WSJ: Hiroshima - Nuclear weapons, then and now.

opinionjournal.com ^ | August 5, 2005 | Editorial

[OESY]

Today--or August 6 in Japan--is the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, which killed outright an estimated 80,000 Japanese and hastened World War II to its conclusion on August 15. Those of us who belong to the postwar generations tend to regard the occasion as a somber, even shameful, one. But that's not how the generation of Americans who actually fought the war saw it. And if we're going to reflect seriously about the bomb, we ought first to think about it as they did.

...No surprise, then, that when news of the bomb reached Lt. Fussell and his men, they had no misgivings about its use: "...We were going to live."...

What about Japanese lives?... Since the ratio of Japanese to American combat fatalities ran about four to one, a mainland invasion could have resulted in millions of Japanese deaths--and that's not counting civilians....

Also true is that the threat nuclear weapons pose today is probably greater than ever before. That's not because they're more plentiful--thanks to the 2002 Moscow Treaty (negotiated by John Bolton), U.S. and Russian arsenals are being cut to levels not seen in 40 years. It's because nuclear know-how and technology have fallen into the hands of men such as A.Q. Khan and Kim Jong Il, and they, in turn, are but one degree of separation away from the jihadists who may someday detonate a bomb in Times or Trafalgar Square....

Looking back after 60 years, who cannot be grateful that it was Truman who had the bomb, and not Hitler or Tojo or Stalin? And looking forward, who can seriously doubt the need for might always to remain in the hands of right? That is the enduring lesson of Hiroshima, and it is one we ignore at our peril.

[elbucko]

Nobody has yet to prove that it was ok to commit a regional genocide.

And you have yet to prove that the strategic atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in reality, any form of regional genocide.

I see that you are capable of using dysphemisms as readily as others are prone to euphemisms. Both are are intellectually disingenuous and a bad habit.

BTW, do you know Ward Churchill? Just asking.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"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."

Here's 1-20:

The Bible tells of seven things that God hates and counts as an abomination. (Prov. 6:16-19) He hates, for one thing, "hands that shed innocent blood."

Another typical passage: Ex. 23:7, " Keep very far from a false matter and [be very careful] not to condemn to death the innocent and the righteous, for I will not justify and acquit the wicked."

The Bible clearly commands, “You shall not murder” (Exod. 20:13). As I already already mentioned, the Bible does not forbid all killing, such as in capital punishment by the government, or a just national defense. However, murder (the intentional or indiscriminate killing of an innocent person or persons)is forbidden. The Bible uses the phrase “innocent blood” about 20 times, and in every instance condemns shedding innocent blood.

I will spare you the other 18 or 19 quotes --- although you can find them easily in any online Bible concordance -- but here's a 20th century updating which touches even closer on the matter at hand:

Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 2314 :

"Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 80]

This does not especify anyone by name who is thereby "damned." But it does show the shedding of innocent blood to be a damnable offense.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "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..."

No, not so. I found the leaflet to be a significant piece of direct evidence. I asked honest questions about the on-the-ground context and impact of the leaflets. This is not bad-faith or setting aside the evidence. It is a quest for more evidence, resulting in a deeper and broader understanding.

You think I have irrevocably pre-judged the matter. No, I am still examining evidence. If you have anything to offer along these lines, I would be interested in seeing it.

[hollywood]

Post #77 clearly stated (pre-judged?) that the bombings were indiscriminate. Has anything that's been presented since post #77 (along with post #65) changed that opinion? Also, I have no further material to offer; I'm satisfied with what's been presented.

[Mrs. Don-o]

You wrote: "Post #77 clearly stated (pre-judged?) that the bombings were indiscriminate."

There are two senses in which a city = target bombing can be called indiscriminate: (1) objectively, in that within the radius of its operation, the bomb kills everyone in a city, or a significant sector of a city; and (2) subjectively, in that the death of the civilians formed part of your intention.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were objectively indiscriminate in sense #1. They killed large numbers of persons who were noncombatants --- far more than were combatants --- including, of course, infants and children, the sick and the elderly. It is certain that even if thousands of noncombatants had wanted to escape the city, they could not have done so. This makes the acts objectively wrong.

We are trying to determine to what extent, if any, #2 is also true. If it is true, then the bombings were also gravely morally objectionable.

This is where the "leaflet" evidence comes in. To what extent were they used? How many? Where? When? With what expected impact? This could be truly exculpatory, but I don't know very much about it.

I'm not the prosecutor here. I am, in my free, persistent, and responsibly American way, a judge. I hope we all are judges: studying the situation, hearing the testimony, struggling to make a right judgment.

BTW, as to Curtis LeMay (whom I brought up earlier): As far as I can see, LeMay at first objected to the atomic bombs because he was afraid they would be duds. He was afraid they would not cause the catastrophic devastation that was hoped for. After that was demonstrated with a satisfactory flambeau, he became an enthusiastic proponent of both building and using atomic weapons. Fortunately, he was subsequently unable to do so.

[hollywood]

Ok, so in post #77, 'sense' 1 of the word 'indiscriminate' was used, but, for 'sense' 2, the jury is still out for some who need to know the true intent and expected effectiveness of the leaflet-dropping program. Thanks, and good luck with the investigation.

[timydnuc]

We can do this! I want a weapon that is laser controlled that will detonate the outgoing warhead 1500 feet above the launch site. Problem solved!

[Redleg Duke]

I wasn't born until April of 1947, jerk-off, so I really didn't "accept" the Soviet "empire".

Somehow, your position corresponds to the location of your head.

[xone]

'Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 80]'

Fortunately, I don't find the Catholic Church to be a reliable reference in the case of war, based upon its history.

In the case of H/N, there was a warning, so a claim of innocence would be hard to justify. There also was the edict from God to the nation of Israel to kill the Canaanites. Presumably, He found the children and old folks of them to be worthy of death or as culpable as the rest of them. The same could be said of the culpability of the Japanese people that supported the Japanese war machine.

At any rate, your statements leave no room for forgiveness, so the assurity of hell rings hollow.

[jamaksin]

And when did the Soviet "empire" expire? Sometime after April of 1947 ...?

Perhaps your history, apparently, is a bit "off."

But, do stay curious ... and do please, polish your metaphors.

[M. Espinola]

You are aware the Japs sneak attacked US first at Pearl Harbor?

Who were the beast like perpetrator's of the Bataan Death March?

Allied POWs with hands tied behind their backs pause during the Bataan Death March. About 76,000 prisoners including 12,000 Americans were forced on the 60 mile march under a blazing sun without food or water toward a new POW camp in the Philippines in April 1942 Over 5,000 Americans and thousands of British troops died & were murdered in cold blood on that death march which began April 10th and lasted six days for some and up to twelve days for others captured by the Japs.

Have you forgotten the horrific treatment American and Allied servicemen and female civilians received at the hand of the invading Jap forces?

Recall the vicious slaughter & rape of Nanking and other cities in China & across Asia?

In your eyes would the military option to ending the war be for American & Allied troops to launch invasions of each & every island making up Japan, until the enemy finally surrendered, even though the loss of life to the Allies would have been very costly?

Dropping the Bomb ended the war in the Pacific theater which would have dragged on longer.

[Mrs. Don-o]

'Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." [Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 80]'

You wrote: "Fortunately, I don't find the Catholic Church to be a reliable reference in the case of war, based upon its history."

Do you usually determine the truth of a moral teaching based on whether the personnel of the teaching institution are sinless? That makes no sense. If that were the case, nothing could EVER be said to be right or wrong, since those who are teachers and lawmakers (the church, the government, your own parents and grandparents) --- all have sinned or violated in some way in the past.

There are people who say that, of course: but it's an argument for moral nihilism; and we don't permit our children to say that to us--- though we are sinners -- now do we?

You wrote: "In the case of H/N, there was a warning, so a claim of innocence would be hard to justify.

That is erroneous for two reasons. First, the fact that huge numbers of people are unable to get out of a doomed city doesn't make them guilty of anything. Guilty of what? What are you thinking of?

Second, in the context of life-and-death decision in general, the word "innocent" doesn't mean "free of all sin like Jesus Christ." It means a "non-aggressor." If it meant "free of all sin," then everyone would have license to kill everyone else, I suppose, even the babies, since we are all tainted with the sin of Adam.

In the context of war, what the moral law requires is that we do not deliberately kill noncombatants. There is no collective guilt which encompasses the whole civilian population and deprives them of their immunity as noncombatants. It is understood that in war civilians do get killed in a way that is both foreseeable and accidental: but the difference between an honorable soldier and a murderer is that an honorable soldier tries to take effective steps to shield civilians from harm as much as possible, whereas a murderer will deliberately kill noncombatants as a means to an end, or will simply destroy everything indiscriminately.

You wrote: "There also was the edict from God to the nation of Israel to kill the Canaanites. Presumably, He found the children and old folks of them to be worthy of death or as culpable as the rest of them."

Your citing of the God-ordered destruction of the Canaanites is inapt for two reasons. First, God has absolute sovereignty over life and death, and He alone has the authority to cause or require the death of a person for His own reasons. That was why the incident where God commanded Abraham to bind Isaac and present him as a human sacrifice has such enormous significance in the Hebrew Scriptures. (1) Because God is sovereign, He has the authority to issue such a command, and (2) Because God is good, He did not permit Abraham to kill Isaac.

This provides no general warrant for parents sacrificing their children. In fact, it is generally forbidden by the commandments against shedding innocent blood.

In a similar manner, God has the authority to command the death of the Amalekites. In fact, every human being will die. Fatality rate 100% across the planet and throughout history. This is God's prerogative. But it is not a general warrant for killing. Quite the contrary. This shows up the complete authority of God to make such decisions; and the utter unfitness of mortal man to do so.

In any case, Jesus Christ goes quite beyond this, inasmuch as His commandment is "Love thy enemy." I hadn't brought this into the discussion, but it would seem to have some inhibiting effect on incinerating your enemy's babies.

If I, personally, thought I heard the voice of 'God' ordering me to kill an innocent person, I would assume I was experiencing a psychotic episode and go straightaway to a mental hospital. I fully expect that you, as a reasonable man, would do the same.

You wrote: "At any rate, your statements leave no room for forgiveness, so the assurity of hell rings hollow."

Once again, I did not say anything about the "assurity of hell." Far from it! What I did say was: "This does not specify anyone by name who is thereby "damned." But it does show the shedding of innocent blood to be a damnable offense.

I pray every single day for a merciful judgment for all.

[xone]

"Once again, I did not say anything about the "assurity of hell."
Your words.

'They make life hell for others; they create a kind of hell inside of themselves; and then they get hell hereafter as well.'

'Do you usually determine the truth of a moral teaching based on whether the personnel of the teaching institution are sinless?'

No, but I consider the source when the institution has shown itself to be influenced by worldly considerations and currently preaches in some places a non-Biblical approach. ie liberation theology influenced by Marxism.

'First, the fact that huge numbers of people are unable to get out of a doomed city doesn't make them guilty of anything. Guilty of what? What are you thinking of?'

You don't support the contention that the people of these two cities both supported materially or by their acquiescence the activity of their govt. I do. As a result of this impasse, you shall always claim their innocence while I maintain their partial if not total complicity. They had a chance to leave, didn't, reaped the reward of a bad decision.

I'll grant you the points re God and the Israelites, I made them because you seemed to imply that total annihilation is never justified. Regarding Isaac, since God stopped Abraham, your point about child sacrifice is a little hyperbolic.

I am glad that the bombings of H/N forced the Japanese to surrender with terms favorable to the Allies. Greater good was sustained, more lived as a result of those decisions. As we have seen, many on this board might not have been born without their use compelling the surrender, and Japan may never had arisen but for the destruction they caused. I will gladly trade the children of those men who avoided death in the proposed invasion for the residents of the two cities in lockstep with their fanatical and murderous regime.

[Mrs. Don-o]

On what you call the "assurity of hell." Here's what I wrote: "When human beings act in a way that violates moral law, they do not sink to the level of the animal (bestial.) 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."

Evry word of this is true.

If any person the violates the moral law in such a grave matter, i.e. the deliberate killing of an innocent human being; and if the person is of the age of discretion, that is, of sufficient maturity to know that killing an innocent person is wrong; and if he is in control of his action (e.g. not mentally incapacitated or insane); and does this act intentionally -- then, if he does not repent, he faces hellfire.

Or he can repent, confess his sin, believe in the Good News and be saved:

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4, NIV)

[Mrs. Don-o]

On what you call the "assurity of hell." Here's what I wrote: "When human beings act in a way that violates moral law, they do not sink to the level of the animal (bestial.) 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."

Every word of this is true.

If any person the violates the moral law in such a grave matter, i.e. the deliberate killing of an innocent human being; and if the person is of the age of discretion, that is, of sufficient maturity to know that killing an innocent person is wrong; and if he is in control of his action (e.g. not mentally incapacitated or insane); and does this act intentionally -- then, if he does not repent, he faces hellfire.

Or he can repent, confess his sin, believe in the Good News and be saved:

"This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:3-4, NIV)

Question: why would international law, US law, and the UCMJ all prohibit the intentional killing of civilians, if --- per your definition --- there is no such thing as an innocent civilian, since they are all (you say) in one way or another supporting the war effort?

[SaltyJoe]

"Considering the hyper-murderous aggressive crimes of both the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII, the Allies had a moral responsibility to utterly destroy their warmaking capacity even if it involved an unprecedentedly large number of collateral (= indirect, unintended, not deliberate but unavoidable) civilian casualties"

If that logic is transferred to America's participation and popularizing abortion, to include pushing abortion and eugenics policies on weaker nations, then don't American's "deserve" such an end as Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Aren't our abortion "rights" as hyper-murderous, and even more so than what Nazis have achieved?

Given the above argument as a reason to obliterate two huge civilan-populated cities, Al-Queda and Iran will have absolutely no qualms of nuking or poisoning American populations (if they haven't already released agents already). After all, Truman was just trying to get the Imperial Japanese leadership's attention. Isn't that what a terror bombing will be about?

But I understand why the logic is used. Politicians have to win the next election. Wars get unpopular just as quickly as they're started. If you want to end a war quickly, raise the level of brutality with a carrot and stick decision for the enemy. Truman wasn't going to wait out the Japanese and hope to stay in political power.

I hate risky decisive strategies. They always lose to those with the long term vision and discipline. It's like playing capture the flag on top of a hill. Sure, a "victor" emerges at the end of the clock's time, but there's only one survivor holding a flag and he's surrounded by a very fresh enemy's army still hungry for a fight. The West was lucky to not have succumbed to the Soviet's warlike society. At least while they were fighting, Stalin was less like to kill Soviets in Gulags.

We could have had Japan as a dear friend long before American politics (namely, FDR) made the Japanese a resolute enemy. The Japanese were enamored with everything Western and particularly American. We could have had a great ally against the Soviet Union. There never would have been a Red China or Korean Conflict or Vietnam War, Communist Laos, Cambodian Khmer Rouge, or John Kerry. But the world chose to ignore the message of Fatima. Communism spread its errors, and politicians and socialist Americans like President FDR became devout followers.

Lenin was the first to legalize abortions. Nazis made the killing efficient via experimentation in concentration camps. America made it socially popular and demands that other nations enforce it to receive financial aid. Now "hyper-murderous" Americans have resolute enemies willing to fly planes into our buildings just to get our leadership's attention. We've still yet to seek the moral high ground. Are we waiting for God's Judgment before we change? Will it take a nuclear strike? How about a big rock falling out of the sky?

[jamaksin]

Your ...

"We could have had Japan as a dear friend long before American politics (namely, FDR) made the Japanese a resolute enemy. The Japanese were enamored with everything Western and particularly American. We could have had a great ally against the Soviet Union. There never would have been a Red China or Korean Conflict or Vietnam War, Communist Laos, Cambodian Khmer Rouge, or John Kerry. But the world chose to ignore the message of Fatima. Communism spread its errors, and politicians and socialist Americans like President FDR became devout followers."

Very astute observations ... thank you very much.

If you can find it, I would recommend a quick scan of No Clear and Present Danger by Bruce M. Russett (subtitle is "A Skeptical View of the United States Entry into World War II").

Briefly, Churchill's goal was to "save the British Empire" and needed help badly, FDR wanted to save Stalin (Uncle Joe) and the USSR and was more than willing to be unconstitutional (e.g., The Atlantic Charter) and violate international law (e.g., convoying of Lend Lease war materiel, tracking and firing on German U-boats, ...) governing declared neutral countries (viz., the US) aiding belligerents, and Stalin played the game of trading territory and blood for time and the Russian winter, and China had two thrusts - each the US backed to one degree or another ...

The odd country out - Japan. So provoke her into war and scapegoat Kimmel and Short ... Much documentation here still remains classified (e.g., source material used to generate the "Little Blue Dress" of AKAGI ...)

And the winner in 1945 is ... Stalin and the USSR ... thank you FDR and a very partisan US Congress. [See The Yalta Betrayal by Felix Wittmer published in 1953.]

[SaltyJoe]

http://www.rooseveltmyth.com/RoadRussia/index.html

The Secret in the Closet

The United States and Great Britain, as the major bulwarks of democratic capitalism, were, of course, archenemies whose ultimate downfall was essential. That this project was not to be easy was apparent to such cool plotters as Stalin, Mikoyan, Molotov, Voroshilov, Vishinsky, and the lesser-known, behind-the-scenes zealots of the Politburo; so the most subtle indirections were reserved for its long-term accomplishment. Germany and Japan, the two great buffers against Communist expansion in Europe and Asia, were first to be removed from the path in two simultaneous wars. England, France, and the United States would help Russia crush Germany. The United States could vanquish Japan single-handedly; there was no doubt about that. The Soviet Union would not have to dissipate her strength fighting Japan, but only manage to swoop in at the surrender.[**] A new chaos would be precipitated in China, and into the power vacuums thus created in both Europe and Asia, Soviet Russia would then step.

** A war between Japan and the United States was a consummation which could only have favorable consequences for Soviet Russia because for half a century Japan had been a check to Russian expansionism in the Far East and her defeat in a war with the United States was inevitable. It is well known that pro-Soviet influences in Washington discreetly fomented an outbreak of hostilities. Nor was Moscow indifferent during the months that preceded Pearl Harbor. In January, 1941, Sir Stafford Cripps, then British Ambassador to Russia, wrote in his diary: "At the moment the Russians seem more sphinx-like than ever and I doubt if even the Germans know what they are thinking. There are indications of something being on the tapis with Japan; I think an attempt to encourage Japan to go to war with America and so get Japan defeated and that danger out of the way."

[Arthur McGowan]

1) Yes. If they cannot be distinguished, they cannot be distinguished.

2) Yes.