Guilt and the Murder of Innocents.

[Typhusoid]

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.

I think this right here says it all. Rape and murder are't wrong because the victims are civilians. They aren't wrong because they cause suffering. They aren't wrong because of common human compassion, or human rights. They're wrong because they're 'strategically irrelevant'. Bullshit. You tell me that your enemy must have 'will to fight'. What does this even mean? If I'm an infant child who happens to be a member of a country which is at war, how in the name of all fuck do I have 'the will to fight'? Its utter crap to say that you can judge everything on the actions of a government regardless of the will of the civilian population.
Don't respond to this. You answered me politely and I thank you for it, but you seem to be amongst the most morally reprehensible people I've met. Let me leave you with one last question, one last hypothetical. The year is 1941. The place, the Soviet Union. There is a family of peasants, who happen to be Jewish. The did not vote for their government, they simply try to eek out what little living they can manage. One day an armoured car pulls up to their farmhouse an a member of the SS steps out. He has been told by others living nearby that the family are Jews . He shoots the entire family; a man, a woman and three children. Was that SS man a vile murderer, or was he elminating a legitimate target; 5 members of the enemies 'war machine'? If you have no way within your moral system to condemn such a man, I think you have a serious need to reevaluate your world view.

 

[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.

I think this right here says it all. Rape and murder are't wrong because the victims are civilians. They aren't wrong because they cause suffering. They aren't wrong because of common human compassion, or human rights. They're wrong because they're 'strategically irrelevant'. Bullshit. You tell me that your enemy must have 'will to fight'. What does this even mean? If I'm an infant child who happens to be a member of a country which is at war, how in the name of all fuck do I have 'the will to fight'? Its utter crap to say that you can judge everything on the actions of a government regardless of the will of the civilian population.
Don't respond to this. You answered me politely and I thank you for it, but you seem to be amongst the most morally reprehensible people I've met. Let me leave you with one last question, one last hypothetical. The year is 1941. The place, the Soviet Union. There is a family of peasants, who happen to be Jewish. The did not vote for their government, they simply try to eek out what little living they can manage. One day an armoured car pulls up to their farmhouse an a member of the SS steps out. He has been told by others living nearby that the family are Jews . He shoots the entire family; a man, a woman and three children. Was that SS man a vile murderer, or was he elminating a legitimate target; 5 members of the enemies 'war machine'? If you have no way within your moral system to condemn such a man, I think you have a serious need to reevaluate your world view.

I'll respond to whatever the hell I want, thank you very much. And I'll respond to this because you are misconstruing my point.

Murder is wrong. Yet we expect -nay- demand soldiers kill complete strangers for the sake of war.

Trespassing is wrong. Yet armies take ground from their enemies for the sake of war.

Things we consider wrong in everyday life are commonplace, expected, and demanded in war. So that is why Strategic Validity is a big goddamn factor.

Your example at the end proves that you have missed my point entirely. The Jews HAD no war machine; no ability to fight, no ability to surrender, NONE. So if he was killing a Jewish family, solely because they were Jewish that would be wrong.

You further misconstrue my point when you say I am 'judging' anybody based on the actions of their government. No judgment has occurred whatsoever. The simple, ugly, horrifying fact is: They. Do. Not. Matter.

The only thing that matter is whether the enemy war machine is still ticking, and what it will take to rectify that state of affairs. That is what I mean by 'will to fight'. If you captured an enemy village, there would be no need to hurt anyone in it because they are no longer part of the war machine.

 

[Vicarious Reality]

EDIT: Part of the criteria for target selection was "The target was larger than 3 miles (4.8 km) in diameter and was an important target in a large urban area." so they intentionally chose a target which would cause a great number of civilian casualties.

WHAT

That is a crime

 

[Da Orky Man]

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 know the US government sent a message asking for a surrender after the Hiroshima bombing? And they didn't, so Nagasaki got bombed as well. Then they surrendered.
Hell, the Japanese didn't believe them when the US told them about the atom bomb before any bombings. Japan had ample opportunities to surrender beforehand, but chose not to, the whole honour before surrender thing still being rather prevalent.

 

[Typhusoid]

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.

I think this right here says it all. Rape and murder are't wrong because the victims are civilians. They aren't wrong because they cause suffering. They aren't wrong because of common human compassion, or human rights. They're wrong because they're 'strategically irrelevant'. Bullshit. You tell me that your enemy must have 'will to fight'. What does this even mean? If I'm an infant child who happens to be a member of a country which is at war, how in the name of all fuck do I have 'the will to fight'? Its utter crap to say that you can judge everything on the actions of a government regardless of the will of the civilian population.
Don't respond to this. You answered me politely and I thank you for it, but you seem to be amongst the most morally reprehensible people I've met. Let me leave you with one last question, one last hypothetical. The year is 1941. The place, the Soviet Union. There is a family of peasants, who happen to be Jewish. The did not vote for their government, they simply try to eek out what little living they can manage. One day an armoured car pulls up to their farmhouse an a member of the SS steps out. He has been told by others living nearby that the family are Jews . He shoots the entire family; a man, a woman and three children. Was that SS man a vile murderer, or was he elminating a legitimate target; 5 members of the enemies 'war machine'? If you have no way within your moral system to condemn such a man, I think you have a serious need to reevaluate your world view.

I'll respond to whatever the hell I want, thank you very much. And I'll respond to this because you are misconstruing my point.

Murder is wrong. Yet we expect -nay- demand soldiers kill complete strangers for the sake of war.

Trespassing is wrong. Yet armies take ground from their enemies for the sake of war.

Things we consider wrong in everyday life are commonplace, expected, and demanded in war.

Your example at the end proves that you have missed my point entirely. The Jews HAD no war machine; no ability to fight, no ability to surrender, NONE. So if he was killing a Jewish family, solely because they were Jewish that would be wrong.

You further misconstrue my point when you say I am 'judging' anybody based on the actions of their government. No judgment has occurred whatsoever. The simple, ugly, horrifying fact is: They. Do. Not. Matter.

The only thing that matter is whether the enemy war machine is still ticking, and what it will take to rectify that state of affairs. That is what I mean by 'will to fight'. If you captured an enemy village, there would be no need to hurt anyone in it because they are no longer part of the war machine.

No, it most certainly is not the only thing that matters. What matters is the collective moral output if a given action. If all that matters to you is the defeat of your enemy you will inevitably be led to commit monstrous acts. You tell me murder is wrong. How is killing an enemy non-combatant not murder? Simply on value of being a citizen, apparently. Tell me, what must one do to no longer be part of a country's 'war machine'? You told me I am still a part of it as long as I am 'a part of the UK.' So what I am I meant to do, emigrate? Stop paying taxes? If I stop paying I'll be imprisoned for sure. And many countries in the past have prohibited emigration in times of total war. So then I'm faced with a complete Sophie's choice. I rebel against my own government and get imprisoned/killed, or I get killed by my enemy for being a 'part of the war machine'. In what fucked up world would that be moral?
If you're going to respond, please answer my prior hypothetical about what you'd do concerning a baby or infant. Are they legitimate targets too. I'm sure they are, right. After all, they could grow up and become - god forbid - florists.

 

[senordesol]

No, it most certainly is not the only thing that matters. What matters is the collective moral output if a given action. If all that matters to you is the defeat of your enemy you will inevitably be led to commit monstrous acts. You tell me murder is wrong. 1. How is killing an enemy non-combatant not murder? Simply on value of being a citizen, apparently. Tell me, what must one do to no longer be part of a country's 'war machine'? 2. You told me I am still a part of it as long as I am 'a part of the UK.' So what I am I meant to do, emigrate? Stop paying taxes? If I stop paying I'll be imprisoned for sure. And many countries in the past have prohibited emigration in times of total war. So then I'm faced with a complete Sophie's choice. I rebel against my own government and get imprisoned/killed, or I get killed by my enemy for being a 'part of the war machine'. In what fucked up world would that be moral?
If you're going to respond, please answer my prior hypothetical about what you'd do concerning a 3. baby or infant. Are they legitimate targets too. I'm sure they are, right. After all, they could grow up and become - god forbid - florists.

1. When it will save the lives of your own troops. (and ONLY then)

2. Do whatever you can to get out, collaborate with the invading forces, hide out in the hills if you have to. The forces at work are much bigger than you and certainly don't care about you. Yeah, it sucks. There are no good options. That's why war is terrible.

3. Which one was that? The only one I remember was the Rad Poison one (which I already answered)

You seem to be overly concerned with 'collective moral output' in wartime. I'm sorry, but 'collective moral output' doesn't win battles. 'Collective moral output' doesn't bring anyone's dad home. You do what is necessary to win or you are prepared to lose. End of story.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

It probably also has something to do with the scale of the event. Those bombings were such epic events and the number of victims that huge, that the human brain can never fully grasp it.

You can sympathize with the suffering of a family. Maybe a few. But 150'000 dead peole, 2 completly destroyed cities and probably years of sorrow?
You can barley imagine it.

 

[Platypus540]

EDIT: Part of the criteria for target selection was "The target was larger than 3 miles (4.8 km) in diameter and was an important target in a large urban area." so they intentionally chose a target which would cause a great number of civilian casualties. I cannot understand why they didn't target exclusively military bases, the message of power would have been understood regardless.

First of all, the Japanese government (and many people) were insanely nationalistic and prideful at that time. Bombing only military targets frankly just doesn't make the same statement of "Surrender now or we'll level your entire damn country." That's the reason they targeted cities. Plus at this point lots of the military and military industry was based in major cities anyway.

As for why the pilots weren't massively guilty, WWII was total and unrestricted warfare. Bombing civilian targets wasn't exactly unusual for either side. I don't think the pilots from the firebombing of Tokyo were hugely guilt-ridden, and that raid killed 100,000+ people.

Me, however, in a modern war and knowing what a nuke can do, I don't think I could do it.

 

[Chimichanga]

The people who disagree with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are blissfully ignorant of the nature of war. They are the privileged children of a previous generation of flower children who protested against war and thus never came to know the threat of eradication by an enemy zealously obsessed with their demise.

Judging by your posts you are all likewise judging this scenario from the comfort of your homes; in a peaceful, non-hostile environment; having never been asked to make a sacrifice or to know and experience true suffering. My guess is that, like myself, you have never known the threatening prospect of being drafted - of being dragged out of all that cushy modern convenience and shipped to some godless jungle-island in the pacific to fight complete psychos who have been hiding in a patch of swamp or up in the trees for days on end just for the sole chance of stabbing you to death with bayonet fixed to an outdated rifle. After the fighting, and you move into the civilian areas, they all decide to desperately charge you with knives, spears, and cheap explosives (if not jumping off cliffs or committing ritual suicide).

Saying you survive, by all means I can imagine you would all be quite scared-shitless and prejudiced towards the Japanese at that point. If you then had the deciding choice of whether to then storm the enemy homeland and experience that all again, but exponentially worse, or dropping an experimental weapon on them that could end it all within the week, would you really choose the former option?

Of course, you morally-superior intellectuals speaking from behind the comfort and safety of computer screens would always make the reasonable, rational and politically correct decision - of course. Surely, isn't everything just easier when pondered over half a century later in retrospect while enjoying the comforts of the modern era?

Given the context, I would do it and probably feel justified afterwards.


TL;DR: This thread has the pungent odor of naivety, anti-American angst, Weeaboo-ism, and indifference to context.

I am aware though that my charged words and incredibly non-PC opinion warrants flaming, though.

 

[subtlefuge]

The Japanese concept of racial supremacy was catching on faster than it even did in Germany. There's no other way to fight back at those ideas than an act of total dominance. It disproved the idea that Japan was destined to control Asia almost immediately.

It was an atrocity, and there's no way I could have done it. In a twisted way though, I'm glad that other people don't have my reservations.

Also, if we hadn't realized how destructive and horrible nuclear weapons were, who knows how the 1960s would have played out. Pure speculation, but still...

 

[Tim Willard]

If given the order, and the circumstances were exactly the same, could you have done it?

Absolutely.

BUT: I worked in NBC Warfare at the end of the Cold War. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was like two drunks brawling in an alley compared to the battleplans then, and I would have done my job back then.

Would you have felt it was needed?

Not my decision. If it wasn't an illegal order, if the confirmations went through, if it was that time, whether or not it was needed would not be my concern.

Whether or not I hit the target correctly would be.

Justified?

Again: Not my concern. As long as it was strak down the line, justification are for those who want to feel good about what they did, not for me.

Would you feel guilty?

If I did it, it meant that everything was already flying. Everything was in the air, closer targets had already been hit, and the people NATO was formed to protect were being turned to radioactive dust. Guilt would had nothing to do with it.

I wouldn't live for another hour. But it wasn't the point.

If I was on the Enola Gay? Absolutely. Better I do this than the war kill millions more, devastate Japan far far far worse than two atomic hits would do.

I wouldn't feel guilty.

But I wouldn't brag about it either.

Could you live with it?

I wouldn't have to.

IF I did survive? Then yes.

The Enola Gay criteria? Absolutely.

Would I wake up every night screaming? I'd like to say so.

EDIT: Part of the criteria for target selection was "The target was larger than 3 miles (4.8 km) in diameter and was an important target in a large urban area." so they intentionally chose a target which would cause a great number of civilian casualties. I cannot understand why they didn't target exclusively military bases, the message of power would have been understood regardless.

I can. And no, it wouldn't have.

This was about showing not only the ruling powers that the war was over, but showing the Japanese people (and some rather thick headed people in power that insisted that Japan could still win, or wanted to go down with their hands locked around the US's throat) that NOTHING could protect them from this.

Target selection for nuclear weapon is VERY clear.

It was meant to show the ruling body that it was OVER. There was no way to justify fighting any longer. That the US was ready to take this to the hilt.

That the Allies could kill every living thing in Japan and there wasn't JACK that the Japanese people or government could do about it.

In war you break the enemies ability and will to fight.

Their ability to do anything more than last minute attrition had already been proven, and everyone knew it. The Japanese government KNEW they couldn't win, but still had armed the populace, dug in everywhere, and were ready to force the Allies to take it foot by bloody foot.

The Japanese people were ready to help. (I had a book of survivor stories from Hiroshima, a required reading for my old job, that the first part talked about training to kill Allied soldiers. From the point of view of a 13 year old girl. Her last ditch plan, once she had fired off her 22 bullets, was to blow up one last medic with a grenade because she knew that American weakness would lure a medic to her.) Imagine the horror stories you hear about civilian involvement in other wars. That would have happened. Again.

A military target strike would have been acceptable losses to the Japanese people. That's just the price of doing business.

Showing the population that we'd moved from standard conventional bombing into a whole new realm of weaponry and it was time for them to get their leaders to understand that it was over was a very valid tactic.

Those two bombs broke the Japanese people's will to fight, in general.

So would I have felt guilty?

Not one damn bit.

EDIT: But I'm a monster. So there's that. Don't worry, I'm perfectly aware of that fact. But I watched the films taken right after the hits, the films of testings, read and watched survivor interviews that occurred right afterwards. I don't view nuclear weapons as anything but a terrible solution to a terrible situation that will have terrible repercussions. The launching or utilization of a nuclear weapon is not something that ANYONE with the slightest bit of sanity wants to do. It's a horrible thing to be faced with, and knowing that you might be asked to kill thousands of people is a terrible thing. But I was trained to do it.

And I would have.

So I'm a monster. I volunteered to be transformed from a teenager who wrote really really bad poetry into something that could use NBC weapons without flinching. I volunteered to be driven insane because it was an insane time (MAD). I can live with that.

 

[Nicha11]

I would certainly have dropped the bomb, whether I was aware of its potential or not.

Would I regret that such action had to be taken? Of course, the taking of human life is never something that should be celebrated, for that demeans it.

If the bombs hadn't been dropped then its quite likely that Japan would have had to be invaded, more people would have died but the outcome would have remained the same.

Nuclear bombs saved lives, and have continued to save lives every since their inception, even though they pose one of the greatest risks to mankind itself.

 

[uhddh]

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?

Not just to POWs.

Anyone recall the 'Rape of Nanking'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

The Japanese soldiers were complete dicks.

 

[Anomynous 167]

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.

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 only reason the Japanese soldiers refused to surrender was the fact that when they did surrender, they were killed. So they had to fight to the death, otherwise they would be killed.

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!"

You're forgetting about the experimentation performed on the POWs, the death marches, and all that fun stuff being a POW in Japan had in store for you. They had it as bad as (and in some cases worse than) the prisoners in German concentration camps.

American POW treatment wasn't sunshine and roses obviously, but at least it didn't include you being cut open while conscious and without anaesthetic so they could see how you work.

I didn't forget about them, I just refused to mention them. The point is that the quality of life in the POW camps varied on a case by case basis.

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

What Dark thingy said, plus.
1. They could of negotiated a peace, just not with the Americans.
2. It is down-right near impossible to try and declare your surrender to the people that are trying to BLOW YOU OUT OF THE SKY while you are flying a plane. What with all that noise, and the language barriers, and the high-speeds. Maybe that's why they (the Kamikazes) crashed? They were trying to get out of the cock-pit and wave the white-flag, and then the planes went out of control because they put their hands off the steering wheel.
3.

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.

Technically the Americans started the war between America and Japan, when they launched an oil embargo on the Japs. They tried to surrender for better terms.

 

[BringBackBuck]

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

I think it is more reasonable to take the life of a soldier than a civilian.

Not because DrOswald has inherently more value as a human being on tuesday as a civilian than DrOswald on thursday two days after he is conscripted.

It's because if I was ever given a choice between sacrificing my own life to save the life of my children I would do it in a heartbeat. I think just about any father would, and I think that is pretty common across all cultures. Ask a batallion of troops whether they would rather have a bomb dropped on them, or on their families, i think you would get the same answer from any soldiers from any country in the world.

That is nothing to do with my views on dropping the bomb (shitty thing to do, but probably necessary) and whether or not i could do it, I just thought you raised an interesting point about the inherent value of one human life over another and thought it should be addressed.

 

[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.

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

I'm not cool with any of it. Doesn't change that fact it happened, don't you think it's a tad hypocritical to bag out on the yanks when every single power involved in the war killed civilians en masse? How can I hate the Americans for Hiroshima and Nagasaki when my country levelled Dresden? How can I sympathise with the Japanese when they committed atrocities on an equal scope? It's Total War, everyone was involved in the war effort so everyone is a target, that's the harsh realities of war I'm afraid.

It's just that almost none of the civilians who were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had ever committed atrocities against anyone. Indeed, may of the victims were young children. It bothers me that you can't sympathize.

Why? Why does it bother you so much that I accept that civilians die in global conflicts? Accepting isn't the same as liking or supporting. It doesn't matter if they specifically didn't commit any atrocities. They made tanks, bullets, bombs, planes, rifles, machine guns etc etc. That made them a target, it made every single civilian in both the Allied and Axis countries a target. It isn't nice, nor fair, but it happened and if another war of global proportions is set into motion it will happen again. War is Hell, bad things happen. Trying to drum up sympathy for the long dead wont change that.

 

[senordesol]

Technically the Americans started the war between America and Japan, when they launched an oil embargo on the Japs. They tried to surrender for better terms.

And we did that because why? For shits and giggles? Or could it have anything to do with Japan's aggressive Imperial expansion into China/French Indochina? We did not have a duty to supply their campaign.

So no, we didn't start shit. The Japanese were pillaging their way across the Pacific, then attacked us when we wouldn't play ball.

We were not interested in 'terms' after that point. They had lost their right to 'terms'. The only thing we were interested in was a full and unconditional surrender. Anything apart from that would have been a tacit endorsement of their campaigns.

 

[DrOswald]

The only reason the Japanese soldiers refused to surrender was the fact that when they did surrender, they were killed. So they had to fight to the death, otherwise they would be killed.

Fear of death was probably the biggest factor of not surrendering by the Japanese, along with fear of torture and mutilation in POW camps, though the likely hood of being killed in the act of surrender was exaggerated by the Japanese leadership and the state of American POW camps a lie. In fact, the American POW camps were in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

This is all true but irrelevant to my point. The reason may have been different in retrospect, but the fact remains that the Japanese rarely surrendered and often fought to the last man. The Allies knew this and therefore believed the Japanese when they said they would fight to the last man.

In reality, the Japanese were just about ready to surrender but the Allies had no way of knowing. I looked it up, and it seems they were in fact trying to hold out for a better treaty, but kept on telling everyone that they would fight to the last man.

The Japanese were unwilling to accept surrender under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration and the Allies believed that any surrender they had a chance of accepting would not have required complete disarmament, a term that no Allied leader would allow as it would risk another large scale war. These were men who had been through 2 world wars at this point. They would not risk a third.

The point of all this being that the Allies did try diplomacy before the bomb or invasion and Japan refused. We can hardly blame the American leadership of the time for believing them.

 

[DrOswald]

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

I think it is more reasonable to take the life of a soldier than a civilian.

Not because DrOswald has inherently more value as a human being on tuesday as a civilian than DrOswald on thursday two days after he is conscripted.

It's because if I was ever given a choice between sacrificing my own life to save the life of my children I would do it in a heartbeat. I think just about any father would, and I think that is pretty common across all cultures. Ask a batallion of troops whether they would rather have a bomb dropped on them, or on their families, i think you would get the same answer from any soldiers from any country in the world.

That is nothing to do with my views on dropping the bomb (shitty thing to do, but probably necessary) and whether or not i could do it, I just thought you raised an interesting point about the inherent value of one human life over another and thought it should be addressed.

I am glad you are open to discussion. I think these questions are important to discuss, and if you do not mind, I would like to expand on my previous comments and hear what you think of my position.

I actually see your point and agree with it, but I think that I put less weight on that particular point. To me, the distinction between civilian and soldier is an important rule of war. But I have several assumptions about that rule.

My 4 assumptions:

1. Rules of war exist to reduce unnecessary death and suffering. This is their moral justification, and they cease to be morally justifiable when that ceases to be true.

2. Limiting fighting to soldiers prevents greater loss of life and suffering under normal circumstances. This is largely because limiting fighting and killing to soldiers prevents death and suffering because once one army is defeated there is no need to kill the civilians.

3. The life of a soldier is equally as valuable as the life of a civilian.

4. A soldiers death is only acceptable when it prevents a greater loss of life.

In the case of dropping the atomic bomb on the two cities vs traditional invasion there was a massive disparity between casualty estimates. The estimates of invasion said that total casualties for Allied soldiers would run well past 1 million and several times that for the Japanese, many of which would be civilian casualties anyway. The 2 bombs, however, were estimated to cause some 200,000 Japanese civilian casualties, the final actual number being around 300,000 as we did not yet fully understand the effect of radiation.

So the numbers are around 10:1. 10 dead soldiers to prevent 1 dead civilian. And that is on the conservative side and assuming none of the Japanese killed in the traditional invasion would be civilians, which we knew would not be true. At this point you have to consider these numbers from a command perspective, because that is who had to make the decision.

To claim the issue is black and white, that the dropping of the bombs was unquestionably immoral, significantly devalues the life of a soldier down to around one tenth the value of a civilian life and, in my opinion, ignores the moral justification of the rules of war. I simply cannot agree with this, especially in a conscript army situation. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on my reasoning.