Poll: Morality in Nuclear War

[Chamale]

Let's just clear something up, it was well known that Japan had been seeking a peaceful end to the war long before any bombs were dropped.
Nukes were used against a country that was actively trying to surrender, they were dropped on a largely civillian target.
The only thing the nuke did was ensure that Japan would be governed by the allied commanders, this was the only real sticking point of any peace treaty as they wanteed to maintain their system of government.

[citation needed]

While the Japanese did try to negotiate with the Soviets to achieve better peace terms, that was before the Soviets betrayed their treaty with Japan.

Even after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Emperor Hirohiro didn't surrender. His science advisors told him that the first bomb was likely the only one that the Americans had. After the second bomb was dropped, the Americans claimed to have more bombs ready. At this point, the Emperor decided to surrender. However, Hirohito's military advisors correctly called the Americans' bluff, and tried to overthrow Hirohito so they wouldn't have to surrender.

http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.hiroshima.html
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Uk/uk.politics.misc/2006-05/msg04181.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0803-26.htm
http://www.enotes.com/genocide-encyclopedia/hiroshima
http://wgordon.web.wesleyan.edu/papers/hiroshim.htm

Thank you for the references. My point remains that the Japanese military wouldn't have been willing to surrender, even though your sources prove that the civilian population wanted the war to end. Civilians were primary victims of the Japanese military. 4-6 million Chinese civilians, 3-4 million Indonesians, 1-2 million Vietnamese, and 1 million Japanese civilians were killed directly or indirectly by Japanese soldiers. The atomic bomb's victims didn't deserve to die because of the Japanese military's murders, but I think it was the only way to stop the deaths in occupied territories.

It's hard for me to morally make the case for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, because the tragic deaths of 250,000 civilians can't be justified on their own. However, I still believe that the Japanese military couldn't have been made to surrender without the Hiroshima bomb. The Nagasaki bomb may have been necessary to force a Japanese surrender, or it may not have been. After the Americans threatened to drop the bomb on August 9th, backing down would have certainly been impossible.

The Japanese military had lost the war by the time the Battle of Midway was over. Some would even say they lost the war the day they attacked Pearl Harbour, bringing the superior American army into World War 2. However, the military refused to surrender long after it would have been sensible to do so. Atomic bomb or not, many civilians would have to suffer to end the war.

Hopefully, a similar situation never develops in North Korea. Kim Jong-il has killed many North Korean civilians already, but North Korea's military power makes an armed intervention impossible. If North Korea ever attacks another nation, many civilians will inevitably killed. If North Korea attacks South Korea and the war could be ended with a nuclear strike, such an attack might be justified. The most important question is the number of civilians who would be killed by the different options that could be taken.

 

[sansamour14]

i would prefer to launch any warheads when their incoming warheads are detected cuz then were sure we didnt pull the trigger that killed everyone and since no country can win we can at least know whose fault it was

 

[Ascarus]

Well lets think on the one time that a nuke has been used first. It was used to end the war quickly and keep lives from being lost. If it hadn't been dropped, many more people would've likely died.

I guess you could use that as the standard.

for the record, that would be two times ...

on topic, how many people who had nothing to do with the war died as a result of that? either immediately after the weapon detonated or by suffering for decades after. and at the risk of being completely outrageous, by defining it among the sheer number of innocents killed as a result of it's usage, nuclear war is the most extreme form of terrorism. which is one of the reasons (if not the primary reason) the bombs were dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki in the first place -- to completely demoralize and debilitate a nation in two catastrophic attacks.

and keep in mind, that was "only" an atomic bomb. that pales in comparison with the destructive force of today's weapons.

i cannot imagine a situation where preemptive use of a nuclear weapon would be morally right. the fallout (for lack of a better phrase) would be unimaginable.