The Nuking of Japan

[Anomalocaris]

I'm aware I don't have to. I'm just stating my position in this debate. Regardless of how "necessary" people seem to think it was, I view it as an act of terrorism due to the targets being cities rather than military installations. Indeed, most of the Japanese military were elsewhere, anticipating an invasion.

There is a reason why those nukes are still to this day the only nukes ever launched against a country during a war. It's because we realised how much of a mistake it was to use them. Nukes cannot be controlled; they will destroy much more than is intended, and they leave behind deadly radiation that spreads, killing more and more people who weren't even initial targets.

It was not a mistake to use it in a major war against peer power when one has a monopoly of nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons have come of age in the 1940s. Whether we dropped it or not everyone knows we have it, soon other major powers would have them as well. How often they would be used in later wars is totally unaffected by whether we used it during a historically unique period when we had monopoly of it.

As to why they were never used, the main cause is simply nuclear equipped states have never fought any really serious wars against each other or against non-nuclear equipped states.

It is the understanding that no squeamishness about civilian would be countenanced in the nuclear war that deters nuclear powers from fighting a really serious war against each other.

I think there is high probability nuclear states will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear powers within our life time. Last time when major nuclear powers publically threatened to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states was when Clinton threatened to use nuclear weapons against chemical and biological weapons facilities of non-nuclear states. Last time when nuclear powers probably meant to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that I am aware of was Soviet plan to nuke chinese nuclear facilities a couple of years before China detonated her first bomb.

The only reason nuclear weapon wasn't used on that occassion was because the US thought a having another nuclear power on Russia's doorsteps was better for the US during the cold war than having one less nuclear power in the world, so leaked the plan to China and threatened the Soviets with retaliation if they followed through with it

[jonb]

I'm aware I don't have to. I'm just stating my position in this debate. Regardless of how "necessary" people seem to think it was, I view it as an act of terrorism due to the targets being cities rather than military installations. Indeed, most of the Japanese military were elsewhere, anticipating an invasion.

There is a reason why those nukes are still to this day the only nukes ever launched against a country during a war. It's because we realised how much of a mistake it was to use them. Nukes cannot be controlled; they will destroy much more than is intended, and they leave behind deadly radiation that spreads, killing more and more people who weren't even initial targets.

I find myself with a foot in both camps. My problem is not with the morality it is with expedience. The act is wrong, but in a conflict where the other party hits bellow the belt and there are no judges, umpires, or referees that can stop him what do you do? If the british had not bombed civilians, there would now probably be nobody of jewish or romany extraction in Europe. The german war machine would have been able to hold out longer, and would have been able to place more units at the front so even the bombing of the innocent has some justification.
In this light could I say Truman committed an act of immorality? For me the answer is;- I cannot convict him as I feel I have to take the circumstances into account.
In fact I think any system that convicted without looking a circumstances would of itself be immoral.

[Anomalocaris]

My view is that which minimize the overall badness of the situation is not only not wrong, it is the only really right thing to do.

Dropping the bomb is far more right than not dropping it.

[A Theist]

...but clearly Shell didn't think it did. Isn't it up to her who she gives kudos to?

Yup. Absolutely she does, and I agree with you. But that's not the issue I was raising.
My issue, (...and not just her alone), is the inconsistency of applying standards. If we're going to apply standards that condemns certain kinds of behavior or that condemns the use of certain terms that are demeaning of a whole group or race of people, (as in this case, 'Japs' was used by two different posters...the one condemned, the other, not.), then shouldn't those standards be applied consistently to everyone? (Edit: When I said greneknight deserved the Kudo, I meant the one I gave him.)

On another note, I have to walk back my previous statement just a little bit to say that you did make a post in this thread where I thought your point was a bit weak, more from an emotional point, rather than from a rational one. I understand your objection to nuking Nagasaki and Hiroshima because of the civilian population.
Both of those cities were targeted because of the industrial munitions sites that were there. It was determined that a military invasion of the Japanese mainland would not only prolong the war with that country, but that it would also result in far more casualties. An act of deliberate terrorism tagets civilians. That wasn't the case here.

[Shell B]

I love how it is constantly stated that a "mainland invasion . . . " as if that were the only other option.

I wasn't being inconsistent in applying standards, fuckwit. I told him it made him sound ignorant. That's it. I didn't say, "You can't say that. My standards will not allow it." I did not get angry. I did not attempt to dictate how he speaks. I was telling him that Jap is a racial slur. Period. End of fucking story. You just want something to gripe with me about because I have pointed out your own inconsistency and double standards on numerous occasions. It's okay, though. I know you love blanket statements so are bound to defend the use of racist terms.

[The Grand Nudger]

Plus there was the whole matter of quality of materials available. You saw something similar with the infantry weapons the Japs had available to them. Recovered Type-99 Arisaka rifles and Nambu Type-100 submachine guns prior to and during the earlier stages of the war were of very fine craftsmanship and of high quality. Towards the last two years, however, recovered models were clearly made of inferior materials and of markedly poorer manufacture. Reasons for this are obvious, of course. Their tanks and aircraft weren't fairing any better [in some cases, much worse in fact], and with poorer materials and construction comes a cost in efficiency and performance. Not to mention the loss of so many of their pilots meant their experienced veterans were mostly dead, lost in conflicts where they were more pivotal and needed and ultimately lost, whereas the higher survivability of American aircraft meant we retained and gained better, more experienced pilots throughout the war.

I love WWII aviation.

Rgr that, I mean, if you really compare nuts and bolts the BF109 had nothing going for it except that god-damned potato gun - and the battle hardened pilots behind the ball (even the roll rate which became the hallmark of the machine was actually an engineering mistake that pilots capitalized upon). The FW190 (we're talking European theatre now but who gives a shit, any excuse to talk WW2 aviation is a good one) was a fucking monster, but the 109 had cost them the pilots that would have made the 190 (or the ME262) unstop-able. The same was true of the Zeke. Ah well, hindsight is 20/20. A good airframe can go soup sandwich in a hurry if the logistics behind it go down the shitter, which is what happened with "the Japs" and to some extent, the Germans as well (though in many cases their problem was over-engineering, exorbitant use of resources for a single unit incapable of receiving field repair). The superior protection offered by American airframes (the Spitfire and Typhoons were POS in this regard, comparatively, sorry) allowed our guys to acclimate themselves to a machine that could - in competent hands- outperform its competitors. The materials were consistently "meh"......but they were consistent..and that matters.

[A Theist]

I love how it is constantly stated that a "mainland invasion . . . " as if that were the only other option.

A mainland invasion of Japan would have prolonged the war and would have resulted in a high number of casualties to both the defending Japanese forces and civilians and to the invading Allied forces. That's why it was decided to drop the bombs. What other options were you talking about?

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

[Shell B]

You know, not invading and not dropping bombs. Anything other than that.

[jonb]

You know, not invading and not dropping bombs. Anything other than that.

So what about occupied China, Burma, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, etc?

[Shell B]

What about?