to defend the Home Islands-3,500,000-and extrapolated that number against a not yet complete count of the destroyed Japanese garrison. The JPS committee concluded: "In our Saipan operation, it cost approximately one American killed and several wounded to exterminate seven Japanese soldiers. On this basis it might cost us half a million American lives and many times that number wounded . . . in the home islands." This "Saipan ratio" set the standard for strategic-level casualty projections in the Pacific. Together with the experience of combat attrition of line infantry units in Europe, plus the assumption that fighting in Japan could stretch nearly as far as 1947, it provided the basis for the Army and War Department manpower policy for 1945, and, thus, the pace for the big jump in Selective Service inductions and expansion of the training base even as the war in Europe was winding down http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/pers-us/uspers-l/wd-leahy.htm January 1937, Admiral Leahy became Chief of Naval Operations, serving for more than two years during a period marked by increasing tensions in the Far East and Europe and by a gradual expansion of the Navy. During this time he frequently had additional duty as Acting Secretary of the Navy. Following retirement in August 1939, Leahy was appointed Governor of Puerto Rico. In late 1940, he became the United States Ambassador to France, serving in that very demanding position until April 1942. Upon his return home, Admiral Leahy was recalled to Navy service as Aide to President Franklin D. Roosevelt and as Senior Member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. As such, he played a critical role in the strategy, diplomacy and execution of the Second World War. In recognition of these accomplishments, he received promotion to the rank of Fleet Admiral in December 1944. After Roosevelt's death in April 1945, Leahy continued in his posts, assisting President Harry S. Truman in bringing about final victory against Germany and Japan and then helping to guide the Nation in the early post-war years. Though he retired in 1949, Fleet Admiral Leahy technically remained on active duty until his death on 20 July 1959

[xone]

'They sink to the level of the demonic. They make life hell for others; they create a kind of hell inside of themselves; and then they get hell hereafter as well. It's not a very good deal.'

So all who support or supported the destruction of Hiroshima/Nagasaki and those who ordered it are going to hell? Like to see that source document.