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

To: Dilbert San Diego
My basic approach on this subject is that there is no legal or moral justification for any military action whose sole purpose is the deliberate (or indiscriminate) destruction of civilians. You can go back through thousands of years of Judaeo-Christian moral principles and find that this has been the case since antiquity.

One potential flaw in much of the historical analysis of this subject is that it's predicated on the assumption that there were only two options available to the U.S. government at the time: (1) drop atomic bombs on major Japanese cities (with certain risk to Japanese civilians); or (2) invade Japan (with certain risk to U.S. soldiers).

I have yet to see any compelling case made that the U.S. ever had to invade Japan in 1945 -- or any time after that -- in order to win World War II.

26 posted on 08/02/2014 8:43:46 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("What in the wide, wide world of sports is goin' on here?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Alberta's Child

Really? You really see no compelling evidence that the U.S. would have had to invade Japan to end World War II, if not for dropping the atomic bombs?

Please elaborate. I’m not sure I follow your reasoning, but would like to consider your point of view. I see what you are saying about assumptions of two options available to end the war, but just don’t see offhand what other options were available to us at the time. Please explain.


30 posted on 08/02/2014 8:48:21 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child
I have yet to see any compelling case made that the U.S. ever had to invade Japan in 1945 -- or any time after that -- in order to win World War II.

Then I suggest you go back and read the history of the War, starting with the invasion of Manchuria. Study how the Japanese acted when we fought them on Guadalcanal, or any of the other islands as the Pacific Fleet advanced on Japan. Out of a garrison estimated at 5000 troops on one of those islands, 2 surrendered. The rest either fought to the death or committed suicide. If you think they would have fought with less ferocity on their own soil, you are sadly mistaken. It would have taken an invasion of Japan to force them to surrender had it not been for the atomic bomb. Indeed, we might still be fighting door-to-door had it not been so.

Because your question is framed in the counterfactual condition, one cannot answer it in certain. However, given their previous behavior, there is no reason to think they would have gone quietly into the night.

36 posted on 08/02/2014 8:58:45 AM PDT by econjack (I'm not bossy...I just know what you should be doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child

“My basic approach on this subject is that there is no legal or moral justification for any military action whose sole purpose is the deliberate (or indiscriminate) destruction of civilians. You can go back through thousands of years of Judaeo-Christian moral principles and find that this has been the case since antiquity.”

Like when God killed non-Israelite first borns? I am guessing you don’t count that as neither civilian casualty nor Judaeo-Christian history.


41 posted on 08/02/2014 9:18:05 AM PDT by sagar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child

How else, then, would the war have ended? The Japanese had already made clear, in the battles on the various Pacific islands, that they would fight to the last man, woman, and child. Even after the second bomb was dropped, most of the Japanese high command wanted to continue to fight. It was only the courageous statement by the Emperor that convinced the military command to give up the fight before a devastating final invasion occurred.


116 posted on 08/02/2014 12:39:56 PM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child

Quoting from your own entry:

” [W]e can not hope to judge such matters unless we ourselves have been submitted to the same pressures, the same provocations, as these men, whose actions are on trial.”

It is obvious that you have never been in a position of making a decision anywhere near like those which had to be made in WWII.


123 posted on 08/02/2014 2:22:06 PM PDT by Dan(9698)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child

Like you said, “...I have yet to see...” How nice for you, an aerie of smug discernment, written large- in the aftermath, of your unbounded freedom from inhuman ideologies. You gave nothing, and received the gift of Freedom. Someday, you will experience “basic” gratitude.


138 posted on 08/02/2014 4:03:23 PM PDT by RedHeeler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

To: Alberta's Child

How? By soliloquy?


152 posted on 08/02/2014 7:08:19 PM PDT by Vietnam Vet From New Mexico (If you don't want to stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | 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