Ambivalent Anniversary from baldilocks
The United States dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 and one on Nagasaki two days later, with a death and injury total over 200,000. Why they were dropped.Nuclear weapons are often said to pose a [Read More]

Tracked on August 7, 2005 3:12 AM

small dead animals: The Ruins Of War from Dane Bramage
Back on August 6th, many marked the 60th anniverary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. small dead animals: The Ruins Of War has pictures, but not of what you would think. Take a look. Joey W had this to say in the comments [Read More]

Tracked on August 10, 2005 6:00 PM

Very clever, Kate. You had me thinking that the pics were of Hiroshima.

Had the US not dropped the big one on Hiroshima, then perhaps the pics would also be of mainland America and Canada.

It was kind of the point. The overweening coverage being given to Hiroshima is never contrasted with the damage done to London, Dresden, any number of European cities by conventional bombing. At ground level, it all looks pretty much the same, and the civilians no less dead.

That's true. Also, why not show a couple of pics of Ground Zero, still smoking, late in the day on 9/11? Or any of the terror attacks before and after? Same thing.

The difference, however, between Hiroshima and London or, more appropriately, Pearl Harbor, is that Hiroshima was called for and Pearl Harbor was not. Similarly, the murder bombings inside Israel by Palestinians were uncalled for whereas, for example, Jenin was justified. The left has it all backwards or at least rationalizes it all into relativity.

The blast damage to Hiroshima was much more extensive.

A-bombs of that magnitude do not exist anymore, as the ones nowadays are many factors more destructive.

Kate's point is spot on. The Tokyo firestorm of March 10, 2005 is reported to have resulted in over 100,000 dead and the destruction of half the city. On February 13/14 1945, nearly 700,000 incendiary bombs were dropped on Dresden leaving just a smoldering pile of rubble, with casualty figures ranging from 25,000 to 250,000 killed. Since the city was filled with refugees at the time, a median figure of 100,000 is most frequently quoted.

Hiroshima was unique only in the kind of bomb used, not in the number of dead or the extent of the destruction. The long-term effects of radiation are singular, to be sure, but the horrors of being set aflame by a phosphorous bomb are no less than being exposed to an atomic blast.

The number of cities which were turned into rubble is something that would be quite difficult to compile. It's not limited to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it includes cities that US forces never touched, and Axis powers are the ones who started the 'city-busting'. The first significant firestorm was in the City of London (the 'Old City') on December 29, 1940 courtesy of the Luftwaffe. Casualties were light, but damage was severe. (Kate's photos are a good example)

And for Japan to be upset about cruel weapons or inhumane treatment is amazingly hypocritical. Their treatment of POW's, atrocities against civilians in China, the Philippines, Singapore - all documented. Where's the hue and cry for THOSE victims? (A rhetorical question; we all know the answer, un fortunately....)

And lest someone think I'm heartless - I mourn for the victims of Hiroshima. And Dresden. And London. And Tokyo. I just don't feel that it's proper to enshrine one set of victims above another - especially those of the agressor state, when that nation was showing every sign of fighting a very prolonged war that was sure to cost countless lives on both sides.

Terrorism is terrorism, and is to be condemned regardless of the perpetrator. It is true that the terrorist bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which were opposed by many U.S. officials and scientists, including General Eisenhower) brought an immediate end to the war and may well have saved hundreds of thousands of lives in the long run. That's a fact that cannot easily be dismissed. But if terrorism is to be justified in consequentialist terms, that's a can of worms we may not want to open. Too many governments and movements have justified the sacrifice of non-combatants (peasants, capitalists, socialists, Jews, subway riders, whomever) on the grounds of long-term utility.

Terrorist bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There was a WAR going on, remember?

Aeolus, you are an idiot.

The innocent deaths and injuries on all sides are equally tragic. However, sometimes war is necessary. It's an inescapable fact of humanity on planet Earth. Since time immemorial there have been conflicts of varying scales and types- religious, racial, national, resource- and economic-based, etc. Some sides wrong, some righteous.

The basic difference between right and wrong is if one is undeservedly attacked by someone who attacks for selfish or religious or racial reasons, one can retaliate and be righteous. On the other hand, One cannot make the first strike and be righteous unless there is compelling reason to believe it is necessary based on past illegal offensive actions of the enemy. Also, one cannot be righteous in retaliation for a retaliation for a wrongful attack. Case in point: the Palestinians and other Arabs, including Egypt, Syria and Transjordan drew first blood against the Israelis. Since then the Israelis have been engaged in self-defensive actions whereas the Arabs/Palestinians have been keeping the conflict going in a wrongful attempt to, as they often state, get rid of Israel, who has as much of a right to exist as the other M.E. states.

The left believes the Palestinians are committing terrorism against Israel because of "occupation", which is false. Israel won the war of 1967 in which she was defending herself against annihilation. In winning, Israel captured land previously held by other Arab nations, the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and therefore, as a matter of "international law" with respect to war, Israel now owned those territories; therefore, there's no occupation. The dispute arose because Israel allowed Arabs to continue living in these territories rather than forcing them out or worse. The Arab "refugees" couldn't emigrate to other Arab/Muslim states because those states refused them entry, deliberately precipitating the development of terrorism as another futile attempt to get rid of Israel.

So Israel is effectively paying the price for its fair, humane treatment of innocent civilians. The jihadists exploited the "refugees" by convincing them they were being occupied and downtrodden by Israel and many more malicious lies. After all, the jihadists are racist and bigoted towards nonMuslims and will stop at nothing to rid the world of those who are different. Hence the "Intifada" and all that horrible stuff, perhaps including Al Qaeda...

Too bad the left is unable to tell the good from the bad.

Aeolus, you do not understand what terrorism is. I recommend you look it up! What's stopping you?

For real historical background on Hiroshima, I recommend this excellent article based on the now available SIGINT evidence that decisively refutes the revisionists/critics from the 1960s on:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Ut...894&R=C62A29C91

I imagine much of the article is based on this superb publication by the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence, "The Final Months of the War With Japan: Signals Intelligence, U.S. Invasion Planning, and the A-Bomb Decision", by Douglas J. MacEachin:
http://www.cia.gov/csi/ monograph...csi9810001.html

Mark
Ottawa

The most commonly accepted figure now for deaths in Dresden in 25-40,000. The neo-Nazi, David Irving, promoted the highest figures, for self-evident reasons.

Mark
Ottawa

At the end of hostilities in Europe in 1945 the war was still gobbling up lives and treasure in the Pacific Theater. Casualties for the US Marines and Army on Okinawa and the Navy offshore facing thousands of kamikazi attacks were piling up at nearly unbearable levels, when viewed in the context of the rest of WWII's carnage. The veterans who had fought all the way across Europe were nearly all slated to be shipped off to the Pacific and the impending invasion of the Japanese home islands. My uncle was one of these veterans. He said he and his buddies all thought they were doomed to die, because all their luck had certainly run out. When the A-bombs went off these men, and countless others, felt that the war was at last truly over and they would live. The Japanese started the war for the US, and the US ended it without totaly destroying Japan and sacrificing some or all of it to a Soviet Red Army freed from fighting the Nazis. Hindsight be damned.

Jeff in Pullman, WA: I urge you to read the CIA monography I listed above. Any invasion of Kyushu might have been much worse than even you imagine.

Mark
Ottawa

The British are heroes again:>>>

Russian sub cut free!
Posted by NickatNite2003
On 08/06/2005 5:55:42 PM PDT · 8 replies · 14+ views

CNN | Me
CNN just abnnounced a Brit robosub just cut the last cable holding the sub down, and Russians have communicated to freed sub, to prepare for emergency surfacing! Sub acknoledged HOOOORAAAAYYY!>>>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1458425/posts

Oustanding news maz2! And outstanding discourse everyone! Well done. Good reading here.

How stupid of me! I totally forgot that deliberately killing non-combatants isn't terrorism as long as it's part of a WAR. Now, let's see. President Bush says there's a war going on now. It's called the War on Terror. That means...hmmm...that bombing buses, subways, mosques, etc. aren't acts of terrorism after all, because they're part of a WAR. But that means that the War on Terror is a war against... Whoa, now I'm completely confused.

Aeolus, it is for the likes of you that I lament the loss of the WW2 generation.

Aeolus: Check out the Rape of Nanking etc. And read the references I listed above. In other words, learn.

Mark
Ottawa

Aeolus: Please specify one subway the US has attacked.

I think you may indeed be confused, notably on the subway bombing subject.

Mark
Ottawa

So is the intentional targeting of civilians "terrorism", or not?

Trying to explain the difference between war and terrorism is not something that is necessary. At least not unless your purpose is to bring about the complete destruction of what is usually referred to as 'Western Civilization'. But that seems to be the case here,

since following Aeolus' line of thinking would have meant that no aerial bombardment could have been undertaken in WWII, the Normandy invasion could not have taken place (civilian casualties - a terrorist act!), and (based on the way the WoT is referenced) the US should never have given Britain any aid against the Axis powers. Aeolus must want to live in a nation like that which would have resulted from the inevitable Axis victory. When can we expect you to be on your way?

And if you're not planning on leaving, perhaps you'd be kind enough to go to Pearl Harbor this coming December 7th, stand in the midst of one of the memorial ceremonies and shout out your opinions regarding how the US is a terrorist nation for its actions in WWII. I'd recommend the USS Arizona as a good spot, but you can pick your own - I'm sure you'll get the same warm welcome anywhere.

One vote for "not" I guess.

Normandy didn't feature the intentional targeting of civilians, did it? Incidental civilian casualties are a separate issue, and the fact that American and British forces do not deliberately target civilians in Iraq and Afganistan make their actions acceptable to me, while I have no qualms about calling the bad guys in those places "terrorists" because they tend to blow up civilians as a matter of policy.

In the case of WW2 the only justification for intentional targeting of civilians is that since the Japanese and German economies were so militarized, citizens were essentially combatants in the sense that any logistics soldier is. And if that reasoning doesn't follow, bombing civilians is simply terrorism. And while it may have been necessary, it could never be called right.

Aeolus (he's not the god of the winds, but is certainly full of hot air) should someday realize that moral equivalence is just another hobgoblin of little minds. Terror is an element of every war and is used by both sides as they battle to conquer the other. Aeolus is a fool to fail to understand that to most effectively and efficiently fight evil it is often necessary to use evil's own tactics. Righteousness covered in blood is still righteousness when it is opposed to the likes of Nazisim, Bushido or Islamofacism. The A-bomb was used to end a war, not start one.

M4-10,

There wasn't any intentional targeting of civilians at Normandy, but because of the proximity of coastal towns to the landing areas and the fact that it was impossible to provide warning and/or evacuate, there were civilian casualties. Of course, the same was true of many major battles in WWII, because they were fought in urban areas throughout Europe. My point is that in the eyes of those like Aeolus, there is no such thing as a legitimate war if a single 'non-combatant' (a thorny definition, too) is killed/injured in its prosecution. Which means that no war has ever been legitimate - or can be legitimate. And, therefore, those like Naopleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Saddam Hussein, etc. should be allowed to do as they please, because it would be immoral to fight back under less than pristine conditions.

What is interesting to note is that folks like Aeolus can only make statements like they do in free nations - which exist because of the very wars they condemn. Ain't irony great????!!!!!!

Joey, that was an excellent point. As has been mentioned by others, Japan wasn't exactly following Miss Manners' Rules of Etiquette. While Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous, I think it's a case of the ends justifying the means. Aside from ending the war, the aftermath has made it as close as possible to an absolute that such weapons will never be used again (unless, of course, Osama or someone of his ilk were to get his hands on one, in which case all bets are off).

So according to Aeolus we're not allowed to defend ourselves. Grow up little he/she/it, this is the real world. When you get you or someone close to your life snuffed out for no logical reason, you'll change your totally warped and demented attitude.

All war is bad, there is no good war.
What Nagasaki and Hiroshima signify is the end of war as we know it. As Einstein says "I know not with what weapons WWIII will be fought, but WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.
There will never be another major (world) war. War affects everyone. I know both of my parents were WWII vets. Physical damage is not everything. H.G. Wells predicts the end of war in his novel "The World Set Free", it's available online.
The world is too "small" and weapons too powerful to contemplate nuclear war.
The kind of "hate week" politics practiced by some world powers is passe. I have an 1980 National Geographic that has an article about Saddam being a good leader. I guess they were more worried about Iran. I sort of think of him as Frankhussien.

moonbat

'Little Boy', (dropped on Hiroshima), used enriched Uranium (U238) shaped in the form of a subcritical donut, with a solid plug driven into it to achieve supercriticality.
'Fat Man' (named after Winston Churchill), was an implosion device, using Plutonium 239. (It was a Canadian Physicist named Lois Slotin who was assigned the task of establishing sub-critical mass of Plutonium while at Los Alamos, (and who died in the attempt when an experiment went wrong). Just google his name for a fascinating read. (hint: he was not holding the two halves of the core apart with a screwdriver-that slipped and caused the core to go critical.
And Slotin's pet name for his experiment was not called 'tickling the dragon's tail'.)
Canada does have nuclear warheads- by the way- we acquired them from Russia, and they are stored at Chalk River. (What we are doing with these things, I have no idea.)

"While Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrendous, I think it's a case of the ends justifying the means."

But the end ***does not*** justify the means. People who have abortions often do so with a good end in mind, but that doesn't justify killing an innocent child. Communists enslave nations with the intention of helping the poor, etc.

"Aeolus, you do not understand what terrorism is. I recommend you look it up! What's stopping you?"

terrorism

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

If you say that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or London, Dresden, etc.) weren't unlawful (i.e. not against the law), then the same could be said of Islamicist attacks, which are not unlawful from the point of view of their law. But as we know, law and morality are two different things.

The fact is that deliberately killing civilians is wrong.

Hamilcar simply doesn't understand and is wrong. He/she didn't bother to read what I and some others wrote above dealing with exactly the claims he/she made.

Hamilcar somehow thinks that the British, the Canadians and Americans as well as other Allies had deliberately targetted civilians. How the hell can anyone come to this conclusion? They must be thinking what they're told to think by the left. There was no intentional targetting of civilians. Hell, recall what Hitler did to the civilians in his own nation. That is not equal to incidental civilian casualties incurred in operations to STOP the war.

Similarly, the Islamist attacks deliberately kill innocents whereas the operations to stop them do not. Big difference, but it is lost on stupid left-wing extremists. Spoiled rotten brats, they are.

Another sad example of left-wing relativism. Is it any wonder lefties annoy me so?

What a total idiot that Aeolous fellow is.

dave: The uranium used in "Little Boy" was U-235. The bomb casing actually surrounded a 3-inch naval AA gun; the plug of uranium was fired from one end into the donut at the other end to achieve rapidly the critical mass. So confident were the bomb designers that this type of weapon was not tested and worked first time at Hiroshima.
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Chemistry/NuclearChemistry/NuclearWeapons/FirstChainReaction/FirstNuclWeapons/LittleBoy.htm

With plutonium, however, this method would just have produced a fizzle, so the much more complex and difficult implosion method with explosive lenses had to be developed.

Canada has received no nuclear warheads from Russia. In 2000 some mixed oxide fuel (MOX), to be used as fuel in CANDU reactors, was flown from Russia to Chalk River.
http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/fissmat/mox/moxfueld.htm

Mark
Ottawa

So now Aeolus has become Hamilcar (the Carthaginian general and father of Hannibal). It is a shame that his erudition has produced in him such vapid drivel. A solid and meaningful education enables one to truly think and express oneself independently, not just spew forth the pieties of indoctrination. French philosophy has ruined many once promising minds.

Stephen McAllister,

With regard to your accusations about me, you're the moral relativist, not me. I believe that the same rules of morality apply to everyone. And I'm probably more right-wing than you are.

In any case, I think you have to admit that the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed deliberate attacks on civilians. Indeed, one could consider them terrorist attacks, killing civilians with the intent to frighten the Japanese into doing something (ending the war). It was not at all a matter of "incidental civilian casualties".

"Similarly, the Islamist attacks deliberately kill innocents whereas the operations to stop them do not."

I agree. But the Americans also deliberately killed innocents at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is something moral just because our side does it? That's moral relativism.

Good points all around, but attempting to make value judgements going back 60 years or more is a fool's game at best. Hiroshima/Nagasaki happened. Period. It ended a horrendous war and avoided a bloodbath beyond our comprehension, Japan was rehabilitated as a peaceful, industrious and prosperous nation and it served as a dire warning to other nations that might have been contemplating war. Whatever else one thinks about it, at least that much has to be acknowledged as a good thing.

Besides, methinks that, despite his professed right wing leanings, Hamilcar/Aeolus has a wee thingy against Americans in general and GWB in particular. That always affects a person's capacity for rational thought and judgement in a weird, yet predictable way.

Careful my friend, your ideological slip is showing...

Clear,

"Hamilcar/Aeolus has a wee thingy against Americans in general and GWB in particular."

I'm not the same person as Aeolus. I love Americans, and GWB too. The President isn't perfect (his decision on embryonic stem-cell research was wrong, for instance), but he seems to want to do what's right. A lot of the people here, though, seem to follow the erroneous idea that "the end justifies the means."

Remember that God will give us victory if He wishes. Our duty is but to do what is right. Even if things look really bad, there is no reason to lose hope and turn to evil.

I think one of the main reasons the bombs were used was to fend off the Russians and to show them the available power. The Russians only declared war on Japan in June or July. But they are really close and had a score to settle from 1904 or so. Can you imagine if your Sony TV or Toyota was built like a Russian tractor?
I have a August 1945 edition of Popular Mechanics. On the cover is "New Amphibs for Attacking Japan". Only very few people knewit wasn't going to happen.

moonbat

Hamilcar,

I noted earlier in a comment to Aeolus that if targeting Hiroshima/Nagasaki was wrong, then so was all aerial bombardment during WWII, since in the absence of 'smart bombs' it was certain to target civilians - and in many cases entire cities themselves were the targets. Ditto a great deal of artillery fire. So I presume what you're saying is that WWII should have been fought entirely by 'white of their eyes' type battles, where it was possible to see the uniform of the persons being shot/fired upon.

That's great, if your name is Candide. But the reality of that war required certain approaches, and even at that it was still a near thing. There was a lot of agonizing over this very question 65 years ago, and part of the answer came from the idea that a nation at war is more than an army/navy. You can fight the army by direct confrontation, or you can seek to deprive it of weapons by attacking the source of those weapons. The people who make the guns, bullets, planes, tanks, etc. and the factories all the parts come from are located - guess where - in cities! So an attack on cities becomes an attack on the supply lines to the enemy army. Is this reasoning unquestionably morally proper? Probably not. But it was an attempt to answer the question 'is it better to kill the man with the gun or the man who makes the bullets', and that question matters greatly in terms of potential casualties on both sides of a war.

So what's you answer? Is the man who makes the bullets supposed to be considered a non-combatant? The folks in the factories putting together ME-262's, U-Boats, Tiger tanks - they were off limits? You can only start the shooting when the Army takes possession? Or, do the people putting weapons in the hands of their military have to take some responsiblity?

Joey W,

I have nothing against targeting factories involved in making armaments, etc. If you work in a munitions factory, you know you're a target, since you're directly involved in the war effort. You can decide for yourself if you want to be involved in that, just as you can decide whether or not to join the army (assuming the government doesn't decide for you).

"[I]f targeting Hiroshima/Nagasaki was wrong, then so was all aerial bombardment during WWII, since in the absence of 'smart bombs' it was certain to target civilians - and in many cases entire cities themselves were the targets."

If you're aiming for a factory, and doing what you can to avoid killing innocent civilians, then you're not targetting civilians - you're targeting the factory. Obviously, civilians die in war, and that can't be helped. There's also "friendly fire" in war, which is wrong if directly intended but acceptable if it's an unintended side-effect of your attacks on the enemy, etc. We developed smart bombs precisely to minimize civilian casualties, and that's a good thing. However, the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not involve an effort to spare civilians - an indiscriminate attack on a city means that the civilians were directly targeted.

Hamilcar/Aeolus (whatever), can't you get it through your thick skull that: YES, the A-bombs on Japan targeted BOTH military and civilian targets, but even MORE civilians than those that perished in the nuclear attacks were certain to die in any invasion of Japan. In late July, 1945 the Japanese made it very plain that that they intended to fight on, using both military forces and civilian combatants (even children). The militarist clique leading Japan was determined that ALL of Japan was to die for the emperor. It was not until the A-bombs were used did Hirihito step in and demand that his nation surrender before it could be helplessly destroyed while American and Allied forces remained well away from the longed-for invasion bloodbath. Hence, bad was used to avoid worse. What would be your choice Hamilous? The Japanese people chose war, and they got it, Toyota.

Fascinating discussion. I'm trying to remember whether my schooling included any discussion of Hiroshima/Nagasaki at all. All I'm coming up with are recollections of brief discussions at home, or of news reports on the anniversaries. It seemed simple enough, the way it was presented, and I just accepted that these were attacks on civilians, intended to save many more lives by frightening Japan into ending the war.

Now here is where it gets interesting: thanks to aeolus and Hamilcar, this discussion has gone deep enough to give me some new information, and now I know that I will have to go back and learn some more. (Mark Collins, the links you suggested seem to be broken.) Given my inadequate understanding, aeolus seemed to have an interesting point: that an attack specifically targetting civilians is a form of terrorism. Some called aeolus names, or tried to dismiss Hamilcar with an ideological label, but some responded by giving more food for thought. Thanks.

War is indeed an enterprise that uses terror to achieve its ends, but to mindlessly morally equate both sides in a conflict is, at least in the instance touted by A&H above, intellectually bankrupt. I believe Aeolus/Hamilcar to be a moral fraud.(and Laura should make her lollipop lectures more substantive)

Hamilcar,

I feel I have to give this one last try.

The "guy who makes the bullets" wasn't intended to be limited to someone who works in an armaments factory (who, at least in Nazi Germany, very likely didn't have the option of quitting). It's a concept - and the concept extends back to the general population, since someone has to feed the guy who makes the bullets, sell him clothing, etc. A war economy is an interlocked entity, and the citizens of a nation at war are all a part of that economy - and by extension, a part of the war. This isn't a new idea; it was understood centuries ago, when families of those in conquered lands were enslaved by the victors - not so much because they needed the labor as as to deny their support to the other side.

In the end, what this amounts to is that you assert that a) the general citizenry of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'innocent civilians', and that b) there was no morally positive reason for bombing those cities. You're entitled to that opinion, but I'd ask you to consider that it's an opinion which works much better in theory than in practice. When a war of the magnitude of WWII needs to be dealt with, there are lives - lots of them - to be considered. Imagine the criticism that the US government would now be facing faced if it hadn't used the bombs, had invaded Japan, and had racked up the expected 500,000-1,000,000 US casualties and several million Japanese dead. Would the sacrifice of all those lives have been worth it?

Nagasaki had both the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Ordnance Works (Torpedo Works).
Hiroshima was an important army depot and port of embarkation.
With this information both targets of the atomic bomb were considered military targets by the president.

To add to Truman's list, Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army. Moonbat has a good point too, about the American desire to display the A-bomb's power to the Russians. At the close of WWII American forces wanted to go home, while Russian forces would have gone wherever Stalin wanted them to go, despite their nation's exhaustion.

We all have opinions. To have a better basis for them I would plead that all read the references from my earlier post:

'For real historical background on Hiroshima, I recommend this excellent article based on the now available SIGINT evidence that decisively refutes the revisionists/critics from the 1960s on:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Ut...894&R=C62A29C91

I imagine much of the article is based on this superb publication by the CIA's Center for the Study of Intelligence, "The Final Months of the War With Japan: Signals Intelligence, U.S. Invasion Planning, and the A-Bomb Decision", by Douglas J. MacEachin:
http://www.cia.gov/csi/ monograph...csi9810001.html'

Research everyone.

Mark
Ottawa

Karl the Krud,

"to mindlessly morally equate both sides in a conflict is, at least in the instance touted by A&H above, intellectually bankrupt."

I haven't morally equated both sides. I've equated the morality of the actions of those on both sides. When Judgment Day comes, do you think Christ will ask you what side you were on in order to be able to properly judge you? No. If a particular action is right, it is right; and if it is wrong, it is wrong. What side you're on or what you're hoping to achieve does not turn evil into good.

Hamilcar

Delenda est carthago

Joey W,

"A war economy is an interlocked entity, and the citizens of a nation at war are all a part of that economy - and by extension, a part of the war."

You sound like the people who say that there are no civilians in Israel, or that ordinary Iraqi citizens are collaborators and thus valid targets. I guess when the Chinese declare war on us, and nuke your town, you'll have no moral objection. After all, you and your family live in your country and are "by extension, a part of the war."

"This isn't a new idea; it was understood centuries ago"

Centuries ago, people understood that it's wrong to indiscriminately kill innocent civilians.

"In the end, what this amounts to is that you assert that a) the general citizenry of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 'innocent civilians',"

Yes, just as the general citizenry of your town are innocent civilians and shouldn't be nuked.

"and that b) there was no morally positive reason for bombing those cities."

I'm saying that any morally positive reason is irrelevant. If raping someone (your mother, for instance) would save a hundred lives, should you do it? Saving all those lives is a morally positive reason... The answer is no, you shouldn't, because rape doesn't suddenly become something good if you have a good end in mind. The end doesn't justify the means.

"Imagine the criticism that the US government would now be facing faced if it hadn't used the bombs, had invaded Japan, and had racked up the expected 500,000-1,000,000 US casualties and several million Japanese dead."

I'd rather be criticized for doing the right thing than be praised for being a murderer.

Besides, why would Japan have to be invaded? Without raw materials and fuel from the outside world, Japan would be a big Shogun-era prison. We could do what Admiral Nimitz proposed: blockade Japan and wait until they decide to give up. They'd soon run out of fuel, and then we'd only have wooden boats to deal with.

Karl the Krud,

"Delenda est carthago"

Carthago deleta fuit, sed resurrexit.

You make a good point Kate, if we want to be moral people we have to slaugther uncountable innocent civilians to save our people from certain doom.

Hamilcar,

You obviously can't understand the logic between 100K and 2-5 mil, so arguing with you is pointless. You also can't understand the difference between a military target and a civilian target, so arguing with you is pointless.

You also don't understand that no matter how hard nations try to avoid civilian casualties, there are going to be civilian casualties, so arguing with you is pointless.

You don't want constructive debate, you want us to accept your position, which is wrong and has been proven with good justification, so arguing with you is pointless.

Logic is beneath you as your anti-American bias is seeping through your pours.

Someone left the sewer lid off on isle nine. Can we get a clean up on isle nine please?, the big Dodge Ram will be required to clean the spew from KillThemAll off the floor and flush him back into the sewer. Thank You

The discussion as to the terrorist nature of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings is a fairly prevalent academic exercise. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not some kind of politico...I'm a technocrat. At the end of WWII, the world was obviously in an increased state of anarchy. The Allies seemed to be aware of how the bombings would be viewed in history which is why Russia, the U.S, and Britain held the Potsdam conference in Germany from July 17, 1945 to Aug. 2, 1945.

In order to minimize the impact of targeting the civilian populations, the Allies issued this statement to Japan so that it could prevent injury to its population.

"...We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurance of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

When the combatant gives you the clear choice of peace, that certainly makes it clear that Japan made the choice on behalf of its citizenry.

The Left wants to dictate who can die, how many, and under what circumstances (usually a communist boot), but wouldn't hit a lick at a snake in a war. They'll tongue lash you to death over how it's done though.

I wonder if its because they don't believe that anything is worth fighting and dying for (although they do have an apparently deep sympathy for those who die in "jihad"). Apparently, ending the unfathomable bloodbath of WWII, and providing the German and Japenese people the means and the support to become democratic, productive nations instead of fascist hellbenders, was not cause enough to end WWII.

The US should have done the world a favor and let the Nazi and Kami freaks do their sweet bidding. Now we know. Lesson learned.

I don't understand how someone who is skeptical about the ethics of deliberately bombing civilians is automatically "the Left", pointless to argue with, and anti-American.

I count myself as libertarian/right, foreign-adventure friendly, rather a good time to argue with, and a very pro-American Canadian. And I find myself siding with Hamilcar and being rather appalled by the intellectual weakness of his detractors (as opposed to those who merely argue the other side).

Did some googling to get around Mark's broken (abbreviated) links. Hope these help.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/
4253605299/csi9810001.html

Mark - is this the Weekly Standard article that you mentioned?
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/
articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp?pg=1

No offense, but I think M4-10 is also a moral relativist. Some people can't stomach the thought of killing even if it is in the cause of peace and of preventing the killings of far, far greater numbers. Relativists, while well-meaning, are illogical.

Sometimes humanity, to grow, must become purely logical. Emotion isn't always good for us. Passion has a long history of being extremely destructive, as seen in Hitler. The way to defeat such evil is with pure logic. Otherwise, humanity could wind up as the loser. Imagine if the Axis had won. What would the world then be like today? What if the Islamofascist terrorist butchers are allowed to prevail by moral relativists and appeaseniks?

Food for thought.

Hmm...

If we were really bloody minded we'd simply take a page out of the books of all those Islamist apologists out there:

"Well yes, the bombing of Hiroshima was truly horrific and hundreds of thousands of people were killed.

But you have to understand how the illegal war started by Adolf and Tojo created such anger and hatred amongst the American people and ultimately led those young men in the Enola Gay to become bombers."

The Islamist apologists would be wrong to equate the murder bombing terrorists to the pilot and bombardier of the Enola Gay. There was no illegal war started by the western world. Therefore the "jihad" or "intifada" being perpetuated by Islamofascists and their brainless, soulless syncophants are themselves waging an illegal conflict much as Hitler was- with the aim of annihilating all who are not like them. In Hitler's case, it was all who were not "Aryan"; who were not of "pure German blood", etc. Same in the case of Bin Laden et al as they are bent on annihilating all who differ from them in any way, shape or form, from the face of the planet. The Islamofascists want to rule the world completely. Their claims of self-defense against an illegal war or against occupation or against foreign presences in the M.E. are just false distractions for the purpose of winning over the left in the western world, enlisting their aid in shackling the ability of western nation-states to defend themselves effectively. The leftists among us are as much pawns as are the silent Muslims among us.

The logic is that it was the best answer at the time given the existing technology. The shock therapy of total annihilation stopped the war. Isn't that what the point was. It was also ok for Germany to bomb the hell out of civilians in England, but there not allowed to strike back.

Now we have the coalition doing exactly as Hamilcar suggests, which is the so called hard/right way, to keep the civilian casualties to a minimum. and there still complaining.

So, by the left logic were not suppose to defend ourselves, or go on the offensive when threatened. I think not. Poland, stood there when Germany attacked, and that accomplished a lot, didn't it. Thus, how can the position of nothing be accepted, when it logically doesn't work. Civilians are going to die, it's a given no matter what method is used. Shock therapy in a major war was the answer to keeping civilian casualties down on BOTH sides.

Laura: Yep, thanks

Hamilcar: Please read the links Laura provided. And if the Allies had waited months, or years, for the Japanese to surrender under blockade, how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocents in Japanese-controlled territory abroad would have died? And how many more hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians would have been killed by conventional bombing, disease or probable starvation?

Mark
Ottawa

Brian C

"'We call upon the Government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces [...] The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.' When the combatant gives you the clear choice of peace, that certainly makes it clear that Japan made the choice on behalf of its citizenry."

So if our government doesn't give in to al Qaeda's demands, it is our government that is to blame if we're attacked. Or if you don't pay the ransom, it's your fault that the hostages are killed.

With that kind of Mafia-style argument, you could justify any evil.

In the absence of a definition from the U.N., one definition of terrorism is as follows.

"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. "

However, as others have indicated, it is also important to include a clause whereby terrorism rejects all peaceful alternatives. The Allies attempted to create a peaceful alternative by requesting Japanese surrender. However, Palestinians had a peaceful alternative with the Oslo Accord and CHOSE terror. Al-Qaeda has not offered any alternatives to violence. There are NO conditions (besides dying) that would end their violence.

Stephen McAllister,

"Some people can't stomach the thought of killing even if it is in the cause of peace and of preventing the killings of far, far greater numbers."

I don't mind killing, as long as you have the right to do so. But if you're murdering someone, it doesn't matter what cause you do it for - it's still murder.

Romans 3:8
That would be the same as saying: Do evil as a means to good. Some slanderers have accused us of teaching this, but they are justly condemned."

St. Paul knows that the end doesn't justify the means, and so do his opponents. And so did the general population, because otherwise this accusation wouldn't have been used as a slander.

It saddens me to see how far morality has "progressed" over the last 2000 years.

Mark Collins,

"And if the Allies had waited months, or years, for the Japanese to surrender under blockade, how many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocents in Japanese-controlled territory abroad would have died?"

Well, if you're worried about the American casualties that would result from an invasion of Japan, a blockade would have been a great idea. While that was going on, we could mop up the Japanese troops operating elsewhere.

"And how many more hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians would have been killed by conventional bombing, disease or probable starvation?"

See my previous post.

Brian C,

"However, as others have indicated, it is also important to include a clause whereby terrorism rejects all peaceful alternatives. The Allies attempted to create a peaceful alternative by requesting Japanese surrender. [...] Al-Qaeda has not offered any alternatives to violence. There are NO conditions (besides dying) that would end their violence."

How does a "peaceful alternative" justify murder? Al Qaeda does offer a peaceful alternative - submit to Islam. So if we reject that, it's our fault if we get murdered? I don't think so.

Al Qaeda doesn't even follow the principles of Islam so why would they care if the world switched to Islam. There is no guarantee that EVEN IF THE WORLD switched to Islam, the terrorism would end.

Again this is an academic exercise.
"With that kind of Mafia-style argument, you could justify any evil." This is exactly why a world consensus was sought by the Allies in Potsdam before proceeding. If you want to characterize this as terrorism, then it was sanctioned by all Allies, not simply the U.S.

Hamilcar: How would you have "mopped up" the millions of Japanese troops in China, Korea, Taiwan, Indochina and Indonesia? Do you have any idea ;how long that would take, given that Japanese troops did not surrended? At what military cost in lives, both Allied and Japanese? And what cost to the civilians in those areas?

By far the greater evil would have been not dropping the bomb.

Read this from the Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_PrintFriendly&c=Article&cid=1123192211805
'Aug. 5, 2005. 01:00 AM
Would you have dropped the bomb?
Yes | No other event would have produced an enduring peace at less cost, says Richard B. Frank

I believe a sober assessment of ends, means and costs demonstrates that the atomic bombs were the worst way to end the Pacific War — except all the others. Therefore, had the decision been mine to make, I would have authorized the use of atomic bombs.

The U.S. war aim of "unconditional surrender" constituted the essential legal authority to abolish the old order in Japan, thereby transforming military victory into an enduring peace. The Japanese, however, pursued two minimal goals: preservation of the Imperial institution and of the entrenched militaristic order.

Far from regarding their situation as hopeless, Japanese leaders crafted a military-political strategy called Ketsu Go to secure their twin war aims. Ketsu Go rested on the premise that inflicting heavy losses during the initial invasion would shatter brittle American resolve. The Japanese shrewdly anticipated that southern Kyushu (Japan's third largest island) would be the U.S. beachhead and packed it with defences. Against this backdrop, U.S. diplomatic concessions acted not as a one-way ratchet toward peace, but as concrete vindication for the hardliners' central premise of vulnerable American will.

U.S. leaders confronted an extensive menu of options. Naval and air officers advocated continuation of the ongoing campaign of bombardment and blockade. This strategy contemplated killing Japanese by the tens or hundreds of thousands with bombs and shells, and by the millions through starvation. U.S. decision makers looked to complement bombardment and blockade with an invasion followed by Soviet entry. But the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945 defined the ultimate American nightmare not as the invasion, but the peril that even if the Japanese government surrendered, Japan's armed forces would not.

By July and the first days of August 1945, radio intelligence demonstrated that southern Kyushu bristled with Japanese forces that far exceeded prior U.S. estimates. A radio intelligence assessment passed to senior policy-makers on July 27 stated that it was clear Japan would never submit to terms acceptable to the United States as long as the Imperial Army remained confident of Ketsu Go. Given these revelations, I cannot imagine that anyone who would have been president would have failed to use atomic bombs.

The realization that the planned invasion of Kyushu was no longer feasible also undercut any American confidence that Soviet intervention could be decisive, since Gen. George Marshall had tied its impact to the success of the U.S. invasion. More importantly, Japanese military leaders did not regard Soviet entry as the end because the Soviets lacked the sea lift to deliver their massive armies and tactical air forces to the Home Islands. Accordingly, Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu, the chief of staff of the Imperial Army, told the emperor that Soviet entry made no difference for Ketsu Go. More ominously still, the Imperial Army rebounded from news of an imminent Soviet entry with a plan to eliminate any vestige of civilian government and rule from Imperial headquarters. This stroke would have eradicated the legal basis for the emperor's intervention. And absent the emperor's intervention, there was no sure path to peace.

This brings us to costs. The bombs killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Japanese — many from the horrifying effects of radiation that U.S. policy-makers were ignorant of in 1945. The alternatives were worse. Beyond the military losses, the Soviet Union's initial intervention in the war against Japan ultimately cost the lives of between 340,000 and 500,000 Japanese, overwhelmingly non-combatants. Had the war not ended when it did, many more would have perished. The blockade would have killed millions.

Finally, we now know that ending the war by Aug. 15 was crucial. By then, a new Aug. 13 targeting directive that sought the destruction of Japan's railroads through strategic bombings would have gone into effect. Coupled to the annihilation of shipping and a desperate food shortage, this directive would have locked Japan inexorably on a course to a massive famine. Ghastly as the bombs were, the grim reality is that no other combination of events would have produced an enduring peace at less cost.

Richard B. Frank is the author of Downfall: The End of the Japanese Imperial Empire (1999).'

Mark
Ottawa

Should have noted that the Star piece is an abbreviation of the same article in the Weekly Standard.

Mark
Ottawa

I get a kick out of the dopey "everyone who disagrees with us is a leftist" people who comment on this site. Even as they babble about moral relativsm, it's pretty obvious these are "big words" for them, used to cover the fact they have no idea what they are talking about.

Reason, not faith, is grounds for following a philosophy.

Brian C,

"Al Qaeda doesn't even follow the principles of Islam so why would they care if the world switched to Islam."

Sure, Al Qaeda doesn't care about Islam. Whatever you say.

"There is no guarantee that EVEN IF THE WORLD switched to Islam, the terrorism would end."

You're missing my point. Imagine if there were such a guarantee. Does that mean that anyone who doesn't choose the peaceful alternative (conversion to Islam) only has themselves to blame if Al Qaeda blows them up?

"If you want to characterize this as terrorism, then it was sanctioned by all Allies, not simply the U.S."

Who cares who it was sanctioned by? Morality isn't based on a majority vote. Either something is right or it is wrong.

"Morality isn't based on a majority vote. Either something is right or it is wrong."

That is a pretty naive statement. The Allies were faced with a series of 'wrong' choices as you state it. They needed to make a choice between sacrificing the lives of their own citizens vs appearing heavy handed.

Mark Collins,

"Hamilcar: How would you have "mopped up" the millions of Japanese troops in China, Korea, Taiwan, Indochina and Indonesia?"

The old-fashioned way. It would be made easier by the fact that the Japanese expected an invasion of Japan, and were sending home their best soldiers to defend the homeland. But, easy or hard, it could be done.

"Do you have any idea ;how long that would take, given that Japanese troops did not surrended? At what military cost in lives, both Allied and Japanese? And what cost to the civilians in those areas?"

So I guess, in your view, it was foolish for the Americans to ever have fought the Japanese supermen in the first place.

"By far the greater evil would have been not dropping the bomb."

Except that the end doesn't justify the means.

"Read this from the Toronto Star:"

How does the article contradict what I've been saying?

Brian C,

"The Allies were faced with a series of 'wrong' choices as you state it. They needed to make a choice between sacrificing the lives of their own citizens vs appearing heavy handed."

We all have moral decisions to make in life. Sometimes doing the right thing is more difficult than doing the wrong thing, but we still have to do what is right.

Hamilcar wrote:

"I don't mind killing, as long as you have the right to do so. But if you're murdering someone, it doesn't matter what cause you do it for - it's still murder."

Tell us: how does one acquire the "right" to kill? Does one, in your opinion, have to get official permission from the Supreme Overlord of the Left Wing or from Paul Martin or Kofi Annan or Svend Robinson or the CBC? How do YOU believe the "right to kill" is acquired, if not by way of self-defence or by way of the defence of one's nation and fellow citizens or the citizens of another nation? Who gives out these rights?

And, Ham, it was WAR. It's not the same as some civilian slitting another's throat or blowing their brains out for money, revenge or whatever. It was WAR. Don't you realize that in war, which is sometimes necessary and required, civilian deaths do unfortunately occur, but it isn't murder, technically, rather they're "casualties of war".

I confess I'm not a religious theologian by any means, so please refrain in the future from citing Biblical or whatever passages in an attempt to bolster arguments which do not call for religious backing.

Hamilcar: How does the article contradict what I've been saying?

I quote: "I believe a sober assessment of ends, means and costs demonstrates that the atomic bombs were the worst way to end the Pacific War — except all the others. Therefore, had the decision been mine to make, I would have authorized the use of atomic bombs."

So am I to understand you do in fact agree that dropping the bombs was the right, if awful, decision?

Mark
Ottawa

"Don't you realize that in war, which is sometimes necessary and required, civilian deaths do unfortunately occur, but it isn't murder, technically, rather they're "casualties of war" "

When they are incidental! When they are targeted deliberately it is most certainly murder. No one in this entire comment thread has argued that incidental civilian deaths are an unfortunate but legitimate facet of war. Let's put this strawman to rest. But in the case of London, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima and Nagasaki civilian deaths and the reactions they would supposedly create were the whole point of the bombings.

It is funny, in a singularly unfunny way, that Hamilcar believes it is more moral to starve/massacre millions of civilians than bomb thousands.

I am reminded of a rebuke Jesus had for the Pharisees... something about pulling an ass out of a ditch on the sabbath, but not a man.

Kong

Why has no one prosposed ending the war by allowing the Japanese Empire to remain intact? After all, America allowed the Soviet Empire to run its course, and even helped build them into a military power.

Japan knew it was defeated, and both sides could have then made arrangements that would ensure their security. (I.E. a border in the water with American ships on one side, and Japanese on the other.)

Of course, that would not have resulted in an expansion of the American Empire which maintains unpopular military bases in Japan to this day, and so is unacceptable to empire builders.

Atomizing innocent civilians is accepted, of course.

Mark, I learned something from that article you posted, thanks. I have one question however.

"By July and the first days of August 1945, radio intelligence demonstrated that southern Kyushu bristled with Japanese forces that far exceeded prior U.S. estimates."

Why didn't the Americans nuke the Japanese forces? They knew approximately how many and where they were. History might be a little bit different had that approach been taken, if it would have been at all possible that is.

For the record, I think the Americans did the right thing by dropping the bomb if not all for the right reasons.

Maple stump: Good question. Because the Japanese troops in Kyushu were not sufficiently concentrated in any one known place at any one known time so that the devastating effect of the weapon would be truly evident. A few thousand dead soldiers--the Japanese were used to that--and a lot of rubble--would not have been that demonstrative or convincing.

It is sad but true that hitting a predominantly, and public, civilian target ensured that the power of the bomb must be widely known.

The "Studies in Intelligence" article is really worth reading too.

Mark
Ottawa

Stephen McAllister,

"How do YOU believe the "right to kill" is acquired, if not by way of self-defence or by way of the defence of one's nation and fellow citizens or the citizens of another nation?"

That's more or less correct. We have the right to kill in self-defense as individuals, and the State has the right to authorize people to kill on its behalf (whether in executing criminals or fighting wars).

"Don't you realize that in war, which is sometimes necessary and required, civilian deaths do unfortunately occur, but it isn't murder, technically, rather they're "casualties of war".

It's murder if you directly intend to kill them. In the same way, a death due to "friendly fire" is not immoral if it's unintentional, but is murder if directly intended.

"I confess I'm not a religious theologian by any means, so please refrain in the future from citing Biblical or whatever passages in an attempt to bolster arguments which do not call for religious backing."

Bible quotes would help to convince Christians. You're not the only one reading this, after all. Besides, the argument I was making didn't even require faith in Christianity, or a knowledge of theology. I was saying that everyone back then understood that the end doesn't justify the means, whereas today many people seem not to understand this simple concept.

Mark Collins,

"I quote: "I believe a sober assessment of ends, means and costs demonstrates that the atomic bombs were the worst way to end the Pacific War — except all the others. Therefore, had the decision been mine to make, I would have authorized the use of atomic bombs."

"So am I to understand you do in fact agree that dropping the bombs was the right, if awful, decision?"

No, you are not to understand that. Your quote from the article is what the author intended to demonstrate. Where does he actually demonstrate this, taking into account that the end doesn't justify the means?

Kong,

"It is funny, in a singularly unfunny way, that Hamilcar believes it is more moral to starve/massacre millions of civilians than bomb thousands."

Maybe, and maybe not. A blockade of Japan could have led to a quick surrender without many casualties at all.

But let's assume that there would be more deaths due to not using the atomic bomb. The difference between the two possibilities (using the bombs or not) is that, on one hand, you're directly murdering people; while on the other hand, people die as an unintended consequence of your nation's defense of itself.

"I am reminded of a rebuke Jesus had for the Pharisees... something about pulling an ass out of a ditch on the sabbath, but not a man."

The passage you're thinking of doesn't really relate to this, since what Jesus is talking about is being overly strict about observing the Sabbath. If what you're saying is that I'm being too fastidious about following rules, just remember that the rule I want to follow is the one about not murdering innocent people. Look at it this way: let's say that if someone were to murder you and your family, twice as many other people would be saved from death. Would it then be morally right to murder your family? No, it wouldn't, because the end (saving people's lives) doesn't justify the means (murdering innocent people).

But if you want to argue this Biblically, read Romans 3:8 and explain to me how murdering some people to save others can be justified.

Hamilcar,

What makes you presuppose that Japan would have surrendered if the bombs were not dropped and an embargo on the home islands had been effected?

And "only wooden boats"? Excuse me? What about rifles, tanks, mortars, bayonets, mines, artillery...... all in the hands of people who had shown an amazing tenaciousness in the face of overwhelming odds during previous battles. Not to mention biological weapons, which were within weeks of being used against the US West Coast by Japanese sub-launched aircraft.

And yes, if the US was at war I *would* fully expect that myself, my town, etc. would be a legitimate target for the enemy state. I wouldn't like for that to happen, and I feel it is most appropriate for wars to be fought between armed forces, but given the way 20th century warfare has evolved, it's certainly likely cities would be targeted for various reasons. And that's part of war.

I know you're going to go ape over this statement, but part of the idea when a nation is in a war is to inflict damage/casualties on the other nation which will lead it to surrender, and to do so in a manner which causes the least damage/casualties to your own forces/nation. There is a Geneva Convention, but there are no Queensberry Rules.

I can say one thing for sure. The approach that you advocate (in general) is like what Neville Chamberlain and his ilk tried to do. They were very well-intentioned people, with the highest moral standards. And their refusal to deal with reality led directly to WWII. Reality is a nasty, ugly thing; it's not all neat and pretty like theories, policies, or belief systems. When you say "I'd rather be criticized for doing the right thing than be praised for being a murderer", realize that you can end up in the latter position no matter which choice you make. Because to the families of those who pay with their lives for your decision, you'll be a murderer. It's all relative. To you, I guess I'd be a murderer for the way I'd do things. Se la guerre.

Technically, Hamilcar, with your viewpoint you should (if you're honest) be saying that anything other than direct, hand-to-hand combat between armies is immoral - because if you feel that 'innocent civilians' shouldn't be killed, that should be an absolute. It's either always wrong, or it's never wrong - it can't be conditionally wrong, because a) how can the morality you posit be true and still allow for exceptions, and c) it would allow for disagreement/argument over the exceptions, making the conditionality impossible to state as an absolute truism. And if civilians are to be protected, that precludes any form of combat which may, however unintentionally it may be, put them at risk of harm. So it's back to swords and knives, right?

Hamilcar: Read the article. There are times when the end justifies the means.

Please answer this. Murder is wrong. Would it have been wrong if, in 1937, Great Britain or France had hired an assassin who then succeeded in murdering Hitler?

Yes? No?

Answer.

Mark
Ottawa

With or without a time machine, and time machine ethics, Mark?

Japan would not have unconditionally surrendered without the atomic bombs. However, they would likely have surrendered if the terms had been fair (i.e. their security concerns were met, no more US agression in their sphere of influence.)

America has unfortunately not been content to merely guard its borders. They insist on occupying nations and setting up one party rule in states all over the globe, which naturally causes all states to be nervous when aggressive moves are made near them by the US.

Murdering innocent human beings is what empires do.

Libertarian theory can be useful in sorting out this mess. Violence and especially murder are morally wrong, but can be justified under certain circumstances.

Aggression can be repaid with agression. If a Hitler is responsible for the loss of innocent lives, his life is forfeit and killing him becomes justice.

Dropping atomic bombs on non-combatants, including innocent children who have not used aggression against anyone else is morally wrong and is murder.

War does not make killing just in itself. A just war is one fought for self-defence.

The arguments that the "end didn't justify the means" might be easier to digest if they didn't come coated in moralizing self-rightousness.

I believe the answer to that question is simple - the people best situated to make the decisions they did were in that place, in that time. We need not trust that they made the right one - we need only to look around us at the world that emerged.

I'm thankful for the decisions they made, both the ones that saved lives and the ones that cost lives, because in the end they prevailed and we - both Japanese and Westerners - are able to debate the "morality" of WWII in the comfort and affluence of a free society - instead of trying to accept our lot as third generation descendants of an inferior race fit only for slave labour.

o/t but someone at Global may have been peeking. Tonight they ran an interview with 3 survivors of a Japanese POW camp that doubt they'd have survived had Japan not surrendered. They even started it with "as everyone gets ready to mark the 60th anniversary of Nagasaki, we thought it fitting to..." and did about 3-5 minutes on it.

Joey W,

"What makes you presuppose that Japan would have surrendered if the bombs were not dropped and an embargo on the home islands had been effected?"

What would make one presuppose (without the benefit of twenty-twenty hindsight) that Japan would have surrendered after the two atomic bombs were dropped?

"And "only wooden boats"? Excuse me? What about rifles, tanks, mortars, bayonets, mines, artillery...... all in the hands of people who had shown an amazing tenaciousness in the face of overwhelming odds during previous battles."

How would the Japanese use rifles, tanks, mortars, etc. against the US Navy? And without fuel, how would they operate aircraft or modern ships? If they tried sending modern ships against the US Navy, they'd all be sunk, or at least run out of fuel. Without raw materials from outside Japan, they wouldn't be able to build more. So eventually, if they wanted to keep attacking, the only thing they'd be able to build is wooden boats.

"Not to mention biological weapons, which were within weeks of being used against the US West Coast by Japanese sub-launched aircraft."

Well, presumably any submarine shipyards would have been put out of commission, plus radar could be used to find any subs leaving Japan. Besides, if the Japanese really wanted to attack the US with biological weapons, atomic bombs wouldn't have stopped them.

"And yes, if the US was at war I *would* fully expect that myself, my town, etc. would be a legitimate target for the enemy state."

In that case, you believe that Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks are legitimate. Or at least, if some state were responsible for them, terrorist attacks would be completely fine with you.

Let's put it another way. If all the people in your town are legitimate targets, then all the people in every town are legitimate targets. So, according to you, once war is declared, any nation has the right to obliterate any other nation off the face of the earth. To use a modern example, once war is declared between them, Iran has a right to nuke Israel and kill everyone in the entire country.

"I know you're going to go ape over this statement, but part of the idea when a nation is in a war is to inflict damage/casualties on the other nation which will lead it to surrender, and to do so in a manner which causes the least damage/casualties to your own forces/nation. There is a Geneva Convention, but there are no Queensberry Rules."

So the concept of war crimes is meaningless to you?

"The approach that you advocate (in general) is like what Neville Chamberlain and his ilk tried to do. They were very well-intentioned people, with the highest moral standards. And their refusal to deal with reality led directly to WWII."

What does Neville Chamberlain have to do with this? What immoral act should have done to prevent World War II?

"Reality is a nasty, ugly thing; it's not all neat and pretty like theories, policies, or belief systems."

So you'd be in favor of "accidentally" pushing someone down the stairs in order to get an inheritance? After all, reality is reality, and we don't like being limited by "theories, policies, or belief systems".

"When you say "I'd rather be criticized for doing the right thing than be praised for being a murderer", realize that you can end up in the latter position no matter which choice you make. Because to the families of those who pay with their lives for your decision, you'll be a murderer. It's all relative."

It's not all relative. Things are either right or wrong. If someone can't tell the moral difference between intentionally killing an innocent person and accidentally doing so, then they're probably overwhelmed with emotion and can't think straight. I can understand that, but it doesn't change the reality of what I'm talking about.

"To you, I guess I'd be a murderer for the way I'd do things."

More importantly, you'd be a murderer in an objective sense.

"Technically, Hamilcar, with your viewpoint you should (if you're honest) be saying that anything other than direct, hand-to-hand combat between armies is immoral - because if you feel that 'innocent civilians' shouldn't be killed, that should be an absolute. It's either always wrong, or it's never wrong - it can't be conditionally wrong, because a) how can the morality you posit be true and still allow for exceptions, and c) it would allow for disagreement/argument over the exceptions, making the conditionality impossible to state as an absolute truism."

No. For instance, it is wrong for an individual to kill another. However, if someone is trying to kill you, you can kill him if that's what it takes to stop him. You don't intend to kill him, you intend to defend yourself. This is based on the principle of double effect:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
A person may licitly perform an action that he foresees will produce a good effect and a bad effect provided that four conditions are verified at one and the same time:

1. that the action in itself from its very object be good or at least indifferent;
2. that the good effect and not the evil effect be intended;
3. that the good effect be not produced by means of the evil effect;
4. that there be a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect.

Mark Collins,

"Hamilcar: Read the article. There are times when the end justifies the means."

I've read it, but I must have missed the part where he shows that the end justifies the means. Could you point it out to me, please? Thanks.

"Please answer this. Murder is wrong. Would it have been wrong if, in 1937, Great Britain or France had hired an assassin who then succeeded in murdering Hitler?"

It seems to me that if they first declared war on Germany (for breaking the Treaty of Versailles, presumably), it would be okay. If not, then not.

Hamilcar: "What does Neville Chamberlain have to do with this? What immoral act should have done to prevent World War II?"

The UK's murdering Hitler in 1937.

Would that have been OK with you?

Mark
Ottawa

Hamilcar: Sorry had not seen your last post. So to save the life of one man, 30 million die.

The whole point of murdering Hitler would be to avoid declaring war, which in itself would cause very large casualties. And it is still illegal under international law to murder an enemy head of state (or anyone else not a combatant). The only legitimate way to kill the person would be in actual combat or as "collateral damage".

By the way, the US attempts to kill Saddam Hussein by targeted bombing were illegal under international law.

Mark
Ottawa

Kate,

"I believe the answer to that question is simple - the people best situated to make the decisions they did were in that place, in that time."

Sure, but what does that prove? For example, the Japanese leaders were the people best situated to make decisions on behalf of Japan. Does that mean we should just accept their decisions?

"We need not trust that they made the right one - we need only to look around us at the world that emerged."

If morality means nothing, then why complain about what the Liberal Party does? As long as things work out okay in the long run, who cares about truth, justice, etc.?

Besides, logically speaking, what you just said constitutes approval of every act done in the past. If "we need only to look around us at the world that emerged," everything that has happened earlier on is okay, since it led up to the present conditions. For instance, maybe Jews should approve of the Holocaust, since that led to the foundation of Israel.

"I'm thankful for the decisions they made, both the ones that saved lives and the ones that cost lives, because in the end they prevailed and we - both Japanese and Westerners - are able to debate the "morality" of WWII in the comfort and affluence of a free society - instead of trying to accept our lot as third generation descendants of an inferior race fit only for slave labour."

In that case, a Japanese person should be thankful that Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, since things probably turned out better than they would have otherwise. The fact that the result of a decision is good doesn't make the decision itself good.

OK, Hamilcar, let's take your approach on *your* words.

"How would the Japanese use rifles, tanks, mortars, etc. against the US Navy?"

When is the last time that the US Navy landed on foreign soil? I believe you'll find that in order to effect an invasion, Marines and/or the Army go ashore. And that was going to happen - because it's more likely in the theoretical scenario that you present that an invasion would still be required than it is that a surrender would have occurred. Just read about what happened on Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, to name two well-known places. Surrender?????

"Well, presumably any submarine shipyards would have been put out of commission, plus radar could be used to find any subs leaving Japan. Besides, if the Japanese really wanted to attack the US with biological weapons, atomic bombs wouldn't have stopped them."

So now you make assumptions, but have no basis for them. How would these shipyards have been put out of commission? Aerial attack, at the cost of how many planes, men (and civilians)? Naval bombardment, which would have killed many civilians in the area, because it is imprecise? And I would hope that any reasonably intelligent person knows radar cannot track submarines underwater. Not even in 2005. And finally you just wave the whole idea off with 'if they really wanted to do it, atomic bombs wouldn't have stopped them'. In that case, we needn't have bothered to fight the war at all; if they really wanted to win, we wouldn't have stopped them, so we should have just surrendered. Hamilcar's theory.

"In that case, you believe that Al Qaeda's terrorist attacks are legitimate. Or at least, if some state were responsible for them, terrorist attacks would be completely fine with you."

What is there about the word "war" that you don't understand?

"Let's put it another way. If all the people in your town are legitimate targets, then all the people in every town are legitimate targets. So, according to you, once war is declared, any nation has the right to obliterate any other nation off the face of the earth. To use a modern example, once war is declared between them, Iran has a right to nuke Israel and kill everyone in the entire country."

My, you like twisting words. There is no 'right' to, as you posit, nuke Israel. But when war is declared between powers with nuclear arms, it's going to be a nuclear war. Because the idea of war is to use the arms you have in an effective manner - the general idea being to win the war. (That's what most people tend to feel the goal is, at least. I realize you disagree.)

"So the concept of war crimes is meaningless to you?"

What, again you can't read? Did I not specifically cite the Geneva Convention?

"What does Neville Chamberlain have to do with this? What immoral act should have done to prevent World War II?"

I wish you'd take the time to learn how to ingest and comprehend. Look carefully. Read slowly. I said that because Chamberlain and his fellows tried to deal with people like Hitler in as a reasonable person, assuming that he would keep his promises, they were led into war. They didn't need to DO anything immoral - but they needed to consider that the world IS an immoral place, and that others must often be treated as dangerous and immoral.

"So you'd be in favor of "accidentally" pushing someone down the stairs in order to get an inheritance? After all, reality is reality, and we don't like being limited by "theories, policies, or belief systems"."

Childish and chickish, childish and chickish, childish and chickish.

"No. For instance, it is wrong for an individual to kill another. However, if someone is trying to kill you, you can kill him if that's what it takes to stop him. You don't intend to kill him, you intend to defend yourself. This is based on the principle of double effect:"

First,here are your own words: "It's not all relative. Things are either right or wrong." That tends to make it a bit tough to support the notion that self-defense is an allowable exception to killing. It's either right or wrong - YOUR words. But in any case, the idea of 'double effect' is, to put it simply, just philosophical BS. It's a way of rationalizing killing someone. "I have the right to live, so if someone tries to kill me I can kill them." You're starting from a logical fallacy; that your right to live is greater than that of someone else. To you as an individual, that may be true, but it is not an absolute, since each person likely holds that same opinion, and the contradictions of those opinions co-existing are irreconcilable.

(Don't bother with a reply. I've had enough of this. What irritates me most is that you talk about self-defense being acceptable, but a war fought on your terms would be suicide for the countries on your side. There's not much point in trying to defend yourself against someone with a gun by holding up a sheet in front of you.)

Mark Collins,

"Sorry had not seen your last post."

Actually, on second thought, I take back what I said. First, killing Hitler in 1937 would have been premature. And I think it would be better for it to be done in cooperation with people inside Germany, such as Von Stauffenberg, since he and his comrades were in a position to take over and set up a new government. If Hitler were merely assassinated, without having another government waiting in the wings, someone else in the same government would have taken his place.

"So to save the life of one man, 30 million die."

Would killing Hitler have saved all those lives? Maybe someone less insane would have taken Hitler's place, and then the Germans wouldn't have made some of the strategic mistakes they made with Hitler in charge.

Anyway, to answer the point you're making in general terms: if killing a particular individual truly is murder, then one must not kill him no matter what the consequences are. If it is wrong to do something, then we shouldn't do it, period. Otherwise, what does the word "wrong" mean? If something is right, we can do it; if it's wrong, we can't.

Maybe the following will help to explain things a bit more clearly:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
"It would be wrong to throw someone into the path of a runaway trolley in order to stop it and keep it from hitting five people on the track ahead; that would involve intending harm to the one as a means of saving the five. But it would be permissible to divert a runaway trolley onto a track holding one and away from a track holding five: in that case one foresees the death of the one as a side effect of saving the five but one does not intend it."

"The whole point of murdering Hitler would be to avoid declaring war, which in itself would cause very large casualties."

But without declaring war, by what authority would Churchill condemn Hitler to death? If Hitler were found guilty of a crime in a British court, then they could have asked for his extradition. Then if he were extradited, the British government could execute him. Other than that, the only situation in which a government can kill someone is war.

"And it is still illegal under international law to murder an enemy head of state (or anyone else not a combatant)."

I thought we were talking about morality, not international law. I guess if a country agrees to be bound by international law, then they have an obligation to follow it, but I don't know if that's the case here.

"International law."

Isn't that an oxymoron?

"International law.
Isn't that an oxymoron?"

Only to uneducated people who are unfamiliar with political science. When all the states on the globe voluntarily sign a treaty to enforce a position, that position has become international law.

It was not forced on soveriegn states, they worked together with other states to all make a law.

An example would be the Geneva Conventions against torture which most states have agreed too. It is international law because states recognized that is is moral and a good law to enforce.

Joey W,

"When is the last time that the US Navy landed on foreign soil? I believe you'll find that in order to effect an invasion, Marines and/or the Army go ashore."

I was talking about a blockade without any invasion.

"So now you make assumptions, but have no basis for them."

Sorry, I didn't realize you wanted me to provide documentation for a plan I made up off the top of my head.

"How would these shipyards have been put out of commission? Aerial attack, at the cost of how many planes, men (and civilians)? Naval bombardment, which would have killed many civilians in the area, because it is imprecise?"

Yes, that's right.

"And I would hope that any reasonably intelligent person knows radar cannot track submarines underwater."

I meant sonar, sorry.

"And finally you just wave the whole idea off with 'if they really wanted to do it, atomic bombs wouldn't have stopped them'. In that case, we needn't have bothered to fight the war at all; if they really wanted to win, we wouldn't have stopped them, so we should have just surrendered."

No, not at all. I think we should defend ourselves to the best of our ability, without committing atrocities.

"What is there about the word "war" that you don't understand?"

So if Iranian agents flew planes into the World Trade Center in wartime, it would have been okay with you?

"My, you like twisting words. There is no 'right' to, as you posit, nuke Israel."

If you claim it's okay to do something (such as nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki), then logically you're saying that there is a right to do it.

"But when war is declared between powers with nuclear arms, it's going to be a nuclear war. Because the idea of war is to use the arms you have in an effective manner - the general idea being to win the war. (That's what most people tend to feel the goal is, at least. I realize you disagree.)"

So if your goal is to be a millionaire, it doesn't matter what you do to achieve that goal?

"Did I not specifically cite the Geneva Convention?"

But the Geneva Convention forbids the killing of non-combattants. So you cite the Geneva Convention, but otherwise disregard it?

"I said that because Chamberlain and his fellows tried to deal with people like Hitler in as a reasonable person, assuming that he would keep his promises, they were led into war. They didn't need to DO anything immoral - but they needed to consider that the world IS an immoral place, and that others must often be treated as dangerous and immoral."

I think it was clear to everyone in 1945 that the Japanese were acting immorally. But that doesn't mean we should act immorally ourselves.

"Childish and chickish, childish and chickish, childish and chickish." [With regard to a question about pushing people down stairs for money]

I guess people should watch their backs around you.

"That tends to make it a bit tough to support the notion that self-defense is an allowable exception to killing. It's either right or wrong - YOUR words. But in any case, the idea of 'double effect' is, to put it simply, just philosophical BS. It's a way of rationalizing killing someone."

No, not at all. If you're trying to rationalize killing someone, that is, if your intention is to kill them and you're trying to find an excuse to do it, then double effect doesn't apply. It can only apply if you don't intend to kill that person.

"You're starting from a logical fallacy; that your right to live is greater than that of someone else."

No, it's based on the right to repel attacks against your person.

"What irritates me most is that you talk about self-defense being acceptable, but a war fought on your terms would be suicide for the countries on your side."

So the Americans were losing World War II before the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I don't think that's the case. It's possible to win a war honorably.

Joey W - "And I would hope that any reasonably intelligent person knows radar cannot track submarines underwater."

Hamilcar - "I meant sonar, sorry."

No, you meant radar (or should have). Radar was a very important detector of submarines in WW2 because submarines spent most of their time on the surface. Sonar had a much shorter range and would likely be ineffective in enforcing a blockade against submarines without being used in conjunction with radar (and air patrols).

Joey W - "(Don't bother with a reply. I've had enough of this.)

As you can see, that's not the way it works. If you remove yourself from an argument you don't get the last word. Also: nyah.

Hamilcar: In case you don't know the history, almost all states capable of doing so bombed civilians extensively during WW II: Germany, UK, US, Canada, Japan.

Mark
Ottawa

Mark - "In case you don't know the history, almost all states capable of doing so bombed civilians extensively during WW II: Germany, UK, US, Canada, Japan."

And where the targeting was deliberate it was wrong for each of those states. I never had the impression Hamilcar was limiting his criticism to America. Obviously a thing or two has been learned since WW2 since none of those states are deliberately targeting civilians as a matter of policy anymore.

M4-10: "a thing or two has been learned since WW2 since none of those states are deliberately targeting civilians as a matter of policy anymore": at least not since the great increase in ballistic missile accurancy (CEP) in the 1970s-80s.

The point I was making was that targeting civilians was not new with atomic weapons. They simply did much more effectively what had already been done for some time (and sometimes with death tolls in the same order of magnitude: Hamburg, Dresden, Tokyo--the Germans and Japanese never got very good at causing massive aerial bombardment casualties).

If the civilian issue is what moves one, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be end point of one's argument, not the focal one.

Some sources say the German bombing of Belgrade on April 6, 1941, killed 17,000 people but I suspect that figure is quite exaggerated. Other gruesome figures at this site: "Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century"
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/battles.htm

Mark
Ottawa

A wonderful source: "The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II: A Collection of Primary Sources, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 162, August 5, 2005"
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/index.htm

Mark
Ottawa

The left is very adept at rewriting history without giving a second thought to factual reality. Amazing. Orwell keeps coming to mind.

I'm astonished at these fool lefties who think that it's some kind of brilliant discovery to realize that deliberately killing civilians is morally wrong. Of course it is. That's why we don't want to get into wars, you see. Because war is about what is necessary, not what is moral, and you wind up doing things you know are wrong because you have to win the war.

Since I don't define my identity in terms of the purity and intensity of my hatred for Americans, I don't see any reason to look for reasons to hate them, and therefore I see no point in considering whether it was right or wrong of them to use the bomb. I expect it was just about as wrong as everything else they had to do to win the war. I suspect they agree with that, since they haven't needed to do anything like that to win a war since, and they haven't in fact done anything like it again. If they really thought dropping the bomb was actually a good thing, they'd do it every week.