(September 13, 2012 at 8:38 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(September 13, 2012 at 7:51 pm)jonb Wrote: Quite, but how would you deal with it justly?

Blame the Japs, or blame the Yanks and Limes?

Blame is a tool, not an end.

Forget about "justly" as some sort of principle. Think of it as an regrettable foible or eccentricity that may be necessary to humor at times, and can be safely ignore at other times. Keep eyes on the ball of acheiving the least bad overall consequence.

I so agree.

(September 13, 2012 at 7:13 pm)Chuck Wrote: 1. If by not killing massive amounts of people, even more massive amount of people will die, then I would say it would be rather immoral to allow the larger amount to die to save the smaller amount

Ah, that's a commonly cited moral dilemma. One might say you're right. One might say inaction is the best course to avoid any kind of immoral action. Another might say inaction is the least moral course. I don't pretend to be the moral police. My understanding/feeling is that a violent action taken upon uninvolved individuals is immoral. That is as far as my stance goes.

Quote:2. Those implication you mention were man made, and were more importantly made after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so they have no impact on evaluting the morality of the decisions to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

No, no. The implications are not man-made. Radiation exposure happens quite naturally. Now, they may have been unknown, though I do not think that was the case, and therefore had no impact on the decision. In that case, you raise a good point. When I say it is an immoral action, I'm not passing judgment on the men who made the choice. I think that maybe it could have been done differently. It's very rare for there to be only feasible option. I'm saying that it cannot be called moral. I can't elevate dropping a nuclear bomb to such a status. It does not matter to me what the alternatives are. The ends sometimes do not justify the means. Sometimes they do. Sometimes, it is just best to realize that something is shitty.

Quote:The notion that Atomic bombs were "Unconventional" was an invention that came after America discovered we could be on the receiving end. Prior to that we regarded atom bomb as just like normal bombs, only individually big and more convenient to deliver for the same effect. We planned to drop a few as tactical weapons on the Chinese during Korean war, for example.

Yeah, that's kind of a dumb way to look at it, considering the insane long term damage that they do. Not you, of course. I mean for them. Even Einstein knew it was bad juju.

---

(September 13, 2012 at 5:54 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Usually when one talks about the immorality of certain actions, it is discussed with the intent that there was a better solution, objectively or subjectively.

Not necessarily, but traditionally, yes.

Quote:In that case, I'd like to then ask, given your reply, what was the better action then in your mind?

In my mind, which has years of analysis by better minds to back it up, there were a few more desirable courses of action. I'll get to that later, since you asked roughly the same thing again further down.

Quote:The Imperial Japanese asked to surrender with conditions, including that they keep their government, are not tried for war crimes and effect little to no change on Japanese society.

Negotiation could have happened, I think. Then again, it was a "let's get this fucking over" thing, as others have pointed out, so I can see that negotiation would not have been desirable. I should point out that the Japanese probably didn't feel like negotiating with us. It was our failure to appear at an attempted negotiation over the situation in China in 1941 that led to the Pearl Harbor attack, after all. They were blown off like a prom date.

Quote:I can see how that request is intolerable to the Allies, especially given that the Imperial Japanese fought tooth and nail (using suicide bombers) for every strip of land given.

Yes, the war in the Pacific Theater was gruesome, expensive and costly in regard to human life. I understand that.

Quote:Would you allow their conditions to stand? Would you have chosen differently?

No. I would have tried the war criminals. As for their government and society, that's kind of their business. We're still fucking about with governments and societies to no avail.

Quote:I am curious as to what you intend to change, if that was possible.

I think that avoiding an invasion and cutting off Japan completely would have done the trick. I mean setting up shop in China, allowing Russia to set up shop themselves and maintaining already conquered islands in the Pacific, as well as airfields in territories of our allies close by would have kept them in. Then, essentially cut them off from outside help of any kind. Continue targeting only airfields so their air force is crippled. Then, wait it out. Iraq was essentially fucked in a matter of hours during the Gulf War simply by us cutting them off and taking out their air force. The logistics are different and far more expensive, but saying it was either invade or drop two nukes is not entirely accurate.

All of that being said, I realize that I can't change anything. I also realize that the war ended very soon after. That was a silver lining. The bottom line is that, knowing what I know as a person living in the 21st century, I would do anything to avoid dropping a nuclear weapon. Maybe I read too much sci-fi, but nukes are bad news.

ETA: If any of that does not make sense, I'm sorry. I just took meds.

Cinjin

Sorry that idea is what my dad fought against; that one set of people should have the cream for all eternity. I prefer this world where I can loose sometimes.

(September 13, 2012 at 11:26 pm)jonb Wrote: Cinjin

Sorry that idea is what my dad fought against; that one set of people should have the cream for all eternity. I prefer this world where I can loose sometimes.

umm, I'm pretty sure the picture depicts us as the losers. I'm guessing it's creator wanted the point to be that our politicians, bankers and labor unions have destroyed Detroit.

Politics can be more effective than any bomb. Fucked up, isn't it?

(September 13, 2012 at 11:32 pm)Cinjin Wrote: umm, I'm pretty sure the picture depicts us as the losers. I'm guessing it's creator wanted the point to be that our politicians, bankers and labor unions have destroyed Detroit.

Sorry I apologise , I over thought through, and reacted to an implication that was not meant.

This conversation is so misplaced. I'll justify this later, but for the record I agree with CoH's argument. My reasons are more selfish. My grandfather was set to invade, but my mother wasn't born until 1947. Need I say more?

An earlier post to this thread invoked the idea of 'total war'. I don't think the idea of total war has been given proper consideration. Food rationing, metal drives, rubber drives, buy War Bonds here, etc. Our modern understanding of what we call war is idiotic. How many people actually give a shit about the young people that are still getting killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? Only those that are related. I can smell the apathy.

This is the same apathy given in regards to the hundreds of civilians killed by drones in Pakistan and Yemen. Our government calls these poor souls 'collateral damage', but reserves condemnation for the death of our innocent civilians.

To declare a war on terror and then act indignant when we take casualties is fuck all stupid.

I'm inclined to agree with Shell that isolating Japan perhaps might have (with hindsight) been a better idea. But I really don't hold a strong opinion because I recognise my lack of understanding about the pacific during WWII as well as the subsequent Cold War.

I don't know whether this has been mentioned already, but a world where an atomic bomb has been dropped and a world where one hasn't are two very different places (I apologise for any perceived condescension here, I know this is obvious). Had those bombs not been dropped I think we might not fully appreciate how destructive they were. It's one thing to hear that a bomb can level a city, but it's something else to see it in action. How disquieting to think that 100,000 people could be destroyed so utterly in an instant. Perhaps the seriousness that nuclear weapons are treated with, by governments and by people in general, would be diminished had they not been used. I'm not endorsing one side of the argument or the other (and really there's more than two sides anyway as has been mentioned), it's just a thought.

I might not be the most knowlegable about the pacific war, but from my understanding we had already destroyed japans power to make war in the pacific ocean by the time we decided to nuke them. And like other members have said Russia was already in the mix and forcing japans hand. I don't think we needed to nuke or invade japan, just kick their ass till they don't want to fight us which we did.

This may offend people but Pearl Harbor was not justification for Hiroshima. The death count is just not balanced nor the after effects. And if you want to weigh civ casualties it's even more one sided.