Is Nuclear War Wrong?

[Pragmatopian]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7073441.stm

 

In 1995, Gen Tibbets denounced as a "damn big insult" a planned 50th anniversary exhibition of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution that put the bombing in context of the suffering it caused.

 

What an asshole. I bet he liked Fox News: fair and balanced my arse!

 

Was it entirely wrong to drop an atomic bomb? Possibly not. Should it be beyond question? Absolutely not.

[xanuciakurwa]

Yes it's wrong to drop a nuclear bomb. But it may be justified if the alternative is worse. Who knows if the alternative would have been worse although the USA has always said that a ground invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American and allied troops.

 

The aftermath of the atomic bombs in Japan changed the world forever and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on both sides of the iron curtain in the 50 years that followed the war and this all happened because the USA used an atomic weapon.

[VinnieK]

USA has always said that a ground invasion of Japan would have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American and allied troops.

 

Not simply American and allied troops, part of the argument in favour of the atomic bomb has always been that the civilian casualties of an invasion, particularly following long periods of saturation bombing necessary to weaken Japanese defences (as well as casualties from the food shortages and disease that usually follow particularly intense capaigns of conquest) would have been massive.

 

The aftermath of the atomic bombs in Japan changed the world forever and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on both sides of the iron curtain in the 50 years that followed the war and this all happened because the USA used an atomic weapon.

 

This doesn't make any sense. Are you trying to blame the cold war on the use of the atomic bomb? The cold war was more or less an inevitability given Soviet aspirations, position of military strength following the defeat of Germany, and ideological differences between Russia and Western Europe (and indeed much of subjugated Easter Europe that found their voices silenced by soviet oppression.

 

Also the nuclear arms race between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. would in all likelyhood have taken place even had the U.S. not used their bomb - by the end of the second world war all major combatants were aware of the possibilities of a nuclear weapon and were working on its development in one capacity or another (including the Nazis). The sheer potential of the bomb would have ensured the start of a new arms race.

[Bananaman]

Isn't that a case of shooting the messenger? (admittedly with a very nasty delivery)

 

Have you seen the post war interviews that Paul Tibbetts gave?

 

He struck me as a very professional soldier who did what he was ordered to do. He knew what he was carrying(although didn't know the mechanics of the bomb - but that wasn't his job). Asked would he do it again - simply answered YES, anything to save his fellow countryman's lives.

 

Buz Aldrin syndrome now - Bock's Car was the name of the B29 that dropped the second bomb, can anyone name the Captain of the mission.

 

 

 

 

No googling now!

 

 

 

In my opinion Paul Tibbetts opitomizes how the military should work and should never ever be chastised for that.

[Tarroo Ushtey]

There was no justification for the bombing and therefore, yes, it was entirely wrong to drop atomic bombs on Japan. Here's why I believe that to be the case:-

 

* Many Japanese cities were effectively destroyed by the US air raids during the first half of 1945. The Japanese military and it's people were already weak.

 

* The Japanese were willing to surrender for some time before the bombs were dropped. Willing to accept the demands of the Allies (drawn up by the US). However, the US refused Japans request that the emperor (a highly respected figure in Japanese culture) remained as head of the nation. What bitter irony then when after surrender, the US "allowed" the emperor to remain in power.

 

* The US did not want the Soviets to "share" in the spoils of victory. Following the Soviet's declaration of war on Japan, the US was worried the Soviets would demanded joint occupation. Dropping the bomb would also serve as a powerful show of strength, enough they hoped, for the Soviets to get back in their box.

 

* President Truman was concerned about his political future. Ordinary Americans detested the Japanese at this time and in order to get votes, Truman needed to bear in mind the American peoples desire that Japan surrender unconditionally. Also, how better to justify the 2 billion dollars spent on the nuclear project but to show the people in dramatic terms just what their mighty dollar can buy.

 

Tarroo

[Albert Tatlock]

Orders are orders. Don't blame anyone in the forces for doing as he was told. H&S and responsibilty are new concepts in the forces.

 

You get what your defence budget pays for...but can't have it both ways. God forbid - the striking squaddie and the thinking soldier.

[Pragmatopian]

To clarify I'm not calling him an asshole for carrying out his orders, but for considering it inappropriate for us to look back on the event in the context of its effects.

[bluemonday]

An interesting debate with valid points on both sides.

 

The crews who did the bombing were obeying orders - no excuse as was shown at Nurnburg but to my mind there is a difference in that the dropping of a bomb under orders with a military objective in mind differs from the deliberate long term extermination of racial groups by gassing and slow starvation - the Nazi actions.

I would personally not attach any blame to the bomber crews.

They were to my mind honourable men in a time of great turbulence.

 

As for the Japanese, the Rape of Nanking, Chemical experiments in China, their inhuman treatment of prisoners of war and the races they conquered put them on a similar line to the Nazis.

 

Try as much to ignore it, but in war there is an element of vengance.

 

To my mind, it was not a Nuclear war. It was the dropping of two weapons. A slight difference but to my mind a pertinent one.

War is not a nice thing. Bad actions are legion but there was plenty of opportunity for surrender prior to the bombs. For many reasons, this did not happen.

 

Consider if the Nazis or the Japanese had won the race to develop Nuclear weapons

Would they have shown restraint?

 

That innocent civilians, women and children died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a fact but so are the countless civilian deaths on boths sides Allied and Axis due to conventional bombing.

 

Remember also who started the war - again not perhaps relevant but "as ye sow so shall ye reap" is a consequence that may be inevitable in war.

 

Should a great evil such as the Nazis rise again then there may be no alternative to the Nuclear option.

 

It can be argued that Nuclear weapons have enforced peace due to the fear of mutual assured destruction. I'd agree with that.

I'd rather this was a Nuclear free world but it's not and cannot be now.

 

History cannot be re written much as people try.

What mankind can do is to try and learn the lessons of history.

Somehow it doesn't

 

Pandoras box is open.

[VinnieK]

To clarify I'm not calling him an asshole for carrying out his orders, but for considering it inappropriate for us to look back on the event in the context of its effects.

 

The end of the article suggests that he didn't consider it inappropriate to look at the event in terms of the context of its events, but that he considered it inappropriate for an exhibition to focus on the suffering whilst ignoring the military and historical context of dropping the bomb.

[Chinahand]

Pretty much agree with you Blue Monday.

 

Pragmopolitan was a bit all embracing with his topic title if you ask me. The dropping of the bombs on Japan does not in my mind make WWII a nuclear war. Max Hastings has just written a new book about the conflict with Japan, his interview on Radio 4 about it was fascinating and I think his position that the bombing resulted from a legitimate war aim is sustainable:

 

The writer and historian MAX HASTINGS describes his latest book, Nemesis: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45, as "brutally revisionist". In it he examines the war in the Far East across China, Burma, India and the Philippines, together with a vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean, resulting in the deaths of more than twenty million people. He describes the actions of the Japanese as unparalleled in barbarity. In particular, he highlights the terrible suffering of the Chinese, saying that at least three times as many people perished in China during the war as Hitler killed in his death camps. Nemesis: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 is published by Harper Press.

 

However I do think nuclear weapons are uniquely destructive and that they should not now be ever used tactically (talk of mini-nukes disturbs me) - and strategically - well here I'm not particularly an optimist.

 

I studied Deterence quite alot in Grad School and though I do think there is something in it, I do think the risk of errors resulting in mass death is very very great.

 

You can't put the genie back into the bottle - but that doesn't mean you should allow the technology to be readily available. To stop tyrants threatening to use their nukes you need a deterence umbrella and sustainable alliances.

 

The current position isn't good - I'd rather if stokepiles were further reduced - and no way do I want more countries to develop the bomb - but, with the frightening exception of North Korea (whose brinkmanship is a bit more subtle than nuclear blackmail - it isn't "do this or well bomb you", its "do this or well develop the technology to bomb you"!!), nuclear blackmail isn't possible due to the threat of a M.A.D. response.

 

Overal I think I am happier that there is deterrence stopping tyrants threatening the world with their bombs than a world without the bomb, but living always with the threat someone will secretly develop them for evil means.

 

That said having a UN body to rigourously enforce nuclear control and work for anti-proliferation is very very important - the treaties underpinning this are really under strain at the moment - the world needs leadership on this and isn't currently getting it - Bush and the Pentagon love their mini-nukes etc - sowing the whirlwind if you ask me.

[VinnieK]

* Many Japanese cities were effectively destroyed by the US air raids during the first half of 1945. The Japanese military and it's people were already weak.

 

This is a simplification in so much as it ignores the intentions of the Japanese. There were discussions of peace, but no agreement was reached regarding what terms they would accept or when the contact the allies. When they finally contacted the Soviets they rejected the demands of unconditional surrender. Additionally, some in the government, including the head of the army believed that surrender should be postponed until after the allied invasion of Japan and use the massive casualties inflicted upon the allied forces to secure generous peace terms in the following period of diplomacy (showing complete disregard for her citizenship). What has to be understood here is that after thirty or so years of aggressive conduct persuing territorial ambitions towards her neighbours, a simple peace treaty would not do, the allies quite properly regarded surrender (as they did with Nazi Germany) as the only acceptable outcome in order to prevent future conflict in the region. This was anathema to much of the Japanese establishment, and whilst it's true to say that Japan was in a weakened state, they still had the potential to fight on the home islands. The tactics of blockade and invasion would still have resulted in huge civilian casualities.

 

* The Japanese were willing to surrender for some time before the bombs were dropped. Willing to accept the demands of the Allies (drawn up by the US). However, the US refused Japans request that the emperor (a highly respected figure in Japanese culture) remained as head of the nation. What bitter irony then when after surrender, the US "allowed" the emperor to remain in power.

 

Untrue, the Japanese government and military was divided over whether to surrender or to carry on regardless to the bitter end. In 1945 the Imperial Headquarters declared "We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight". Admiral Kantaro Suzuki who was appointed head of the Government also held this view, stating that the fundamental policy of his government was to continue fighting, preferring "honourable death" for the entire citizenship of Japan over surrender. Even as the Soviets declared war, martial law was established specifically with the intent of preventing the citizenship making peace with the aggressors.

 

It's also untrue that the U.S. insisted on the abdication of the Emporer. The statement they made to the Japanese was in fact:

 

"From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japanese government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms. ...

The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people."

 

The US did not want the Soviets to "share" in the spoils of victory. Following the Soviet's declaration of war on Japan, the US was worried the Soviets would demanded joint occupation. Dropping the bomb would also serve as a powerful show of strength, enough they hoped, for the Soviets to get back in their box.

 

Something of a distortion of the motives at play here. The U.S. was more concerned about long term Soviet military and territorial aspirations in the Pacific, exacerbated by the conduct of the Soviet Army, Commisars and NKVD in eastern Europe, as well as the emerging antipathy between the U.S.S.R. and the Western War, which is a far cry from it being a matter of jealously guarding the spoils of war for themselves (also it should be remembered that even with these concerns, the British were far more suspicious of and inflexible towards the Soviets than were the Americans).

 

* President Truman was concerned about his political future. Ordinary Americans detested the Japanese at this time and in order to get votes, Truman needed to bear in mind the American peoples desire that Japan surrender unconditionally.

 

The condition of unconditional surrender had already been firmly established as the ultimate war aim by all the allied powers long before the dropping of the atomic bomb, it had nothing to do with the American public. Given Japan's previous aggression China and the U.S.S.R. certainly wouldn't have settled for anything less, just as the British and French wouldn't have accepted anything less from the Nazis.

[Tarroo Ushtey]

This is a simplification in so much as it ignores the intentions of the Japanese.

 

I will simplify it even further Vinnie. The civilians and in particular, the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent. White House documents released years later show it was made clear to Truman that Japan was on the verge of collapse, fact. Despite objections from top military figures (including Eisenhower), who believed the war would end quickly without dropping the bomb, Truman pressed ahead anyway. He ignored the bomb scientists and their preference of choosing a non-populated area or the ocean on which to drop the bomb. He defended the decision in order to save lives and to force a quick Japanese surrender. Just think about that for a while....

 

 

Yes, it was wrong to drop an atomic bomb, nothing could make me believe otherwise.

[VinnieK]

This is a simplification in so much as it ignores the intentions of the Japanese.

 

I will simplify it even further Vinnie. The civilians and in particular, the children of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent.

 

As were the victims of Dresden, Lubeck, and indeed the Japanese firebombing of Chongqing - that's one of the defining features of total war: cities and their populations become strategic targets.

 

White House documents released years later show it was made clear to Truman that Japan was on the verge of collapse, fact. Despite objections from top military figures (including Eisenhower), who believed the war would end quickly without dropping the bomb,

 

Firstly it's true that some military officials believed that Japan would collapse even without the atomic bomb (that Eisenhower objected is neither here no there, he commanded in Western Europe, which was a very different war to that in the Pacific), but you present it as if there was wholesale consensus on the matter, and that Truman simply overran this, which is not true. At the same time that these figures confidently assumed victory by conventional means, other, equally qualified commentators and analysts were predicting massive U.S. casualties from any invasion. Indeed, experience on the Western Front recommended the latter possibility: Despite Nazi Germany being on the "verge of collapse" as soon as the Red Army started sweeping the Wehrmacht aside in their advance on Germany, the German forces continued to fight, and quite effectively given the increasing shortages of equipment, fuel, and food, and the invasion of Japan would have been even more difficult given such factors as its geographical position. Hence the only sure fire way of bring about surrender (without using that marvelous gift of hindsight) would have been regular bombing combined with an increased blockade, potentially resulting in starvation and death through illness of the population.

 

Secondly, it's a pity the Japanese didn't have the same advisors you refer to, since the Japanese army still wanted to inflict huge casualties upon the Americans in a continuous defence of the Japanese home Islands until the very last man (and hence believed such a defence could be mounted)

 

Truman pressed ahead anyway. He ignored the bomb scientists and their preference of choosing a non-populated area or the ocean on which to drop the bomb.

 

Because he probably realised such a demonstration would be inneffective. The Chief of the Japanese Naval Staff was so unruffled by the possibility that the Americans had the Atomic Bomb after the Potsdam declaration that he fobbed off concerns with the argument that even if they had the bomb, they could not have many of them! This is despite the fact that the Japanese were well aware of the potential destructiveness of the atomic bomb through their attempts to develop one for themselves. Hence such a demonstration to the Japanese military establishment would have been considered little but the United States wasting one of their "few" bombs.

 

He defended the decision in order to save lives and to force a quick Japanese surrender. Just think about that for a while....

 

Pregnant pause and sage chin stroking entreaties aside, that's what this whole discussion is about, i.e. exactly what everyone contributing to it has been thinking about.

[Tarroo Ushtey]

Pregnant pause and sage chin stroking entreaties aside, that's what this whole discussion is about, i.e. exactly what everyone contributing to it has been thinking about.

 

 

You see, I don't believe you (along with Paul Tibbetts & others) are really thinking about it Vinnie, at least not in human terms and that is what is disappointing.

[Chinahand]

Its all very easy playing armchair theorists and all that, but Tarroo Ushtey are you really saying this is such a clear example of wrong doing. More people died in the fire bombing of Tokyo than at Hiroshima - one a conventional act of war, the other a nuclear one. Is there really such an easy distinction here?

 

In these conflicts multiple millions died - are you really saying if you re-ran history, but had the bombs not being dropped or dropped in Tokyo Bay the final death tolls would have been so different - making the dropping of the bombs such a clear error?

 

I'd be fascinated, it would be a bloody piece of maths, but I'd like to know in how many days the death toll of the nuclear bombings would take to occur in conventional fighting - given the conflict in Burma, China, and the Pacific, aerial bombing of all the major Japanese cities etc I guess that if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't been struck, but the war carried on for a week longer the totals would have been the same - especially if the US had to continue to invade the outlaying Islands heading towards the mainland.

 

To be frank I don't believe you when you claim it is so clear cut.

 

We should definitely pause to think about the destruction and death. For me I want to understand how countries can end up fighting total wars - nationalisms willing to sacrifice millions of their nationals. It is a frightening thought and I hope it will never happen again, but the world wasn't balanced in mutally destructive Armageddon in 1945 - Dresden, Nanjing, Tokyo, Stalingrad, Poland, the camps - terrible terrible events - I am in no way convinced that Truman made the worst or most evil decision when he authorized the bombing, as VinnieK says this quite definitely wasn't done in the teeth of opposition from the military.

 

It was a tough decision, people can argue both sides, but if either side claimed it was a clear cut one I'd be sceptical - so far you seem to be the only person saying it was a clear cut decision - and a wrong one.