Today as we observe the 60 year anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima…
I share with you these photographs of London.
Today as we observe the 60 year anniversary of the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima…
I share with you these photographs of London.
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.