I feel like that sums it up pretty well. The human mind doesn't really handle thinking about big quantites very well.Josef Stalin said:
Guilt and the Murder of Innocents.
- Thread starter Chairman Miaow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
But look at it this way, had the Japan not been a showpiece for the power of Nuclear Weaponry; the cold war could have easily gone hot. And as sure as hell more people (including civilians.) would have died, even if nukes weren't used. Not to mention a main land invasion of Japan would have been absolute butchery, because look at the battles in the pacfic near the end of the war, almost every battle for the Japanese was a last stand, not to mention Kamikazes. And to was completely rational in 1945 to assume that they would not have given in. As the poster above me said, its easy to look back and say whats right an wrong. It wasn't easy in the present to make such decision, it never is.
I was pointing out your rather naive 'doubt' that they would not have faced reprimand if they disobeyed orders, and you are proving my point by the way: History has shown the term 'war crime' is a joke. Thousands of atrocities can occur and not one has to be addressed if they were all committed by the side that won. Disobeying orders, however, is not looked on kindly (because it undermines the war effort itself); and few people are willing to bet their life or freedom on their interpretation of an 'illegal order' (particularly for the enemy's sake).Chairman Miaow said:
So if you think they could have got away with disobeying that order on the 'illegal orders' rap, I really think you place too much faith in the sense of 'proportionality' and 'fair play' of the 1940's US government (the same government that decided nuking the civvies in the first place was the best idea).
There where lots of people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki that where not part of any industry and those who committed the acts believed that they where at war, they even publicly announced it, and how does a uniform matter. I'm not saying that those attacks are the same as the atomic bombs, but the idea that civilians are legitimate targets because killing them disrupts the war seems like nothing more than a weak excuse.ElPatron said:
They knew the blast radius. They knew that it would level the city, and kill a great number of civilians.Buretsu said:
If we hit a military target and they didn't respond, then maybe consider hitting civilians. But bombing one civilian target, and then another before they could even assess the damage? What's the point in fighting if you are as bad as the people you are trying to stop?
There is no way in hell they would have been shot. Maybe if they were on the frontlines and refused orders, but they weren't, it would of needed a trial, a trial that couldn't have happened until after the mission, and no trial with any sense would condemn a man for not wanting to commit genocide.senordesol said:
Maybe I am naive. but I would rather be naive than think I live in a world where men behind desks force others to commit mass murder.
That's so cute.Chairman Miaow said:
But they do, they totally do. Again, bombing civilian targets was absolutely prosaic in those days; this would have simply been more efficient. And maybe not shot -maybe- but certainly convicted and imprisoned for a long time. Remember, military tribunals are adjudicated by military officers, and military cares a hell of a lot more about cohesion than a couple of enemy civvies.
Except you seem to be laboring under a misunderstanding here. America didn't just want to beat Japan. Germany had been soundly beaten in the First World War and look how well that worked out. The US wanted to completely and utterly annihilate any will to resist and force the collective Japanese consciousness to realize the wages of the cult of militarism.Chairman Miaow said:
The US didn't want to have to fight this war again in ten to twenty years. It wanted the question completely and utterly resolved.
Is Japan militant now? Not really, the JSDF is euphemistically named but still, Japan is nowhere near as militarily powerful as it could be.
Did that make it morally right? I don't know.
Yes, I definitely would have done. I would have friends and relatives in the military, anything that takes them out of the firing line quicker is OK in my books. I would also have seen friends and comrades go down in flames, and probably have come close myself on occasion, know lots of people who had lost loved ones, I guess things like that would make me feel it was us or them. I would probably feel some sort of remorse about it, not really guilt though.
Why should you? 1st of all they were just taking orders. I doubt they were all "huzzah let's totally fly into enemy territory!" They werent the ones that took the decision to bomb Japan. They were carrying out orders, they were messengers from Truman who said "Back off, we have some serious shit you don't want to experience". The crew of the Enola Gay didn't spontaneously one day just try to fly out and bomb Japan.Chairman Miaow said:
Besides, as far as speculation goes, it's quite fair to assume that a total invasion of either Japan or America would be the only end to the war, unless America utilized the Atom Bomb.
senordesol [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.374372-Guilt-and-the-Murder-of-Innocents?page=2#14506063] has it right. War is Hell. You've all heard the adage so often that it's become cliche and lost its meaning, but we who have not experienced war personally don't understand the actual impact that it has on the minds of those who survive[footnote]let alone those who die or are shadows of their former selves due to action[/footnote]. All wars are crimes. And all wars are atrocious, and will feature countless little atrocities. And until we understand this as a people, until we realize the degree to which war really should be avoided, we're going to keep doing it, and allowing rich kids like George W. Bush talk us into unnecessary offensives.
What senordesol said is accurate: if you don't like war and all that comes with it, don't go to war. You can expect any war, seriously, any significant conflict to include massacre [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution] all by your own units. The only way to prevent this is to not go to war.
Also, WWI and WWII were the first true Wehrmacht [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war] were a no less honorable than the allies. Of course Churchill considered gassing German cities in retaliation[/footnote] but because it was a desperate enough war to implement terror weapons.
I find it conspicuous that the use of atomic bombs is the complaint listed here, rather than, say, the Dresden [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo], it was a three-stage affair, in which the first wave would drop phosphor bombs and start the blaze. The second wave would use standard iron bombs which would reduce the streets to rubble, and immobilize the fire-responders. The third wave[footnote]and consecutive waves, because by then in the war, we were pissed[/footnote] would resume dropping phosphor until the rising air waves were so great that the bombers were getting pushed to 80,000 feet. In the meantime, the winds at the surface would be over a hundred miles-per-hour, blowing towards the blaze like a giant tornado. Every creature including every human child (and every chunk of building and piece of landscape) would get sucked into the inferno. Yes,the atomic bombs were impressive in that one bomb could produce a whopper of a bang. But we didn't need one bomb. America had the might, the industry, and if necessary, the population, and we were all too eager to drop as many as it would take, even if it were half a ton of TNT for every man, woman, child and kitten on Japan. (Did I mention we were, by then, really tired of the war?)
As for remorse for killing a gazillion people, Kalashnikov sleeps soundly every night, knowing he engineered one awesome assault rifle for his motherland. Sure, we are awed by the terror we wreak. We are saddened that circumstances drive us to such desperate measures such as razing cities to ash. Truman didn't sleep well as he contemplated whether or not to use this terrible secret weapon. Nixon wasn't exactly thrilled with resorting to carpet bombing Vietnam [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arc_Light] in violation of conscience and UN Rules of Engagement. But old guys get the big pensions and the fancy hats because they're the ones who have to make these tough decisions. As for the rest of us grunts sailors and airmen, we do it out of sheer duty, out of awareness that others depend on us doing what we must do, no matter how grim the task.
But here's the thing: Hiroshima wasn't the dawn of the nuclear age. It was scary, but it was a big, clunky bomb. Rather, the true dawn of the nuclear age was Castle Bravo [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo], in which the hydrogen bomb we tested at Bikini Atoll surpassed our expectations and yielded 15 megatons (1000 times the ones we used to end WWII). It also yielded so much fallout that we had to evacuate the indigenous peoples of the area. It was at that point that we had accomplished what every war philosopher feared we would one day do: We had the technology and potentially even the will to destroy ourselves. As in all of humankind. As in, now the cockroaches get to evolve.
And, you know, despite that, for decades, nuclear bombs have been in the hands of low-ranking officers, whether Americans, or Pakastanis or Indians or Israelis or French, It's over fifty years later, and we haven't used a nuke once in hostility. Not once. The nuclear age ended the days of waging war on rage and whimsy. Between nuclear powers, war is calculated and cautious, and negotiations are polite. This is why North Korea doesn't really want a nuke. This is why we won't need to attack Iran for fear they'll nuke Israel. (It's the very last thing a Persian would ever do in history.) I don't imagine that anyone on this blue-green Earth wants to be the one to break the silence. I think plenty are willing to do it in retaliation, for duty, for their country and people. But no one wants to be the first.
Heck, rumors have it that the Soviets might not have retaliated if the US struck first.[footnote]We know pretty certainly the Soviets had no first-strike ambitions.[/footnote] They were afraid we would, the US being crazy cowboys and all. But on the contingency that we decided to nuke them completely off the map, they might have let us live, since someone has to perpetuate the species. Of course, we could never ever know that.
So I, for one, have hope for my species. I think some of us get it, that war is Hell on Earth, a thing we don't wish on our worst enemies, if we can at all help it. We just need to get the rest of us informed.
238U[footnote]sharing is caring. [http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/][/footnote]
What senordesol said is accurate: if you don't like war and all that comes with it, don't go to war. You can expect any war, seriously, any significant conflict to include massacre [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_Solution] all by your own units. The only way to prevent this is to not go to war.
Also, WWI and WWII were the first true Wehrmacht [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war] were a no less honorable than the allies. Of course Churchill considered gassing German cities in retaliation[/footnote] but because it was a desperate enough war to implement terror weapons.
I find it conspicuous that the use of atomic bombs is the complaint listed here, rather than, say, the Dresden [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo], it was a three-stage affair, in which the first wave would drop phosphor bombs and start the blaze. The second wave would use standard iron bombs which would reduce the streets to rubble, and immobilize the fire-responders. The third wave[footnote]and consecutive waves, because by then in the war, we were pissed[/footnote] would resume dropping phosphor until the rising air waves were so great that the bombers were getting pushed to 80,000 feet. In the meantime, the winds at the surface would be over a hundred miles-per-hour, blowing towards the blaze like a giant tornado. Every creature including every human child (and every chunk of building and piece of landscape) would get sucked into the inferno. Yes,the atomic bombs were impressive in that one bomb could produce a whopper of a bang. But we didn't need one bomb. America had the might, the industry, and if necessary, the population, and we were all too eager to drop as many as it would take, even if it were half a ton of TNT for every man, woman, child and kitten on Japan. (Did I mention we were, by then, really tired of the war?)
As for remorse for killing a gazillion people, Kalashnikov sleeps soundly every night, knowing he engineered one awesome assault rifle for his motherland. Sure, we are awed by the terror we wreak. We are saddened that circumstances drive us to such desperate measures such as razing cities to ash. Truman didn't sleep well as he contemplated whether or not to use this terrible secret weapon. Nixon wasn't exactly thrilled with resorting to carpet bombing Vietnam [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Arc_Light] in violation of conscience and UN Rules of Engagement. But old guys get the big pensions and the fancy hats because they're the ones who have to make these tough decisions. As for the rest of us grunts sailors and airmen, we do it out of sheer duty, out of awareness that others depend on us doing what we must do, no matter how grim the task.
But here's the thing: Hiroshima wasn't the dawn of the nuclear age. It was scary, but it was a big, clunky bomb. Rather, the true dawn of the nuclear age was Castle Bravo [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo], in which the hydrogen bomb we tested at Bikini Atoll surpassed our expectations and yielded 15 megatons (1000 times the ones we used to end WWII). It also yielded so much fallout that we had to evacuate the indigenous peoples of the area. It was at that point that we had accomplished what every war philosopher feared we would one day do: We had the technology and potentially even the will to destroy ourselves. As in all of humankind. As in, now the cockroaches get to evolve.
And, you know, despite that, for decades, nuclear bombs have been in the hands of low-ranking officers, whether Americans, or Pakastanis or Indians or Israelis or French, It's over fifty years later, and we haven't used a nuke once in hostility. Not once. The nuclear age ended the days of waging war on rage and whimsy. Between nuclear powers, war is calculated and cautious, and negotiations are polite. This is why North Korea doesn't really want a nuke. This is why we won't need to attack Iran for fear they'll nuke Israel. (It's the very last thing a Persian would ever do in history.) I don't imagine that anyone on this blue-green Earth wants to be the one to break the silence. I think plenty are willing to do it in retaliation, for duty, for their country and people. But no one wants to be the first.
Heck, rumors have it that the Soviets might not have retaliated if the US struck first.[footnote]We know pretty certainly the Soviets had no first-strike ambitions.[/footnote] They were afraid we would, the US being crazy cowboys and all. But on the contingency that we decided to nuke them completely off the map, they might have let us live, since someone has to perpetuate the species. Of course, we could never ever know that.
So I, for one, have hope for my species. I think some of us get it, that war is Hell on Earth, a thing we don't wish on our worst enemies, if we can at all help it. We just need to get the rest of us informed.
238U[footnote]sharing is caring. [http://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/][/footnote]
I don't really get why you are finding it necessary to insult me. As I've said, this thread isn't meant to be about what the people then thought, it's meant to be about us, now. I would hope that nobody these days would consider bombing civilians prosaic.senordesol said:
I know war is hell. But the difference between the firebombings and the nukes is that if you took part in the dropping of little boy or fat man, you would be instantly responsible for the deaths of a couple of hundred thousand men women and children. This thread was never meant to be about the people back in the government. It was meant to be about whether you as an individual think you could live with it. I'm aware, considering the original aim that the thread has been horribly de-railed, but there you have it.Uriel-238 said:
I know that nobody here is changing any minds on the subject of whether it was right or wrong, and people probably a hell of a lot smarter than any one of us have debated the legality of the attacks and the necessity of them. Everyone has already come to this conversation with the conclusion in their heads. All I originally wanted to know was how somebody could do it without feeling guilt. I can understand justifying and rationalising it, but I do not understand how even if you did that, you wouldn't feel guilty for ending up to 200k lives in an instant. I feel guilty if I accidentally step on a snail.
A lot of "but this side did this!" talk going along in thread. Both sides committed atrocities, both direct and indirect (Axis may have done more on the direct part, but I'm not gonna be particular). We have to understand that WWII was a very different time, Truman and those he ordered had a duty: end the war without sacrificing anymore American/Allied lives.
Japan quickly surrendering was best in the long run even if we ignore the number of lives saved. If Russia had invaded Hokkaido, we possibly would have a North and South Japan dilemma on our hands. Does that make the nukes right? It depends if you think the ends justify the means.
Japan quickly surrendering was best in the long run even if we ignore the number of lives saved. If Russia had invaded Hokkaido, we possibly would have a North and South Japan dilemma on our hands. Does that make the nukes right? It depends if you think the ends justify the means.