Guilt and the Murder of Innocents.

[senordesol]

So it's the motive of the killers that's the deciding factor of whether the murder of civilians is "terrorism" or not?

Sure. Though circumstances play a role. It was already acknowledged and declared that the US was at war with Japan. Both sides were fighting to achieve an end, and the US was just more effective at achieving its end. One seeking to cripple the other's economy or infrastructure came as a surprise to neither.

Because that's how wars are fought.

If that disturbs you, do not be alarmed. It just means you're sane, and are beginning to appreciate why war should always be a last resort in international conflicts.

This argument has a suspicious resemblance to the old "might makes right" argument. Anyway, I agree with your last paragraph.

In war, might makes.

Has nothing to do with right.

'Right' does not decide the outcome of battle. Purity of your cause does not stop bullets. A bomb will tear apart a sinner as quickly as a saint.

Might makes. Weakness breaks.

 

[Agayek]

I can see no difference between what you are describing here and terrorism.

Wanna know why? Because real war is terrorism, committed by both sides and on a massive scale. You continually batter your opponent until they're either unwilling or (if needed) unable to fight, using any and every means available.

It's a terrible thing, and not something anyone should ever want to see.

I decry people wanting to go to war just as I do the people who hijack planes and fly into buildings.

Also, I would like to point out that attacks like those orchestrated by Al Qaeda are subtly different, insofar as our actual opponents are hiding among other nations. The only reason the "war on terror" is substantially different from a normal war is because there really isn't a visible infrastructure or even opponent like there is in a conventional war. I really can't think of a good analogy for it, to be perfectly honest. It's almost like going to war with France, but when you get there everyone speaks German (and you're allied with Germany), so who the fuck do you shoot?

That's a bad analogy, but I hope it gets the point across.

 

[Deathmageddon]

Thomas Edison who once said "The United States, and other advanced nations, will someday be able to produce instruments of death so terrible the world will be in abject terror of itself and its ability to end civilization...." Plus, it was a different time, when men weren't afraid of the moral consequences of killing someone who attacked them first.

 

[Jegsimmons]

well considering the japanese back in WW2 were BAT SHIT FUCKING INSANE, id find it hard to be too guilty over that myself.

after all, they got half the island of saipan to commit suicide instead of accepting american aid, they used suicide bombers, civilian suicide bombers, and the things they did to prisoner back then made the NAZIs look like school children picking on the kid with a booger on his shirt.

if we did a land invasion of Japan the death toll would be so massive japan would probably still be recovering. it would be in the millions of millions.

 

[Hattingston]

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.

I don't have a source, but I thought they did. Something along the lines of "We have a super weapon, it can destroy cities, surrender now or we will use it on your cities". Then, before the second bombing, they said "We have another one. Surrender now?" and still, no go.

As for guilt for killing civilians, it was basically who would you rather see die, American soldiers or Japanese civilians. It's likely they would favor those who they thought of as protecting their rights and freedoms, over the enemies who supported a government who they perceived as trying to destroy them. So, they would be letting heroes die, to save the life of the enemy. Those on the bomb squad were also likely specially selected, people who wouldn't have second thoughts about it.

 

[loc978]

There's one thing I haven't seen mentioned in my skimming of four pages here... and that's dehumanizing propaganda. It's quite easy for us in the information age to look back and judge these poor dupes for following questionable orders, but we live in a culture where information is easy to come by from many and varied international sources.
Back then, they had local broadcast TV, radio, and the newspaper. Culture was insulated by physical distance as well as language... and those in control of media could tell people what to think and have a reasonable expectation of being obeyed. This goes equally for the US and Japan of the day. Can't say how many times I've seen WWII propaganda posters and thought 'damn, people actually bought that? That's fucked up.'
...but they didn't have the advantage of looking back on the war without having been through it first, nor did they have access to the range of accurate historical records we have now.

So, to answer...

If given the order, and the circumstances were exactly the same, could you have done it?
Would you have felt it was needed? Justified?

Me as I exist now could not be a product of that time. So, had I been born in the 1920s and been a career military aviator... yes, yes and yes, because I would have been a brainwashed bigot.

Would you feel guilty? Could you live with it?

Long after the fact, I would either have felt guilty as hell when certain things came to light... or I would have remained a brainwashed bigot. Not really sure.
Kind of a tossup there, since I've never been a brainwashed bigot. Known quite a few, though. My paternal grandfather hated the Japanese until the day he died thanks to the Bataan death march... but I really couldn't say what kind of person I would have been in his shoes.

 

[DrOswald]

One of the biggest points used to argue against the use of the bomb was the huge amount of civilian casualties. I find a problem with that argument in that it devalues the life of a soldier compared to a civilian. Is the death of 2 million soldiers better than a tenth that amount in civilians? And in a total war situation civilians don't stay civilians for long. If the Americans kill 300,000 Japanese soldiers in typical battle, 300,000 civilians will be conscripted to fight in their place. If the Japanese killed the 300,000, the USA would just draft another 300,000 civilians to take their place. Remember, everyone was a civilian until they became part of a military, and in most cases in WW2 joining the military was either involuntary or the decision was made under such huge social pressures that it was almost impossible not to join. You would be hated and ostracized if you managed to avoid imprisonment. Can we really claim the a person picked at random to hold a gun is less valuable as a person than the one who was not?

 

[senordesol]

One of the biggest points used to argue against the use of the bomb was the huge amount of civilian casualties. I find a problem with that argument in that it devalues the life of a soldier compared to a civilian. Is the death of 2 million soldiers better than a tenth that amount in civilians? And in a total war situation civilians don't stay civilians for long. If the Americans kill 300,000 Japanese soldiers in typical battle, 300,000 civilians will be conscripted to fight in their place. If the Japanese killed the 300,000, the USA would just draft another 300,000 civilians to take their place. Remember, everyone was a civilian until they became part of a military, and in most cases in WW2 joining the military was either involuntary or the decision was made under such huge social pressures that it was almost impossible not to join. You would be hated and ostracized if you managed to avoid imprisonment. Can we really claim the a person picked at random to hold a gun is less valuable as a person than the one who was not?

I think Heath Ledger's Joker said it best "When a truck full of soldiers die; nobody panics because it's all part of the plan."

 

[ElPatron]

but the idea that civilians are legitimate targets because killing them disrupts the war seems like nothing more than a weak excuse.

You are misunderstanding my point. Civilian casualties are an unfortunate collateral damage, you can't avoid them while you're trying to cripple factories.

Also, you missed the point of my whole post. I strongly disagreed with the person I was quoting so I twisted his argument to perform some "victim blaming" - rhetoric. That doesn't mean my opinion is literally reflected by that post.

Finally, terrorist attacks are supposed to "terrorize". Do you know why the UN can't get to a consensus on what a "terrorist" is? Because ANY definition they could have come up with included several members of the UN. The nuclear attacks saved countless lives (both civilian and military) by making people scared of the war they were fighting ("terrorizing", if you will).

I don't believe it was a necessary evil, I believe it was the definitive showcase of what the Japanese should expect if they wanted to keep fighting to the last man.

snip

This isn't about hindsight. No matter whether it helped or not, I could never, ever bring myself to kill a couple of hundred thousand unrelated people. The end does not justify the means to me. The point of this thread wasn't even supposed to be about whether or not it was justified, it was supposed to be about how each individual would have felt about it.

The ends justify the means. An invasion on mainland Japan would not be feasible at all.

Plus, they thought it would prevent the Japanese from finishing their nuclear program an attack the Allies. In hindsight it was not necessary, but if you were fighting a war would you want to see your major cities flattened by nukes?

Whether it was justified or not MATTERS. Unless you're a psychopath, justifying death is the easiest way to be able to kill. Specially if you are saving your own country from fighting a bloody war and being bombed with nukes.

 

[Arakasi]

People will do anything under the boot of authority. Just look at the Milton experiments and the Stanford prison experiment.

They'll do anything from torture to acts of terrorism like this.

 

[FluffyWelshCake]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing short of war crimes. The Japanese were isolated, their two allies (Germany and Italy) had been beaten. Hitler was dead, the Japanese were losing. But instead of losing American soldiers who knew the risks going in they instead decided to slaughter thousands upon thousands of innocent people who never asked to be part of a war. Is anybody so naive to think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were full of soldiers? No, they were full of civilians.

 

[senordesol]

People will do anything under the boot of authority. Just look at the Milton experiments and the Stanford prison experiment.

They'll do anything from torture to acts of terrorism like this.

Do you believe military authoritarianism was the deciding factor here?

It certainly can't be ignored, of course, but it certainly seems to be watering the issue down a bit.

 

[senordesol]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing short of war crimes. The Japanese were isolated, their two allies (Germany and Italy) had been beaten. Hitler was dead, the Japanese were losing. But instead of losing American soldiers who knew the risks going in they instead decided to slaughter thousands upon thousands of innocent people who never asked to be part of a war. Is anybody so naive to think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were full of soldiers? No, they were full of civilians.

Just because they 'knew the risks' does not mean we throw them away.

 

[Arakasi]

People will do anything under the boot of authority. Just look at the Milton experiments and the Stanford prison experiment.

They'll do anything from torture to acts of terrorism like this.

Do you believe military authoritarianism was the deciding factor here?

It certainly can't be ignored, of course, but it certainly seems to be watering the issue down a bit.

I'm refering specifically to the people on the plane.
They probably had quite the idea what they were doing was wrong on a massive scale, but they also knew that they 'had' to do it due to being told to.
And that's basically what the Milton experiment showed, that people will do things that they see morally reprehensable under the guidance of an authority figure.

 

[FluffyWelshCake]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing short of war crimes. The Japanese were isolated, their two allies (Germany and Italy) had been beaten. Hitler was dead, the Japanese were losing. But instead of losing American soldiers who knew the risks going in they instead decided to slaughter thousands upon thousands of innocent people who never asked to be part of a war. Is anybody so naive to think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were full of soldiers? No, they were full of civilians.

Just because they 'knew the risks' does not mean we throw them away.

That's the difference between soldiers and civilians. Soldiers fight and risk their lives so that civilians don't have to, at least that's the idea. So slaughtering that number of innocents when you have several powerful military forces ready to go is completely unforgivable.

 

[senordesol]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing short of war crimes. The Japanese were isolated, their two allies (Germany and Italy) had been beaten. Hitler was dead, the Japanese were losing. But instead of losing American soldiers who knew the risks going in they instead decided to slaughter thousands upon thousands of innocent people who never asked to be part of a war. Is anybody so naive to think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were full of soldiers? No, they were full of civilians.

Just because they 'knew the risks' does not mean we throw them away.

That's the difference between soldiers and civilians. Soldiers fight and risk their lives so that civilians don't have to, at least that's the idea. So slaughtering that number of innocents when you have several powerful military forces ready to go is completely unforgivable.

They fight so YOUR civilians don't have to. The enemy's civilians be damned.

 

[senordesol]

People will do anything under the boot of authority. Just look at the Milton experiments and the Stanford prison experiment.

They'll do anything from torture to acts of terrorism like this.

Do you believe military authoritarianism was the deciding factor here?

It certainly can't be ignored, of course, but it certainly seems to be watering the issue down a bit.

I'm refering specifically to the people on the plane.
They probably had quite the idea what they were doing was wrong on a massive scale, but they also knew that they 'had' to do it due to being told to.
And that's basically what the Milton experiment showed, that people will do things that they see morally reprehensable under the guidance of an authority figure.

I wouldn't be too sure about that. They have probably lost a lot of friends and family to the war already, knowing that they wouldn't lose any more (potentially) if they dropped this bomb (not to mention they might get to go home in one piece) will make up for a lot of trepidation.

 

[FluffyWelshCake]

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nothing short of war crimes. The Japanese were isolated, their two allies (Germany and Italy) had been beaten. Hitler was dead, the Japanese were losing. But instead of losing American soldiers who knew the risks going in they instead decided to slaughter thousands upon thousands of innocent people who never asked to be part of a war. Is anybody so naive to think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were full of soldiers? No, they were full of civilians.

Just because they 'knew the risks' does not mean we throw them away.

That's the difference between soldiers and civilians. Soldiers fight and risk their lives so that civilians don't have to, at least that's the idea. So slaughtering that number of innocents when you have several powerful military forces ready to go is completely unforgivable.

They fight so YOUR civilians don't have to. The enemy's civilians be damned.

So you're willing to murder thousands of innocents because they're different than you? War is much more complicated that them vs. us. That kind of attitude is horribly outdated and is a cause of racism and bigotry.

 

[Demongeneral109]

You both really miss the point.
If the atomic bombs were not dropped, then the Allied powers would have been forced to initiate Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan.

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.

I think your missing the fact that no, they could not have negotiated a peace, the Japanese considered the humiliation of surrender worse than death at the time(hence Kamikaze planes) if they were willing to sacrifice needed men and materials to do as much damage as possible to America's unstoppable war machine, what makes you think that anything other than proof that they and their culture could be entirely wiped out by weapons with unprecedented destructive power would make them stop?Japan knew they were going to lose, but surrender just wasn't an option