Guilt and the Murder of Innocents.

[Auron225]

I'd refuse - even if it meant my own immediate execution, I couldn't do it.

 

[Dastardly]

And that message could have been sent without bombing two cities. It could have been sent without bombing any. The destruction caused by one of these bombs could easily have been seen without targeting so many civilians. If that didn't work, then sure, bomb one of those targets.

The fact that we had to bomb two kind of works against that logic, doesn't it?

 

[Chairman Miaow]

And that message could have been sent without bombing two cities. It could have been sent without bombing any. The destruction caused by one of these bombs could easily have been seen without targeting so many civilians. If that didn't work, then sure, bomb one of those targets.

The fact that we had to bomb two kind of works against that logic, doesn't it?

Except they didn't have to do that. They bombed the second city before the damage to the first could even begin to be assessed.

 

[Dastardly]

And that message could have been sent without bombing two cities. It could have been sent without bombing any. The destruction caused by one of these bombs could easily have been seen without targeting so many civilians. If that didn't work, then sure, bomb one of those targets.

The fact that we had to bomb two kind of works against that logic, doesn't it?

Except they didn't have to do that. They bombed the second city before the damage to the first could even begin to be assessed.

On one side, you're saying that there was no need to bomb a city. The power of the bomb alone would act as a deterrent. If that's the case, then they should have surrendered immediately after the first bomb landed -- they could clearly see the power of the bomb.

On the other side, you're saying that after measured consideration of the damage done to the city, they'd have surrendered. That would mean it was necessary to bomb a major city, and it also means that the bomb itself was not scary enough to deter them -- not if they still needed some time to carefully consider just how devastating it was.

So which is it? You're moving the bar all over the place, here.

 

[CAMDAWG]

I'm of the opinion that the actual pilots were kinda desensitized over what happened. After all, they were told to drop something somewhere, not that much of a stretch from what they usually do. I think to better gauge the guilt from the bombs, you should look at the physicists behind them. The manhattan project had pretty much the best minds available on it, and just about every single one of them condemned anything to do with nuclear weapons from then on. The guilt lies in the creators, perhaps because they were not in a field that's renowned for killing masses of civilians, perhaps because they were the actual cause for the thing, the pilots simply facilitated it.

 

[Anomynous 167]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

At least the Japanese took in prisoners of war, and took care of them. Let's see how the Japs treated their POWs.
1.They give them jobs (working on indo-china railways)
2. For those captured in Indonesia, they were permitted to give their capturers regular beatings. And by beatings, I mean that the ANZACs beat the stuffing out of the japs during the POW camp games of cricket.

Meanwhile the average Japanese POW was executed immediately after surrendering to an American. There was a reason most of them fought to the death, and it had nothing to do with bushido or "HONOUR!"

 

[Chairman Miaow]

And that message could have been sent without bombing two cities. It could have been sent without bombing any. The destruction caused by one of these bombs could easily have been seen without targeting so many civilians. If that didn't work, then sure, bomb one of those targets.

The fact that we had to bomb two kind of works against that logic, doesn't it?

Except they didn't have to do that. They bombed the second city before the damage to the first could even begin to be assessed.

On one side, you're saying that there was no need to bomb a city. The power of the bomb alone would act as a deterrent. If that's the case, then they should have surrendered immediately after the first bomb landed -- they could clearly see the power of the bomb.

On the other side, you're saying that after measured consideration of the damage done to the city, they'd have surrendered. That would mean it was necessary to bomb a major city, and it also means that the bomb itself was not scary enough to deter them -- not if they still needed some time to carefully consider just how devastating it was.

So which is it? You're moving the bar all over the place, here.

No, I'm not. Even if they had not been assessing the damage, they couldn't have organised a decision to make a surrender in the time between the bombings.

 

[manic_depressive13]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

At least the Japanese took in prisoners of war, and took care of them. Let's see how the Japs treated their POWs.
1.They give them jobs (working on indo-china railways)
2. For those captured in Indonesia, they were permitted to give their capturers regular beatings. And by beatings, I mean that the ANZACs beat the stuffing out of the japs during the POW camp games of cricket.

Meanwhile the average Japanese POW was executed immediately after surrendering to an American. There was a reason most of them fought to the death, and it had nothing to do with bushido or "HONOUR!"

Oh come on. It wasn't all honest work and picnics. They also vivisected people without any sort of anaesthetic.

The soldiers and governments on both sides were cunts. I don't think whether or not the pilots felt sad about dropping those bombs is really relevant at this stage. I think a more pertinent question is why don't they seem to feel bad about bombing the shit out of civilians in the middle east?

 

[senordesol]

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.

Not meant to be an insult, but an observation.

And if you are asking would we do it 'these days', you're clouding the issue a bit. There's no industrialized nation we have been fighting with for four long, bloody years who appears completely unified to its war effort against us.

But even if there were, and dropping The Bomb would END THE WAR. You bet your ass I'd do it, saves more lives in the long run that way.

 

[senordesol]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

At least the Japanese took in prisoners of war, and took care of them. Let's see how the Japs treated their POWs.
1.They give them jobs (working on indo-china railways)
2. For those captured in Indonesia, they were permitted to give their capturers regular beatings. And by beatings, I mean that the ANZACs beat the stuffing out of the japs during the POW camp games of cricket.

Meanwhile the average Japanese POW was executed immediately after surrendering to an American. There was a reason most of them fought to the death, and it had nothing to do with bushido or "HONOUR!"

The Japanese were kind to their prisoners? Are you really going with that?

Bataan Death March.

Need I say more? (because I can)

 

[DrOswald]

There were more options then bomb civilians or an invasion of the home islands. The allies could have negotiated peace, before the bombing Japan knew it had lost the war and was trying to keep fighting long enough that they could get a decent peace deal.

You are going to need to provide a reference for that claim. Because as far as I know everyone ever disagrees with you. I have read a lot about the Japanese in World War 2, and it seems highly unlikely this is true. I may be wrong, but I am going to need to see some real evidence.

In any case, if this is true then how can we blame the Americans for resorting to desperate measures? The Japanese were clearly beat. They knew defeat was inevitable, but they still refused to surrender instead insisting on being slaughtered into submission. Lets then look at what the Americans knew at the time about the Japanese: they never surrendered, they would kill themselves rather than give up, if they did lose they would kill themselves to avoid dishonor. all signs said the Japanese would never surrender due to military loss.

The Americans had hoped that this sort of fanaticism didn't go all the way to the top, but according to you that is exactly the bluff the Japanese were making. "We will never surrender, you will have to slaughter us." The Japanese knew that the last thing the Americans wanted to do was invade them because the casualties would be horrific on both sides. So they lied to us to back us into a corner in the hope that they could hold onto some power. Given the two horrible options before them (the nukes or the invasion) the Americans chose the lesser of two horrible evils (as they judged according to what they knew at the time, with the British in agreement of the necessity of the bomb and having given their consent), gave the Japanese one last chance to surrender (basically saying "We are done with this war. We will annihilate you unless you surrender right now."), and then started slaughtering the Japanese with our nuclear bombs.

If it was true that the Japanese were holding out for a better deal, as you claim, then they were gambling with a gun pointed at their head. I find it hard to blame the Americans for believing the Japanese when they claimed to be ready to fight to the death when they had proven time and time again that was exactly what they would do.

That is if what you claim is true, which I doubt.

 

[Leadfinger]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

 

[senordesol]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

 

[Leadfinger]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

So, in your previous post you weren't trying to say that since some folks in the Japanese gov't and military mistreated American POWS, it was OK to incinerate Japanese babies? My bad.

In your latest post, are you trying to say that since the U.S. was at war with Japan, it was OK for the U.S. to target Japanese civilians?

 

[Savryc]

That's Total War for you, everyone's a valid target. Both sides bombed the shit out of each other relentlessly. Why should these American pilots feel so much worse about it? Because they dropped the biggest one? Jog on.

 

[The Funslinger]

I'm pretty darn sure that the log of the rear gunner on the Enola Gay had the single entry of "My God; what have we done?" Sounds pretty remorseful to me. In fact, I think the entire crew spent the rest of their lives coming to terms with what they'd enacted.

As for doing it myself? Well, it's easy to distance yourself from the horrors of the blast when you're just flying over it. Given the circumstances, I think, if given the order, I'd go through with it, but probably never get over it.

Finally, on the civilian target thing; this was exactly what the Americans needed. Not the destruction of military bases. The message they wanted to send was "We now have bombs capable of destroying entire cities. How many must die before you concede defeat?". Atomic bombing was, of course, a horrific course of action. But arguably, it was preferable to Operation Downfall, which was estimated to have caused upwards of 3 million American casualties and something like 30-50% of the Japanese population in the ensuing insurgency had it been enacted.

This is pretty much any point I'd want to make, and I'll also add: The Hiroshima Bombings are basically the Milgram experiment taken to a peak. People are capable of pretty grim things when they're under orders from authority figures. From there, it's easy to shrug off blame.

 

[senordesol]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

So, in your previous post you weren't trying to say that since some folks in the Japanese gov't and military mistreated American POWS, it was OK to incinerate Japanese babies? My bad.

In your latest post, are you trying to say that since the U.S. was at war with Japan, it was OK for the U.S. to target Japanese civilians?

You seem to be saying the same thing with either choice, so let me make it clear.

In war, you fight. You hurt the enemy where it hurts the most, and you keep hurting him until he's had enough. Japan was the enemy. We had to hurt Japan.

If incinerating several hundred thousand of your enemy's people is what it takes to get him to give up the fight. That is what you do. You do not pretend there's any morality to it, you do not pretend you are doing battle on some noble 'field of honor'. BOTH sides are going to do nasty shit to win. That is the nature of war; you end the fight, end of story.

 

[Leadfinger]

That's Total War for you, everyone's a valid target. Both sides bombed the shit out of each other relentlessly. Why should these American pilots feel so much worse about it? Because they dropped the biggest one? Jog on.

So you're cool with American civilians being killed by dudes in airplanes?

 

[Leadfinger]

People sure love to point out how horrible it was that America bombed Japan, nobody ever seems to remember just how brutal the Japanese were to POWs. Anyone else notice this?

How were the women, children, and babies who were incinerated in the atom bomb attacks responsible for the treatment of U.S. POWs?

What does 'responsibility' have to do with anything?

They are part of the Japanese populace, and we were at war with Japan. What part about that is so hard to get? Japan was an incredibly nasty belligerent, so it fell within our interests to end the fighting as quickly and soundly as possible.

So, in your previous post you weren't trying to say that since some folks in the Japanese gov't and military mistreated American POWS, it was OK to incinerate Japanese babies? My bad.

In your latest post, are you trying to say that since the U.S. was at war with Japan, it was OK for the U.S. to target Japanese civilians?

You seem to be saying the same thing with either choice, so let me make it clear.

In war, you fight. You hurt the enemy where it hurts the most, and you keep hurting him until he's had enough. Japan was the enemy. We had to hurt Japan.

If incinerating several hundred thousand of your enemy's people is what it takes to get him to give up the fight. That is what you do. You do not pretend there's any morality to it, you do not pretend you are doing battle on some noble 'field of honor'. BOTH sides are going to do nasty shit to win. That is the nature of war; you end the fight, end of story.

It's just that most people call the deliberate murder of civilians for political ends "terrorism."