Guilt and the Murder of Innocents.

[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.

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 That kind of attitude is horribly outdated and is a cause of racism and bigotry.

Bigotry has nothing to do with it. War has been declared. They are the enemy. Their cause is my submission or destruction. My cause is theirs.

War is exactly as simple as 'us' versus 'them', clouding the issue invites defeat and unnecessary loss of life. Our duty is to our own in war. Everyone else is an ally, a neutral, or an enemy. The Japanese populace are governed by the Japanese government, which makes them part of the enemy war machine.

They put the bullets in the enemy's guns, food in his belly, boots on his feet, gas in his tanks, a replenishing pool of potential recruits, and -not least of which- something to fight for.

Take all that away, and victory is assured and if you can do it in a way that assures YOUR soldiers get to go home to their wives and mothers; so much the better.

 

[BaronUberstein]

First we need context: Bombing civilian targets was common practice at the time, it was seen as a method of demoralizing the enemy and reducing support for the regime. Just look at what we did in Dresden and Hamburg.

Also, were I in that same situation, I would have dropped the bomb. 166,000 of the enemy is less than ~3,000,000 of my own countrymen. (We didn't mass produce purple hearts in anticipation of nothing...) Guilt? I honestly can't say if I would feel it, I've never dropped a bomb on a city before, though I think I wouldn't feel regret.

The nuclear bomb droppings were a terrible evil, but a necessary one.

 

[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.

Bigotry has nothing to do with it. War has been declared. They are the enemy. Their cause is my submission or destruction. My cause is theirs.

War is exactly as simple as 'us' versus 'them', clouding the issue invites defeat and unnecessary loss of life. Our duty is to our own in war. Everyone else is an ally, a neutral, or an enemy. The Japanese populace are governed by the Japanese government, which makes them part of the enemy war machine.

They put the bullets in the enemy's guns, food in his belly, boots on his feet, gas in his tanks, a replenishing pool of potential recruits, and -not least of which- something to fight for.

Take all that away, and victory is assured and if you can do it in a way that assures YOUR soldiers get to go home to their wives and mothers; so much the better.

But we have to cloud the issue, or we'll end up with morally bankrupt killing machines slaughtering anybody different to them. Look at a child that has been born destined to die a slow and painful death because of radiation poisoning, and tell me that he is the enemy.

 

[Sande45]

If someone should feel guilty, it's the people who made the call not the ones who executed the mission. They just basically pressed a button on command. If they hadn't, someone else would have. I completely understand someone feeling guilty after something like this but it's ultimately not their fault.

 

[Typhusoid]

Bigotry has nothing to do with it. War has been declared. They are the enemy. Their cause is my submission or destruction. My cause is theirs.

War is exactly as simple as 'us' versus 'them', clouding the issue invites defeat and unnecessary loss of life. Our duty is to our own in war. Everyone else is an ally, a neutral, or an enemy. The Japanese populace are governed by the Japanese government, which makes them part of the enemy war machine.

They put the bullets in the enemy's guns, food in his belly, boots on his feet, gas in his tanks, a replenishing pool of potential recruits, and -not least of which- something to fight for.

Take all that away, and victory is assured and if you can do it in a way that assures YOUR soldiers get to go home to their wives and mothers; so much the better.

No, it can never be that simple. At that time the Japanese government was controlled entirely by the military, the average citizen had no control over the actions of his country. What were they meant to do? Protesting or resisting meant certain imprisonment and execution. Saying that those people are equally morally culpable to the generals who ordered the slaughter of Chinese people in their thousands is absurd.
Two questions. Firstly, on what basis do you value the lives of your/our citizens and soldiers over the enemies? And secondly, if an Islamic extremist terrorist broke into your house and killed your entire family, on what basis would you morally condemn that terrorist? After all, he was simply taking out a part of 'his enemies war machine'.

 

[senordesol]

But we have to cloud the issue, or we'll end up with morally bankrupt killing machines slaughtering anybody different to them. Look at a child that has been born destined to die a slow and painful death because of radiation poisoning, and tell me that he is the enemy.

Check your terminology here. They weren't different insofar as they happened to be another color. They were different in that Japan was out to dominate the Pacific and destroy or subjugate anyone who got in its way.

The kid dying of radiation poisoning is sad, but he only has the Japanese government to blame. They brought war. They got war. And they sure as hell weren't looking out for our children. They could have stopped the killing any time and surrendered. They didn't, so our course was clear and decidedly NOT cloudy: Keep hitting them until they do.

 

[senordesol]

Bigotry has nothing to do with it. War has been declared. They are the enemy. Their cause is my submission or destruction. My cause is theirs.

War is exactly as simple as 'us' versus 'them', clouding the issue invites defeat and unnecessary loss of life. Our duty is to our own in war. Everyone else is an ally, a neutral, or an enemy. The Japanese populace are governed by the Japanese government, which makes them part of the enemy war machine.

They put the bullets in the enemy's guns, food in his belly, boots on his feet, gas in his tanks, a replenishing pool of potential recruits, and -not least of which- something to fight for.

Take all that away, and victory is assured and if you can do it in a way that assures YOUR soldiers get to go home to their wives and mothers; so much the better.

No, it can never be that simple. At that time the Japanese government was controlled entirely by the military, the average citizen had no control over the actions of his country. What were they meant to do? Protesting or resisting meant certain imprisonment and execution. Saying that those people are equally morally culpable to the generals who ordered the slaughter of Chinese people in their thousands is absurd.
Two questions. Firstly, on what basis do you value the lives of your/our citizens and soldiers over the enemies? And secondly, if an Islamic extremist terrorist broke into your house and killed your entire family, on what basis would you morally condemn that terrorist? After all, he was simply taking out a part of 'his enemies war machine'.

That's a huge heaping helping of 'Not our problem'. We were at war with JAPAN.

Question 1: (In order of life value) American Civilians, Allied Civilians, American Soldiers, Allied Soldiers, Enemy Civilians, Enemy Soldiers.

Question 2: None. Since we already seek his death (I'm assuming that's the kind you mean), it is in his best interest to destroy the enemy war machine. The only problem is that particular tactic is -on the whole- ineffectual.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't be fucking pissed about it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't make it my life's work to track the fucker down and kill his ass. But that's war.

 

[thePyro_13]

Dropping a bomb doesn't feel like killing people, it's just pushing a button. I don't know if I could do it, but if I could, I probably wouldn't have been able to live with myself.

 

[Typhusoid]

Bigotry has nothing to do with it. War has been declared. They are the enemy. Their cause is my submission or destruction. My cause is theirs.

War is exactly as simple as 'us' versus 'them', clouding the issue invites defeat and unnecessary loss of life. Our duty is to our own in war. Everyone else is an ally, a neutral, or an enemy. The Japanese populace are governed by the Japanese government, which makes them part of the enemy war machine.

They put the bullets in the enemy's guns, food in his belly, boots on his feet, gas in his tanks, a replenishing pool of potential recruits, and -not least of which- something to fight for.

Take all that away, and victory is assured and if you can do it in a way that assures YOUR soldiers get to go home to their wives and mothers; so much the better.

No, it can never be that simple. At that time the Japanese government was controlled entirely by the military, the average citizen had no control over the actions of his country. What were they meant to do? Protesting or resisting meant certain imprisonment and execution. Saying that those people are equally morally culpable to the generals who ordered the slaughter of Chinese people in their thousands is absurd.
Two questions. Firstly, on what basis do you value the lives of your/our citizens and soldiers over the enemies? And secondly, if an Islamic extremist terrorist broke into your house and killed your entire family, on what basis would you morally condemn that terrorist? After all, he was simply taking out a part of 'his enemies war machine'.

That's a huge heaping helping of 'Not our problem'. We were at war with JAPAN.

Question 1: (In order of life value) American Civilians, Allied Civilians, American Soldiers, Allied Soldiers, Enemy Civilians, Enemy Soldiers.

Question 2: None. Since we already seek his death (I'm assuming that's the kind you mean), it is in his best interest to destroy the enemy war machine. The only problem is that particular tactic is -on the whole- ineffectual.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't be fucking pissed about it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't make it my life's work to track the fucker down and kill his ass. But that's war.

I didn't ask which you valued more, I could infer that from what you said. I asked WHY. What is about a person being American that makes a person more valuable than if they are Japanese. Think about the world we'd live in if everyone thought as you do. There'd be no Geneva Convention, we'd see American soldiers raping and killing Afghani/Iraqi citizens as much as they pleased and there'd be no human rights for anyone whatever (since you seem to see individuals as nothing more than appendages of a particular government. If I'm just a part of my government's 'machine' then why can't my government hurt me, imprison me or even kill me whenever it pleases?
Also, another question. Is this 'us vs them' mentality confined to nation-states? Say I'm a muslim. Am I morally justified in killing any Christian I meet in the name of Jihad? Some food for thought (I hope).

 

[GistoftheFist]

Wow, I didn't expect to get quoted four or five times on one quote. Notice nowhere in my post in this thread did I say how POWs were treated means innocent people deserve it. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. When Pearl Harbor was attacked, did that justify their families having to lose their fathers? There, how does that feel.

And to the person who made a pathetic attempt to threaten me over the internet:

 

[SuperBelkar]

It's their people or my people. I choose mine. No guilt required.

 

[Macgyvercas]

snip

That's one man, out of 12.

Another said "I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it, and have it work as perfectly as it did .... I sleep clearly every night." In March 2005, he stated, "If you give me the same circumstances, I'd do it again."

Jacob Beser, who took part in both bombings said "No I feel no sorrow or remorse for whatever small role I played. That I should is crazy."

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.

You did say none of them. Not meaning to nitpick, but there were definitely some of the crew members who felt remorse, hell, even apologised to the Japanese people after the war. Of course some would be jingoistic asses about it, but such is the way of the human race. As I said, when you have the level of disconnect from the suffering you cause these men did, it's easy to mentally erase the guilt of your acts.

As for bombing cities... it was a case of revenge, in a way. By that point, America had been at war with Japan for over three and a half years. Hundreds of thousands of American troops had come home dead or wounded thanks to the Japanese forces in the Pacific. As horrible as it is to say it, I doubt the American military or government particularly cared about the welfare of Japanese civilians by that point; they just wanted to end it without a messy, lengthy and casualty-heavy invasion of Japan. Hiroshima was designed to shock the Japanese emperor into surrendering. When that didn't work, the Americans also destroyed Nagasaki to get their point across. And it worked. Destroying a city has far more of a psychological impact than any military base.

If you recall, the Japanese had a very unyielding mindset in war. If they saw the destruction of an atomic bomb visited upon a military base, that would not deter them from continuing to fight. Hell, the firebombing of Tokyo didn't either. Using the atomic bombs was horrific, but it did bring about the unthinkable; a Japanese surrender, which is all the Americans really wanted by that point.

Because three days is plenty of time to consider surrender.

Not to the Japanese, at least not at that point in time. Although, frankly, I don't think the Americans were willing to give them that much of a grace period. I'd be amazed if the military even tried to consider the situation from a Japanese standpoint. All they saw was that they'd wiped a Japanese city off the map, and the Japanese had just kept on fighting. I'm not justifying their actions; I'm simply explaining why the Americans did what they did.

Also, a full scale invasion of Japan would have cost far more lives than the bombs claimed.

 

[Darknacht]

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

Except that they wouldn't accept the allied peace deal because it included unconditional surrender.

 

[senordesol]

I didn't ask which you valued more, I could infer that from what you said. I asked WHY. What is about a person being American that makes a person more valuable than if they are Japanese. Think about the world we'd live in if everyone thought as you do. There'd be no Geneva Convention, we'd see American soldiers raping and killing Afghani/Iraqi citizens as much as they pleased and there'd be no human rights for anyone whatever (since you seem to see individuals as nothing more than appendages of a particular government. If I'm just a part of my government's 'machine' then why can't my government hurt me, imprison me or even kill me whenever it pleases?
Also, another question. Is this 'us vs them' mentality confined to nation-states? Say I'm a muslim. Am I morally justified in killing any Christian I meet in the name of Jihad? Some food for thought (I hope).

Misunderstood, sorry.

Americans are most valuable because they are my countrymen. Allies are more valuable because they are assisting my country. The enemy is the least valuable because he is part of the effort to destroy my country (and likely my allies). Hope that's clear enough.

We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, so I'd obviously have an ethical issue with our soldiers raping and pillaging their way through those countries. And even if we were, such actions don't really serve a strategic purpose.

Regarding being a part of your government's 'machine' and its ability or lack thereof to hurt you, imprison you, etc for no damn reason -- would it surprise you to know that many governments do just that? I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm saying you are beholden to whomever's in charge until they are not in charge anymore. Just so, it is none of our concern how another government chooses to conduct itself regarding its own citizens (at least so far as a war effort is concerned, human rights watch being a separate issue). Its policies regarding its citizens have no bearing on us, all that matters is that it uses its citizens in the war against us.

Regarding Christians and Muslims: Christianity is not engaged in a war against islam as Christianity has no central leadership it is beholden to (except the man upstairs, of course). Now I am aware that there are certain sections of Islam whom have effectively declared war on Christianity. As such, any Christian who wishes to protect what he holds dear on this Earth is well justified in eliminating all those who would seek to harm him and all those who would knowingly assist toward that end.

For further clarification, all of this is only valid for enemies who retain the will to fight. It would have been morally reprehensible to drop a nuke on our enemy after they have surrendered.

 

[DrOswald]

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.

"They knew the risks going in" is a pathetic argument. Both sides were using conscript armies. These were people who did not choose to be in the military. These were people who were made to fight because their nations demanded it. They were not given the option to be civilians or soldiers. This was true on both sides. They were civilians who were given a gun and made to fight and made to die. Not because they wanted to be there or they chose this life but because their name was drawn in a lottery. A person does not stop being an innocent victim of war because you forced him to pick up a gun.

I find it disturbing how readily you and others have dismissed the lives of conscripted soldiers as worth significantly less than a civilian life.

 

[Typhusoid]

I didn't ask which you valued more, I could infer that from what you said. I asked WHY. What is about a person being American that makes a person more valuable than if they are Japanese. Think about the world we'd live in if everyone thought as you do. There'd be no Geneva Convention, we'd see American soldiers raping and killing Afghani/Iraqi citizens as much as they pleased and there'd be no human rights for anyone whatever (since you seem to see individuals as nothing more than appendages of a particular government. If I'm just a part of my government's 'machine' then why can't my government hurt me, imprison me or even kill me whenever it pleases?
Also, another question. Is this 'us vs them' mentality confined to nation-states? Say I'm a muslim. Am I morally justified in killing any Christian I meet in the name of Jihad? Some food for thought (I hope).

Misunderstood, sorry.

Americans are most valuable because they are my countrymen. Allies are more valuable because they are assisting my country. The enemy is the least valuable because he is part of the effort to destroy my country (and likely my allies). Hope that's clear enough.

We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, so I'd obviously have an ethical issue with our soldiers raping and pillaging their way through those countries. And even if we were, such actions don't really serve a strategic purpose.

Regarding being a part of your government's 'machine' and its ability or lack thereof to hurt you, imprison you, etc for no damn reason -- would it surprise you to know that many governments do just that? I'm not saying that's a good thing, I'm saying you are beholden to whomever's in charge until they are not in charge anymore. Just so, it is none of our concern how another government chooses to conduct itself regarding its own citizens (at least so far as a war effort is concerned, human rights watch being a separate issue). Its policies regarding its citizens have no bearing on us, all that matters is that it uses its citizens in the war against us.

Regarding Christians and Muslims: Christianity is not engaged in a war against islam as Christianity has no central leadership it is beholden to (except the man upstairs, of course). Now I am aware that there are certain sections of Islam whom have effectively declared war on Christianity. As such, any Christian who wishes to protect what he holds dear on this Earth is well justified in eliminating all those who would seek to harm him and all those who would knowingly assist toward that end.

For further clarification, all of this is only valid for enemies who retain the will to fight. It would have been morally reprehensible to drop a nuke on our enemy after they have surrendered.

A few points. About the raping/pillaging in the middle east: sorry, I should have been more clear. I was refering to the times when they were at war with America, when those citizens were members of an enemy nature.
On the question of government oppresion, you are right in a sense but what I was really asking was if you see this as in any way wrong and if so why given how you seem to view citizens in relation to their country
The thing about the Muslim, you are ofcourse right to point out there is no unified formal leadership there. To be more specific lets say we are talking about a Shi'a Muslim (Shi'a does have a formal leader, the Ayatollah) If the Ayatollah were to 'declare war' on Christianity (or any religious group), would a Muslim acting as I described be acting fairly? Basically I'm saying is you conception of 'us vs them', 'cogs in the war machine' limited to nationality, or is it equally applicable to other characteristics such as religion or race.
More questions: for clarity, I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. Hypothetically, my country declares war on, lets say, France. But I protest and argue against the decision as loudly as possible on moral grounds. After the declaration of war I quit my job at a munitions factory because I refuse to be a part of such an evil war. Am I legitimate target for the French military?
You seem to believe that the identity and actions of any man or woman are inextricably linked to the actions of their counrty, but how can this be? I have no control over my country of birth. I refuse to simply be a 'cog in the machine'. I am an individual who can agree or disagree with anything as I see fit. I believe we have a moral duty to do right by whoever we can on an individual basis. If a government commits an evil act, you take out the government. Not their janitor.

 

[floppylobster]

This can go on and on for a while. There are still many Japanese deny there was any wrong-doing on their part in mainland China. There are even more who are not even aware of it, or even the atomic bombings. I wrote to Paul Tibbets just before he died and I've also interviewed a Hiroshima bomb survivor who was twelve years old at the time. The one thing I really got from all of that is that we can in no way judge what it was like for them to make the decisions they did in the world they were living in at the time.

 

[Flizzick]

I don't know, to me killing one man face to face would be a lot harder to live with than killing a thousand from a plane a mile in the air. Would I have done it? Only if I was ordered to I guess.

 

[darknessviking]

i saw a documentary about it some time ago,they interviewed a couple of the people in the plane.
and it was disgusting.
one of them was cherrily proud and boasted "lol yeah and then we went and drank beer and celebrated when we got home". so no,they didnt show remorse.

 

[senordesol]

A few points. About the raping/pillaging in the middle east: sorry, I should have been more clear. I was refering to the times when they were at war with America, when those citizens were members of an enemy nature.

I already addressed that point. Such actions serve no strategic purpose. That means they are irrelevant to the war effort and would be, in a word, wrong.

On the question of government oppresion, you are right in a sense but what I was really asking was if you see this as in any way wrong and if so why given how you seem to view citizens in relation to their country

Of course I see it as wrong. I love being American because I don't have to put up with that crap, and I wish liberty from oppression on everyone. But that is irrelevant to the conversation. I am discussing a war effort in the strictest sense. How the enemy government treats its own citizens is not a factor in the battle plans (except for, perhaps, a propaganda effort). Be they a democracy or a monarchy, the only difference it makes to the commanding Generals is how many people they have to kill/convince in order to stop the fighting.

The thing about the Muslim, you are of course right to point out there is no unified formal leadership there. To be more specific lets say we are talking about a Shi'a Muslim (Shi'a does have a formal leader, the Ayatollah) If the Ayatollah were to 'declare war' on Christianity (or any religious group), would a Muslim acting as I described be acting fairly? Basically I'm saying is you conception of 'us vs them', 'cogs in the war machine' limited to nationality, or is it equally applicable to other characteristics such as religion or race.

The Christians have no war machine. They have no ability to field troops, or maintain supplies. There's no fight in them, so there's no reason to fight. Here again, I must stress; continued war is only acceptable (and I am using that word in only the strictest clinical sense) when the enemy you're fighting has the will to fight you.

More questions: for clarity, I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. Hypothetically, my country declares war on, lets say, France. But I protest and argue against the decision as loudly as possible on moral grounds. After the declaration of war I quit my job at a munitions factory because I refuse to be a part of such an evil war. Am I legitimate target for the French military?

So long as you remain a part of the UK, you are.

You seem to believe that the identity and actions of any man or woman are inextricably linked to the actions of their country, but how can this be? I have no control over my country of birth. I refuse to simply be a 'cog in the machine'. I am an individual who can agree or disagree with anything as I see fit. I believe we have a moral duty to do right by whoever we can on an individual basis. If a government commits an evil act, you take out the government. Not their janitor.

You misunderstand. It is not that they are inextricably linked, it's that they are irrelevant. No war machine has the time to take a census of who in your country supports the war and who doesn't. No Admiral's going to say 'make sure the bombs don't hit Typhusoid's house'. They are too busy worrying about their OWN people. Concerning themselves with not hitting you is not going to end the war any faster, they need to defeat their enemy (whoever it is), and bring their OWN boys home alive.