Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Persevero
That may be a valid point, and I don't know quite what to say about it. I'm sincerely perplexed.

On the one hand, it suggests in a way that the US was trying to limit civilian casualties.

I say "in a way" because on the other hand, nobody expected or intended substantial evacuation of the civilians. I know flyers were dropped on some 20-30 cities, weren't they? There were actually people in HIroshima who had fled there from other cities. It would have been a physical as well as a political impossibility that Japan would permit, much less direct, the evacuation of all its major cities.

Plus, the US was certainly lookng for maximum psychological impact, a goal which is explicitly adopted by the Target Committee in Los Alamos in their May 1945 records. This impact was to come come from a whole city and its inhabitants being incinerated in one "go." Both sides had done consderable incineration of civilians with conventional incendiaries: but this was to give that extra shock and awe.

Imagine, if you can, that the Little Boy had proved to be somewhat of a dud, and had enough impact to take out only a limited but certainly military target --- say, Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army headquarters.

Wouldn't that have been a disappointment? Wouldn't it have failed to achieve its hoped-for impact?

So I wonder about the "intention" after all.

You can hardly say all those civilians died "inadvertently," which is the only way their deaths would have been non-intentional.

As I understand it.

Otherwise, following the same line of moral thinking, a great many abortion deaths of infants would have to be considered non-intentional, because the aborter could say, "I did not intend to kill the baby, only to end the pregnancy; and I took prenatal vitamins right before the procedure." Or something along those lines.

105 posted on 08/06/2012 10:31:25 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Gaudium et Spes 80)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies ]


To: Mrs. Don-o

“Otherwise, following the same line of moral thinking, a great many abortion deaths of infants would have to be considered non-intentional, because the aborter could say, “I did not intend to kill the baby, only to end the pregnancy; and I took prenatal vitamins right before the procedure.” Or something along those lines.”

You have to factor in, also, the thousands, ten thousands, or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives spared by the ending of the war - which was not ending, which is why we dropped the two nukes. They did end the war.

The “innocent” lives saved may have been mainly military, and therefore may not be as “innocent” as you consider the families of Hiroshima. HOWEVER, it is Japan that invaded us, so, strictly and truly speaking, we were the innocent party.

I see the dead of Hiroshima as victims of the Emperor of Japan.


106 posted on 08/06/2012 4:20:43 PM PDT by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson