The Nuking of Japan

[Shell B]

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.