Like most, I don't like war and find civilian casualties harder to reconcile than combatant losses. That said, I try to keep some perspective when some challenge decisions made in WWII with civilian casualties being a primary consideration. 

None of us have lived through a war total war like WWII. I think some of our perspective is skewed (from a U.S. perspective) because of the nature of Korea, Vietnam, and our Middle East escapades. Unless you knew somebody that was deployed, life at home essentially went on as normal.

During the height of the Iraq War, the U.S. spent 6% of GDP on the military. During WWII it was well over 40%. People were encouraged to plant victory gardens, women went to work in factories, there was food rationing, and certain materials were strictly controlled for use in military production. Nobody was left unaffected, and the U.S. wasn't even in a war zone. Those that were in a war zone suffered from starvation and severe limitations on housing.

16.1 million served on active duty for the U.S. during WWII. This was 12% of the population. An equivalent mobilization would require an increase from the $1.4M at the height of the Iraq war to 38 million (3 million served at the height of Vietnam). This is the population of California, or the 20 least populated states. That's hard for me to get my head around.

Sadly, consideration for civilians is different in total war than what we tolerate today. It's nasty business. Everything considered, I likely would have dropped them.

That's not considering that the B29 was virtually impervious to Japanese air defenses. It simply flew too high. Also the possibilitiy of a demonstration has been brought up by the scientists developing the nuke. It wouldn't have been carried to be dropped somewhere, but the idea was to invite japanese officials to observe a ground test. One of the reasons this hasn't been done - apart from political power play - was that it might have failed, thereby turning it into a joke.

Last but not least, it's always a good thing to remember the political framework. The Japanese opposed an unconditional surrender because they feared for their emperor. As it turned out the emperor got his immunity anyway. If the allies had granted it beforehand, there would have been no need to drop the bomb. Newer research claims that is had been as much a demostration to the soviets as it had been an effort to end the war.

The soviets were officially excluded from the research right from the get go. That they already had an efficiennt spy network established is a different matter. That's also the reason why Stalin was less than impressed when Truman mentioned the successful test at Potsdam. Stalin's own scientists were already busy recreating the bomb, using the materials gathered by their agents.

(August 6, 2015 at 10:24 am)abaris Wrote: The soviets were officially excluded from the research right from the get go. That they already had an efficiennt spy network established is a different matter. That's also the reason why Stalin was less than impressed when Truman mentioned the successful test at Potsdam. Stalin's own scientists were already busy recreating the bomb, using the materials gathered by their agents.

I haven't fully thought this through, but perhaps those that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did humanity a great service. Considering your point that Stalin was less than impressed, creating craters in the desert may not have been enough to ensure the detente of the Cold War. With the examples in Japan, there was absolutely no misapprehension regarding mutually assured destruction in the event of a nuclear war.

I don't consider this justification for dropping the bombs, just considering an unintended consequence.

As for how we practice war now, perhaps if we don't have the moral certainty of our cause to fuck the civilians in a given conflict, maybe we should stay the fuck out of that conflict ??

(August 6, 2015 at 10:45 am)vorlon13 Wrote: As for how we practice war now, perhaps if we don't have the moral certainty of our cause to fuck the civilians in a given conflict, maybe we should stay the fuck out of that conflict ??

I would prefer no conflict. I think our attempted commitment to minimize civilian impact is in recognition that they are largely not in control and are subject to the whims of their masters, much as we are to ours and their repeated desire to meddle.

It sure leads to a lot of wars and conflicts however in my view. Might be a whole lot less if we did it the old fashioned way, and there might be a whole lot less need for it.

(August 6, 2015 at 10:50 am)Cato Wrote: I would prefer no conflict. I think our attempted commitment to minimize civilian impact is in recognition that they are largely not in control and are subject to the whims of their masters, much as we are to ours and their repeated desire to meddle.

All this talk about precision bombing is mostly propaganda to make the folks at home feel better. If you look at the actual civilian casualties, they're actually higher than they were in WWII. Only taking bomb casualties of course, not the ones being the victims of other atrocities.

Today it may be a little bit better than it was in Korea or Vietnam, where millions of civilians lost their lives. But looking at Iraq body count and considering the overall population of that country, the casualty numbers are horrendous.

(August 6, 2015 at 2:02 am)Minimalist Wrote: As Chuck said, by 1945 the Japanese were totally defenseless.  General Curtis Lemay began repeated low-level, nighttime, incendiary raids in March 1945.  The Japanese had no night fighters to oppose the B-29s and losses were light even though the B-29s were stripped of most of their guns. 

Had we wanted to burn Hiroshima and Nagasaki we could have done so with ease.  Which frankly makes it looks like they were being saved for the sacrifice.  I don't know that it was our finest moment.

Most people don't realize that the deadliest bombing in history was not either of the atomic bombings, but the firebombing of Tokyo in March of 1945, when something like 16 mi² was burnt to the ground, and around 100,000 Japanese were killed.

There's a racial element to the Pacific War that Americans don't talk about; it makes us squeamish to acknowledge that we regarded the Japanese as vermin to be exterminated -- but that is how it was for many, many Americans, especially those serving in-theater.

As an aside, my son and I are going to the Pacific War museum in Fredericksburg later today.

Well we did fry Dresden for no more purpose, either.

I'm not sure why we should value the lives of 1945 Japanese civilians one whit more than their leaders did.

That is one of those "War 101" things.


Grrrrrr.