Is Nuclear War Wrong?

[Tarroo Ushtey]

Its all very easy playing armchair theorists and all that,

 

Surely that is the nature of all internet forums, I make no claims to be doing anything other than that, do you?

 

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?

 

For me, there is no doubt, this is a clear example of wrong doing. If you don't then that is your prerogative, you are not alone and I'm not trying to change people opinions here, I'm only providing my own.

 

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

 

No one can ever know the answer to this Chinahand and I'm not going to speculate.

 

- making the dropping of the bombs such a clear error?

 

Oh but it was no error, it was precisely calculated with the full knowledge and understanding of the consequences, right down to the time of day - particularly Hiroshima.

 

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

 

For me, it is, for the reasons I outlined in previous posts and more.

 

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.

 

In his diary, Truman noted after being fully briefed on the results of the Trinity test, that the bomb “may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark.” Knowing that and more - he chose to go ahead - an evil decision in my book.

 

It was a tough decision,

 

Knowing what he knew, there should have been no need to think about it .

 

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.

 

Maybe the only person saying that in this forum Chinahand, but not the only person period. Do some digging around (outside "traditional" history books), see what you come up with.

 

 

Tarroo

[bluemonday]

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.

 

I see what you're saying but in a total war which is what it was - a global conflict, can the luxury of thinking about it be taken? Evil times beget unpalatable solutions. That's the nature and the cost.

Like Chinahand, I don't think there were any clear cut solutions.

[Bananaman]

Wan't the common saying during the latter stages of the Pacific theatre of war 'A good Jap is a dead Jap'. The decision makers on the ground wouldn't have hesitated in making their decision to use the bomb. I'm sure that would have filtered up to the higher authorities in the White House.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yes it was, amongst a great deal of other racist sayings. A lot of Americans saw the Japanese as a bunch of monkeys that couldn't act and think independently. Partly the result of conceptualising the enemy as being very different.

 

By dropping the bomb the President would have saved thousands of his own country's troups, because there would be no need to invade. It is easier to make a decision where you sanction the slaughtering of your enemy's civilians as opposed to your own soldiers. But how much did Hiroshima and Nagasaki affect the Japanese Government's decision to stop fighting? How much of their decision was about re-assessing their chances of holding out?

 

I do think that the dropping of nuclear bombs is wrong. I would have thought that would be hard to dispute. How can it be the right thing to do to kill civilians? It may shorten a war, it may be part of winning strategy but ultimately it should not happen.

[VinnieK]

I do think that the dropping of nuclear bombs is wrong. I would have thought that would be hard to dispute. How can it be the right thing to do to kill civilians? It may shorten a war, it may be part of winning strategy but ultimately it should not happen.

 

As has repeatedly been pointed out, dropping atomic bombs was not the only tactic that claimed the lives of innocents: sustained carpet and incendiary bombing of industrialized areas killed plenty, and both invasions and sanctions all kill innocents in droves. Indeed, even sustained warfare itself places strains on society (specifically the diversion of industrial capacity, agricultural produce, and medical supplies to the armed forces) can result in disease and death if continued for long enough. The fact of the matter is that civilian casualties have become an inevitable feature of war since the Industrial Revolution, at which point densly populated cities became the sources of a nation's power and capacity to wage war, and hence the primary strategic target of any hostile power.

 

The atomic bombs seem perhaps disproportionately devastating because of the immense civilian casualties they generated in a relatively short amount of time, but this in total is little more, and often less than the next best means available at the time: i.e. repeated and sustained carpet bombing, combined with long term sanctions (inevitably leading to disease and fuel/food shortages), and the possibility of a massive invasion. If you doubt this, I recommend you look at the statistics regarding civilian deaths during World War Two:

 

The U.S.S.R. suffered 19 million civilian dead, one and half million deaths occuring in the Siege of Leningrad alone, 9 million Chinese civilians died at the hands of the Japanese. Think about that for a moment: In two years, in one city, the U.S.S.R. saw over four times its civilians die to conventional means in a siege than the entirity of Japan saw throughout the entire duration of the war, even with the use of atomic bombs against it.

[Lonan3]

The fact of the matter is that civilian casualties have become an inevitable feature of war since the Industrial Revolution, at which point densly populated cities became the sources of a nation's power and capacity to wage war, and hence the primary strategic target of any hostile power.

That's the only part of your otherwise excellent post that I have to question - simply because it appears to suggest that the deliberate killing of civilians was something new. As I'm sure you're very well aware, there were many times before that when the inhabitants of a captured city were slaughtered indiscriminately - usually to terrify the next target. Obvious examples can be found during the Crusades (by both sides), back to Roman times and beyond.

The actual numbers may not have been as great, but I'd suggest that they were every bit as proportionately significant.

[VinnieK]

it appears to suggest that the deliberate killing of civilians was something new. As I'm sure you're very well aware, there were many times before that when the inhabitants of a captured city were slaughtered indiscriminately - usually to terrify the next target. Obvious examples can be found during the Crusades (by both sides), back to Roman times and beyond.

The actual numbers may not have been as great, but I'd suggest that they were every bit as proportionately significant.

 

Definitely - throughout history civilians have found themselves targets, the Roman and Greek histories overflow with tales of entire cities being massacred as a punishment for resisting the beseiging army, and I believe the Hundred Years War featured quite a few massacres as well.

 

I just thought the distinction should be made since prior to the industrial revolution warfare was primarily focused upon the defeat of ones enemies in the field. Although sieges happened plenty of times, the preferred method of waging wars (especially in the ancient era) was based upon large set piece battle, since power was ultimately concentrated in the hands of armies. After the industrial revolution, and particularly in the era of mass production this power shifted to the forces of industry and commerce (and hence the urban areas that housed them), making the deliberate targeting of towns and cities more of a neccessity than previously had been the case. One need only look at the examples of the United Kingdom and Germany during the Second World War: Although both were at one point or another at a considerable military disadvantage, modern production and logistical methods nevertheless managed to sustain an effective and dangerous fighting force (think of the Sten gun, the spitfire and the Panzerfaust) in both cases - defeat of either neccessitated not just a decisive military defeat (which may have sufficed in previous eras), but a total eradication or capture of their industrial bases.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I do think that the dropping of nuclear bombs is wrong. I would have thought that would be hard to dispute. How can it be the right thing to do to kill civilians? It may shorten a war, it may be part of winning strategy but ultimately it should not happen.

 

As has repeatedly been pointed out, dropping atomic bombs was not the only tactic that claimed the lives of innocents: sustained carpet and incendiary bombing of industrialized areas killed plenty, and both invasions and sanctions all kill innocents in droves. Indeed, even sustained warfare itself places strains on society (specifically the diversion of industrial capacity, agricultural produce, and medical supplies to the armed forces) can result in disease and death if continued for long enough. The fact of the matter is that civilian casualties have become an inevitable feature of war since the Industrial Revolution, at which point densly populated cities became the sources of a nation's power and capacity to wage war, and hence the primary strategic target of any hostile power.

 

The atomic bombs seem perhaps disproportionately devastating because of the immense civilian casualties they generated in a relatively short amount of time, but this in total is little more, and often less than the next best means available at the time: i.e. repeated and sustained carpet bombing, combined with long term sanctions (inevitably leading to disease and fuel/food shortages), and the possibility of a massive invasion. If you doubt this, I recommend you look at the statistics regarding civilian deaths during World War Two:

 

The U.S.S.R. suffered 19 million civilian dead, one and half million deaths occuring in the Siege of Leningrad alone, 9 million Chinese civilians died at the hands of the Japanese. Think about that for a moment: In two years, in one city, the U.S.S.R. saw over four times its civilians die to conventional means in a siege than the entirity of Japan saw throughout the entire duration of the war, even with the use of atomic bombs against it.

 

In my post I wasn't trying to put across that nuclear weapons were the only tactic at all. All I am saying is that in my opinion I think the killing of civilians is not morally right.

[Chinahand]

Can you work out which picture is from a conventional firebombing raid on Tokyo and which one is from Hiroshima - there is no doubt that killing civillians is not morally right - but people have been arguing that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quanitatively different. I can't see that.

 

 

 

Answer - the top one is Tokyo after a conventional attack. I'm pretty certain more people died in the fire bombings than in the A-Bombing. Nasty business - both ordered by serious men who knew the consequences of what they were doing. I can't say one act was so much worse than the other. Glad I don't have that sort of responsibility.

[The Voice of Reason]

Is the top picture the conventional firebombing raid?

[triskelion]

In terms of the moral imperitive 'wrong,' then of course the use of nuclear weapons is. No one would argue that they are horrific devices capable, and guilty of, terrible destruction.

 

However, whilst it is a somewhat perverse game to play, a very strong case can be made for the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a better solution to the mainland Japan issue than a full-invasion; for which the casulty estimates begin at two million. Japan's military junta had effectively armed the entire south island in preparation for American landings.

 

Furthermore, the three-man junta that controlled Japan by this stage did not even discuss surrender until the second bomb was dropped, so the idea that Japan was about to give up anyway is a fallacy, regardless of its crumbling economic structure.

 

There are also many cultural factors in our retrospective interpretations of the bombings. High amongst these is anti-Americanism, effectively entailing that we are more likely to believe something if it places them in a bad light. This serves to gloss over the fact that any of the major powers involved in the war would not have hesitated to use 'the bomb.' The Japanese certainly would have used it given the chance.

 

So yes, use of nuclear weapons is 'wrong,' but this is not the same as being 'wholly unjustified.'

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I couldn't agree more. The use of nuclear weapons was the obvious choice. And as you were saying it would certainly be the case that the British would have used a nuclear bomb on Germany or Japan if they had it.

 

So is the top picture the incendiary bombing and the latter the result of the nuclear explosion?

[triskelion]

You know if you highlight the blacked out text...

[Chinahand]

Updating an old thread - saw this video recently, thought it was worth posting up.

 

I also read Max Hastings' book Nemisis a while ago - highly highly recommend it. I found it just a numbing book about the scale of total war - truely sobering.

 

Hastings covered the atomic bombings in detail and put them in the context of the struggle for Japan. I can't single them out as uniquely evil crimes in World War II and in fact see them as reasonable decisions in the context of fighting a war where millions had already died.

 

Now, especially with the development of the H-bomb, people see nuclear weapons as uniquely evil; and I agree, as nowadays anyone who now has the know-how and ability to make an A bomb can make an H-bomb with a similar effort again. But this wasn't the case with the first A-bombs where the H-bomb was then just an impractical theoretical idea.

 

I believe the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be viewed in the context of the conventional strategic bombing campaigns of the time and not a theoretical future dominated by the H-bomb. This quote from Hastings quoting Curtis Le May - the commander of the US strategic bombing campaigns against Japan - says much about total war.

 

Nobody involved in the decision on the atomic bombs could have seen themselves as setting new precedents for mass destruction in scale - only in efficiency. Like Sir Arthur Harris, Curtis Le May remained impenitent to the end. After the war, he shrugged: 'Nothing new about death, nothing new about deaths caused militarily. We cooked and boiled and baked to death more people in Tokyo on that night 9-10 March than went up in vapor at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.' He claimed to regret nothing.

 

Japan had been warned that it faced destruction, it refused to surrender still planned on a war of attrition on the main Islands; it still insisted on the right to maintain its armed occupations of China and Korea; even after the first bombing it did not surrender - this to me puts a lie to any claim that it would have surrendered after a demonstration off Tokyo Bay or similar. After the second bombing the surrender was nearly stopped by a coup attempt by the war party.

 

With the benefit of hindsight and sitting in a comfortable armchair I can't give credence to the counter factual argument that Japan would have surrendered with fewer casualties on all sides without the A-bombs.

 

My goodness I hope the world never again slips into total war. The decisions involved at such times cost millions of lives. No doubt Churchill and Rosevelt and Truman made many bad decisions, Stalin too. But Hitler and Tojo and their ilk forced those decisions to be taken. Iwo Jima wasn't enough to make the Japanese surrender, Okinawa neither, the fire bombing of Tokyo neither, Hiroshima neither, only with Nagasaki was peace just able to conquor war.

 

I believe that without those last two acts many many more conventional bombs would have to have fallen, and soldiers to on beach heads who knows where.

 

I trully wish the bombs had never been dropped, but I can't condemn Truman for ordering their fall.

[thebees]

Neutron bombs, they're the boys. Much better than poopy old atom bombs - goodness me. None of these things are OK. I was wondering about the British Empire last night, how come we ended up 'owning' far off places?