Hiroshima Day

[Mr Kobayashi]

There is no winner here, would you not drop the bomb but instead swap that picture for one of dead British children or soldiers?

Which British children were in the Far East and vulnerable to attack from Imperial Japan?

I'm sure there were some, but a significant number, really?

Your argument essentially boils down to lets kill far more Japanese civilians than we military men we are likely to lose because they are from our own country. As others have said the bomb dropping was inevitable once the USA had the capability, that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise it as a crime against humanity.

If you reframed your question, and gave me the choice of shooting a room full of 10 Japanese kids or 1 British child, (without a third option and my suicide results in them all dying). I would begrudgingly kill the British child. If it was 2 Japanese and 1 British child I would make the same choice.

The only way I am unlikely to be swayed from that (unless you reverse the ratio) is if the child was a close relative or someone under my care.

I'm not surprised that you can quote contemporary high approval from Americans, (racist) war time propaganda is a powerful too. Many ethnic Japanese in America were interned because of their genetic predisposition to disloyalty.

It’s irrelevant information to a moral dilemma.

 

[Chris B]

Which British children were in the Far East and vulnerable to attack from Imperial Japan?

I'm sure there were some, but a significant number, really?

Your argument essentially boils down to lets kill far more Japanese civilians than we military men we are likely to lose because they are from our own country. As others have said the bomb dropping was inevitable once the USA had the capability, that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognise it as a crime against humanity.

If you reframed your question, and gave me the choice of shooting a room full of 10 Japanese kids or 1 British child, (without a third option and my suicide results in them all dying). I would begrudgingly kill the British child. If it was 2 Japanese and 1 British child I would make the same choice.

The only way I am unlikely to be swayed from that (unless you reverse the ratio) is if the child was a close relative or someone under my care.

I'm not surprised that you can quote contemporary high approval from Americans, (racist) war time propaganda is a powerful too. Many ethnic Japanese in America were interned because of their genetic predisposition to disloyalty.

It’s irrelevant information to a moral dilemma.

Of course there were many British children at risk of attack from the Japanese, or actually living under Japanese occupation. J G Ballard is the most famous example but certainly not the only one. Japan had occupied Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, China, etc.

I’m not sure theoretical examples about killing children are very helpful. WW2 was a real world war, and from a US point of view it was started by unprovoked Japanese aggression. The US wasn’t under any obligation to follow a course of action that would minimise overall suffering, its right was to defend the US interest and lives.

We are used to framing all debates these days in terms of moral relativism, where all cultures are of equal value, and lives are equally as highly valued irrespective of race or nationality. It should be pretty obvious that such a view is not one that belligerents in a war have the luxury of indulging. In WW2 the allies had to value their people’s lives above the Axis people, because the Axis powers were intent on their destruction. Acting in a way that discriminates against Japanese people in such a situation is not racism, it was simply defence of their national interest.

To put it in your terms, the people of the USA were ‘under the care’ of their government, and so they were entitled to give more weight to their own.

I’m not certain that dropping the bombs was necessary (impossible to say without seeing a parallel universe where different decisions were taken), but argument that the US should’ve given equal weight to the loss of Japanese lives in wartime decision making could only logically result in immediate and complete surrender and nothing else. After all, why fire a gun if killing your enemy is as bad as killing yourself? You might as well let them kill you and save yourself the cost of the bullet

 

[Blue Mist]

Good god this is insane. You asked for a reason not to do it, and I provided you with one, I could have posted a more harrowing and horrific photo but thought you would have got the point without the need to post gruesome images in breach of the CoC.

The fact that you don't consider the "collateral damage" of innocent children relevant is very telling.

Move the debate to Europe for a moment. What about the bombing of London, Dresden and other cities. The deaths of anyone, children or adults is something that should be avoided as much as possible but what about the deaths of conscripted soldiers. They have a right to life as well.
Japan was not going to surrender full stop. They refused to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. They were going to kill as many US and British troops as they could. Innocents die in wars, the Japanese were the ones responsible for those innocent people dying.

 

[Rascal]

This thread was not meant to be an historical discussion although it does have merit.

I just asked can anyone justify in the light of Hiroshima this Govt. spending billions on vanity weapons.

 

[inbetween]

This thread was not meant to be an historical discussion although it does have merit.

I just asked can anyone justify in the light of Hiroshima this Govt. spending billions on vanity weapons.

Given MAD is our defence policy, the only reason I can see not to have them is because there are technological ways to defend ourselves anyway. For example we could develop the capability to shoot down ICBM's which negates the need to have nukes for MAD.

This kind of technology is why a space arms race is perhaps next around the corner because having the ability to destroy ICBM's from space will render nukes as completely irrelevant. I'd imagine that this is where the Americans are heading next, there's a reason why Elon Musk is seeking to put heavier payloads into space and it'd be a great business move let's put it that way.

I'd certainly agree to get rid of nukes for this reason but we should keep the funding if we can. That money should be spent on keeping capability and not reducing it. If we don't then you can say goodbye to a century of the most advanced technical skills, jobs and development. Maybe those people could become HGV drivers instead?

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Of course there were many British children at risk of attack from the Japanese, or actually living under Japanese occupation. J G Ballard is the most famous example but certainly not the only one. Japan had occupied Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, China, etc.

I’m not sure theoretical examples about killing children are very helpful. WW2 was a real world war, and from a US point of view it was started by unprovoked Japanese aggression. The US wasn’t under any obligation to follow a course of action that would minimise overall suffering, its right was to defend the US interest and lives.

We are used to framing all debates these days in terms of moral relativism, where all cultures are of equal value, and lives are equally as highly valued irrespective of race or nationality. It should be pretty obvious that such a view is not one that belligerents in a war have the luxury of indulging. In WW2 the allies had to value their people’s lives above the Axis people, because the Axis powers were intent on their destruction. Acting in a way that discriminates against Japanese people in such a situation is not racism, it was simply defence of their national interest.

To put it in your terms, the people of the USA were ‘under the care’ of their government, and so they were entitled to give more weight to their own.

I’m not certain that dropping the bombs was necessary (impossible to say without seeing a parallel universe where different decisions were taken), but argument that the US should’ve given equal weight to the loss of Japanese lives in wartime decision making could only logically result in immediate and complete surrender and nothing else. After all, why fire a gun if killing your enemy is as bad as killing yourself? You might as well let them kill you and save yourself the cost of the bullet

Well done for missing the point. Innocent (women and) children vs armed combatants.

Obviously in times of conscription the lines are blurred but this is a pretty simple rule to live by. And just because your enemy doesn't live by these values it doesn't mean it is okay for you not to.

What I have argued is pretty well established norms during modern warfare. If there are child soldiers or armed "civilian defence forces" in the conflict I wouldn't expect armed forces to refrain from attacking them or treat them the same as civilian non-combatants.

 

[Blue Mist]

This thread was not meant to be an historical discussion although it does have merit.

I just asked can anyone justify in the light of Hiroshima this Govt. spending billions on vanity weapons.

But it is 2 separate debates which you joined together. I can fully understand why the 2 bombs were dropped.
I cannot understand why we as a small country are spending billions on nuclear weapons. Our empire days are over, world war 2 is behind us, we are not global peacemakers using our weapons to ensure peace. We were allies with the US, are we now puppets ?
I do believe it should be scrapped

 

[domalino]

Move the debate to Europe for a moment. What about the bombing of London, Dresden and other cities. The deaths of anyone, children or adults is something that should be avoided as much as possible but what about the deaths of conscripted soldiers. They have a right to life as well.
Japan was not going to surrender full stop. They refused to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. They were going to kill as many US and British troops as they could. Innocents die in wars, the Japanese were the ones responsible for those innocent people dying.

It's interesting that you mention Dresden because it brings up an often overlooked part of the story.

The atomic bombs were not the most deadly attacks on Japan, it was the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed 100,000 civilians in 1 night, wounded a further 125,000 and left 1 million homeless.

It is the single most destructive air raid in history hands down.

As for "needing" to drop the Atomic bombs to end the war, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's hard to believe a country that had seen 400,000 civilians burned to death with indiscriminate Napalm was going to have it's mind changed by the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima which killed far fewer people.

The biggest reason for Japanese surrender was that Operation Starvation was so effective at causing famine in Japan that the US Government was providing hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat to Japan for 7 years post WW2 just to stop them all dying.

And the US military's own review of the war decided that the naval blockade would have ended the war on its own.

So the US didn't think the atomic bombs were necessary or the deliberate napalming of civilians.

 

[Chris B]

Well done for missing the point. Innocent (women and) children vs armed combatants.

Obviously in times of conscription the lines are blurred but this is a pretty simple rule to live by. And just because your enemy doesn't live by these values it doesn't mean it is okay for you not to.

What I have argued is pretty well established norms during modern warfare. If there are child soldiers or armed "civilian defence forces" in the conflict I wouldn't expect armed forces to refrain from attacking them or treat them the same as civilian non-combatants.

My point is that the US was the innocent party, and they were entitled to behave like the lives of their people, whether civilians or soldiers, had value. Moreover, it was the absolute duty of the US government to minimise the loss of US lives.

For their part Japanese government had the same duty to its people, and sadly it failed them very badly.

I agree the point about the rules of modern warfare, civilians shouldn’t be targeted. But this was a total war that would determine the continued existing of civilisations in which all sides targeted cities indiscriminately. It is naive to expect that is those circumstances the same rules of engagement would be applied.

 

[inbetween]

My point is that the US was the innocent party, and they were entitled to behave like the lives of their people, whether civilians or soldiers, had value. Moreover, it was the absolute duty of the US government to minimise the loss of US lives.

For their part Japanese government had the same duty to its people, and sadly it failed them very badly.

I agree the point about the rules of modern warfare, civilians shouldn’t be targeted. But this was a total war that would determine the continued existing of civilisations in which all sides targeted cities indiscriminately. It is naive to expect that is those circumstances the same rules of engagement would be applied.

The more interesting thing on the bombs isn't the justification for using them but rather the justification for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically. They were designated as military targets however clearly that was false and there isn't really any evidence that the Truman administration researched the targets to prevent civilian deaths.

I wouldn't oppose dropping the bombs again but dropping them on those cities or in those locations in particular was probably very excessive. A show of force was possible and would still potentially end the war without so much loss of life.

The more frightening thing is if we compare the bombs dropped on those cities to the ones we have today, trident warheads are 8x more powerful. The most powerful ever (Soviet Tsar Bomba) could not just obliterate London but it'd obliterate everything within the M25 too.

 

[Blue Mist]

It's interesting that you mention Dresden because it brings up an often overlooked part of the story.

The atomic bombs were not the most deadly attacks on Japan, it was the fire bombing of Tokyo, which killed 100,000 civilians in 1 night, wounded a further 125,000 and left 1 million homeless.

It is the single most destructive air raid in history hands down.

As for "needing" to drop the Atomic bombs to end the war, it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. It's hard to believe a country that had seen 400,000 civilians burned to death with indiscriminate Napalm was going to have it's mind changed by the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima which killed far fewer people.

The biggest reason for Japanese surrender was that Operation Starvation was so effective at causing famine in Japan that the US Government was providing hundreds of thousands of tons of wheat to Japan for 7 years post WW2 just to stop them all dying.

And the US military's own review of the war decided that the naval blockade would have ended the war on its own.

So the US didn't think the atomic bombs were necessary or the deliberate napalming of civilians.

But that brings us back to the other argument that the bombs were dropped to show Russia that the US had them, how powerful they were and that they were prepared to use them. It is an argument I can accept but primarily it was a way of ending the war, otherwise why drop the second. Clearly the fire bombing of Tokyo had no effect on the Emperor and government , the first A bomb didn't either so drastic measures were called for.
I fully accept that my viewpoint is skewed because of my hatred for them (then not now)

 

[Vic]

But that brings us back to the other argument that the bombs were dropped to show Russia that the US had them, how powerful they were and that they were prepared to use them. It is an argument I can accept but primarily it was a way of ending the war, otherwise why drop the second. Clearly the fire bombing of Tokyo had no effect on the Emperor and government , the first A bomb didn't either so drastic measures were called for.
I fully accept that my viewpoint is skewed because of my hatred for them (then not now)

3 days after Hiroshima was not much time for the Japanese to work out what had happened. Nagasaki chosen as it was relatively untouched by conventional bombing.

I think the Times headline, "A successful experiment", says a lot.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

But that brings us back to the other argument that the bombs were dropped to show Russia that the US had them, how powerful they were and that they were prepared to use them. It is an argument I can accept but primarily it was a way of ending the war, otherwise why drop the second. Clearly the fire bombing of Tokyo had no effect on the Emperor and government , the first A bomb didn't either so drastic measures were called for.
I fully accept that my viewpoint is skewed because of my hatred for them (then not now)

Hatred 'then' - were you flying the enola gay musty?

 

[Blue Mist]

Hatred 'then' - were you flying the enola gay musty?

Oh you, stop it.

 

[Manchester_lalala]

Baffles my mind that every single one of Britain’s nukes is 8x more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. When will humans finally realise there’s no need for that much suffering.

 

[BrianW]

Baffles my mind that every single one of Britain’s nukes is 8x more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. When will humans finally realise there’s no need for that much suffering.

But we have to have them, or the Russians will invade tomorrow.

 

[Vic]

From another thread... we need more Trident warheads to deter the Taliban

 

[MillionMilesAway]

3 days after Hiroshima was not much time for the Japanese to work out what had happened. Nagasaki chosen as it was relatively untouched by conventional bombing.

I think the Times headline, "A successful experiment", says a lot.

Nagasaki was hit because of bad weather at the primary target Kokura; the bombs had to be dropped visually rather than using radar, and Nagasaki was a secondary target.

The point on not having been conventionally bombed is true though - by design, I think so the effect would be greater.

 

[Blue Mist]

But we have to have them, or the Russians will invade tomorrow.

Or Iran will bomb us, don't forget them, I've heard they have all of Saddams weapons of mass destruction. A guy in the pub told me.

 

[NPBlue]

This thread was not meant to be an historical discussion although it does have merit.

I just asked can anyone justify in the light of Hiroshima this Govt. spending billions on vanity weapons.

I wouldn't call them vanity weapons. I've been around for 64 years now and seen the world change over the years into a much more unstable place than it was, say, 40 years ago. I tend to look on nuclear weapons as a sort of insurance policy. Yes, they cost a lot of money but we don't know who or what is going to emerge in the future, but it's reassuring to me we possess the ultimate deterrent if needs be. We might not like them and want to be rid of them, but if others have them and they are going to continue having them, then so do we.

Two nuclear weapons have been used in anger, at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We know what happened to those cities and the people that lived there.

I had an Uncle that fought against the Japanese in the far east, and he detested them, absolutely hated them, and he couldn't give a stuff about those bombs and the destruction they caused. Jeez, I thought he was going to chin me when I told him I'd bought a Yamaha motorbike in 1975, that's how much anger he still had in him 30 years afterwards.

We live in different times with different attitudes now.

The world saw what happened to those cities in 1945, and has been collectively too scared to use them since then. Japan couldn't respond because they didn't have nuclear weapons to retaliate with, and that, to my mind, is the most valid point for having them.

Mutually assured destruction. Would the USA have nuked those cities if they knew the Japanese could have responded in kind?