Ethics and The A-Bomb

[Madeline]

Go away, little person. The adults are talking.

 

[Si modo]

Go away, little person. The adults are talking.

Yeah. Some adults are discussing. Then, there there are those 'adults' who wonder why we didn't drop the bomb on the Germans after they surrendered then link to their epic meltdown thread about a neg rep they got.

 

[Madeline]

namvet wrote:

the Japs were more brutal than the Nazi's

HBO is running its series "The Pacific" now, and I can hardly bear to watch. But really, namvet, how can we judge the Japanese Army as having been "more brutal" than the Nazi Army? The Japanese did not engage in systematic genocide with their army.

I know -- a little -- about things such as the Bataan Death March. Thank God, Daddy was not a POW and came home in one piece, at least physically. But are you really saying the Japanese Army deserved brutality from the US in a way that the German Army did not?

It's just hard to imagine any human evil will ever rival the Death Camps.

 

[namvet]

namvet wrote:

no they didn't. they were determined to fight to last man, woman and child if need be. surrender was not an option.

I have heard this before, namvet. I don't know if it's cultural bias on the part of non-Asians, or has a basis in fact. I can't understand why the tenacity of the Japanese Army would be attributed to Japanese civilians...especially children. How could they even have a POV?

Were the Japanese any more or less willing to "fight to the death" than Germans?

its a fact they were going to be forced to fight. and were very relieved when it came to an end.

tenacity was what the IJA/IJN was based on. more willing to fight to the death. its was it their code and honor to die in battle. surrender was a disgrace. as well as those around them. who were killed if they didn't kill themselves.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Truman based his decision on the actions of the Japanese at okinawa, Iwo, and Tarawa. Civilian casualties were respectively 60%, 95% and 90%. US casualties, while lower than Japanese casualties, were severe and the battles protracted. Iwo is a very small rock, but it took two months to clear.

They were budgeting 2 US deaths per square mile.

I have no problem with using the bomb to end it.

The original target was Germany because there was good reason to believe the Germans would come up with the bomb if we didn't. (The were too pig headed and blinded by ideology to do so, lucky for us) It was in Germany that the first big breakthroughs came.

I think the Manhatten project was a waste of resources. They should have spent the resources more wisely. but having built it, and given the goofiness and intransigence of the Japanese government, using it was the best way to end the war.

 

[namvet]

namvet wrote:

the Japs were more brutal than the Nazi's

HBO is running its series "The Pacific" now, and I can hardly bear to watch. But really, namvet, how can we judge the Japanese Army as having been "more brutal" than the Nazi Army? The Japanese did not engage in systematic genocide with their army.

I know -- a little -- about things such as the Bataan Death March. Thank God, Daddy was not a POW and came home in one piece, at least physically. But are you really saying the Japanese Army deserved brutality from the US in a way that the German Army did not?

It's just hard to imagine any human evil will ever rival the Death Camps.

ive been watching it to. as you can see they fought to the last man.

the Japs were more brutal because they didn't care about race, creed color, sex or anything as the vid showed.

over 10,000 were murdered on the death march. there's your clue.

the Nazi's gave up. they surrendered. Japan had NO such thoughts.

 

[namvet]

Truman based his decision on the actions of the Japanese at okinawa, Iwo, and Tarawa. Civilian casualties were respectively 60%, 95% and 90%. US casualties, while lower than Japanese casualties, were severe and the battles protracted. Iwo is a very small rock, but it took two months to clear.

They were budgeting 2 US deaths per square mile.

I have no problem with using the bomb to end it.

The original target was Germany because there was good reason to believe the Germans would come up with the bomb if we didn't. (The were too pig headed and blinded by ideology to do so, lucky for us) It was in Germany that the first big breakthroughs came.

I think the Manhatten project was a waste of resources. They should have spent the resources more wisely. but having built it, and given the goofiness and intransigence of the Japanese government, using it was the best way to end the war.

the Japs were trying to build their own Abomb. what if they had suceeded???

 

[Dr Gregg]

namvet wrote:

the Japs were more brutal than the Nazi's

HBO is running its series "The Pacific" now, and I can hardly bear to watch. But really, namvet, how can we judge the Japanese Army as having been "more brutal" than the Nazi Army? The Japanese did not engage in systematic genocide with their army.

I know -- a little -- about things such as the Bataan Death March. Thank God, Daddy was not a POW and came home in one piece, at least physically. But are you really saying the Japanese Army deserved brutality from the US in a way that the German Army did not?

It's just hard to imagine any human evil will ever rival the Death Camps.

American POWs were treated well by the Germans. They didn't' go on suicide missions, and they would surrender. What was happening to the Jews was separate from other war efforts, which the german soldiers likely didn't even know about while they were fighting the war.

Japanese tortured and abused POWs, if not straight up kill them. THey killed and brutalized so many civilians in the lands they captured. They were by far much more fucked up than the germans. holocaust aside

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In the context of the time and the number of people who had already been killed on both sides, I would say the first bomb was ethical to end the war.

I still can't understand why it was necessary to drop a second bomb only three days later. We had already made our point with Hiroshima...Nagasaki was overkill

READ the source documents. After the first Bomb the Generals that ran the Government REFUSED to surrender. The Emperor refused to act after the first bomb also. It is all there. The second bomb is what convinced the Emperor to order a surrender.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Madeline asks if the unbridled slaughter of old men, women and little children in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'ethical'. One has to realise here that barbarity is the ethical standard which defines of the International Capitalist system. Just as we can recognise a tree by its fruits so can we determine a socio-economic method by its historical consequences.

The colours of Capitalism the world over are brutal and primitive. Chaos ensues from an extension of a system of class division and institutionalised greed, along with the protection of private property; the fierce competition for new markets, the subjugation and exploitation of international indigenous populations for super profits and the inevitable wars the ruling class demand in order to maintain their established hierarchies of Imperialist stranglehold.

Nothing in History is the result of 'accident' and everything a consequence of the fundamental economic and social structures we maintain by our political choices, or lack of therein.

So it is important to recognise that the ethic of an exploitative system is social chaos and war. And 'Behold', the societies in which Humanity now languish reflect this truth abundantly.

More specifically, in the context of Japan and the Nuclear attacks America unleashed upon the Japanese civilian population, the consensus of independent rational opinion realises that these atrocities were completely unnecessary, and the result of a malevolent Capitalist superpower besotted with displaying its aggressive abilities to the World so it could dominate post-war affairs with an iron fist, in a climate of fear. And it has. As is evidenced by America's exhaustive plethora of post WW2 invasions, interventions, all out wars and both covert and explicit funding of terrorism.

RetiredGySgt is, as usual, blinkered to any reality which shows up the nefarious nature of his beloved terrorist nation. Perhaps his own complicity as a servile military tool is too much to bear, if he were to ever open his eyes to the harsh light of day. And so it is his ilk that in fact revise history with Pavlovian synergy, every time the truth begins to dawn upon a new generation.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force and later president of the U.S., when informed of the decision to drop Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki stated:

"I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face."

Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman, revealed to his biographer Jonathan Daniels:

"they went ahead and killed as many women and children as they could which was just what they wanted all the time."
[Alperovitz, Decision, p. 326.]

(Shinichi Tetsutani, almost 4 years old, was playing on his tricycle when the brave U.S.A.F. atomic-bombed his home. Such was the intensity of the nuclear glare all but the metallic frame melted.)

And in his autobiography, Admiral Leahy states:

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
[Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, p. 14.]

General Douglas MacArthur, officer in charge of Pacific operations, questioned the military usefulness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. His consultant Norman Cousins wrote in 1987:

"The war might have ended weeks earlier, [MacArthur] said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
[Hoover and Cousins quoted in Alperovitz, Decision, pp. 349-50.]

Many military and government officials under Truman failed to fathom his decision to pursue the bombings when surrender was within their grasp. Joseph Grew, Under Secretary of State; John McCloy, Assistant to the Secretary of War; Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy; and Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, to name but a few.

(ghostly shadows created by incinerating radiance are all that remained of some anonymous Japanese victims of American atomic-war barbarity.)

After the carnage was unleashed U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey concluded:

"certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945 [the date U.S. forces were to invade.], Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
[, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima & Potsdam , by Gar Alperovitz, pp. 10-11.]

Absolute BULLSHIT. READ the source documents. Japan was NOT going to surrender even if it meant starving the civilian population. That is revisionist crap. The Army ran the Government and even after 2 ATOMIC Bombs REFUSED to surrender. They even tried a coup to stop the Emperor from surrendering.

READ the SOURCE Documents. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Japan would have surrendered if we had not dropped the Bombs, nor any reason to believe even after they lost the first Home Island they would surrender.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, we should drop the bomb on those with whom we are no longer at war.

You may not have noticed this small person has joined our convo, gentlemen. He has elsewhere stated that our discussion here is without value and we are wrong for holding it.

Si modo wrote:

Oh yeah. That's a real brilliant OP you have there, with your wondering why we didn't also drop the bomb on a country with whom we were no longer at war.

Just freakin' brilliant.

Good God.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/echo-zulus-rep-fest-zone/116926-remedial-neg-repping-101-the-one-class-dude-has-to-attend-10.html#post2303402

Would anyone like to correct his error in thinking? I could explain about learning from history, but I don't think Si modo can take in any data from chicks.

Si Modo IS a CHICK.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

namvet wrote:

no they didn't. they were determined to fight to last man, woman and child if need be. surrender was not an option.

I have heard this before, namvet. I don't know if it's cultural bias on the part of non-Asians, or has a basis in fact. I can't understand why the tenacity of the Japanese Army would be attributed to Japanese civilians...especially children. How could they even have a POV?

Were the Japanese any more or less willing to "fight to the death" than Germans?

I provided source documents. The Army Command in Japan was not going to surrender even after 2 atomic bombs. They attempted a Coup to prevent the Emperor from surrendering.

 

[Madeline]

I believe you, RetiredGySgt. And it does help resolve the issue for me...but why did the Japanese Army do that, sir? Why rain down hellfire on your own people?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I believe you, RetiredGySgt. And it does help resolve the issue for me...but why did the Japanese Army do that, sir? Why rain down hellfire on your own people?

Entirely different culture. The people were there to serve the Emperor. And the Army ran the Government for said Emperor. So what the Army wanted, the people had to do for the Emperor.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The Japanese of the 40s were one really goofy culture. (For that matter, they still are, but the goofy is better) Nowdays we think of Sanrio, electronics and the like. That is nothing like what they were in the 40s.

The Japanese would have been wiped out if we had invaded. They were more and more irrational the closer in we got. The Bomb saved the Japanese nation from extinction.

 

[Madeline]

That's just hard for me to wrap my pea brain around. I guess I know almost nothing about Japan except that they have terrific gardens and crappy cartoons.

An entire nation enslaved to serve just one man? The idea is repulsive..it's evil.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Hey, the cartoons are great! Especially Nodame Cantabile. GTO is pretty good, and Maison Ikkoku is the cat's pajamas.

But seriously, you should check out what they were doing during the 30's and 40's. But not on a full stomach.

It really is a close contest between them and the Germans over which were more horribly psycho. German's win by a nose (Even the Japanese thought the Germans were nuts) but it was a very close contest.

 

[Madeline]

Hey, the cartoons are great! Especially Nodame Cantabile. GTO is pretty good, and Maison Ikkoku is the cat's pajamas.

But seriously, you should check out what they were doing during the 30's and 40's. But not on a full stomach.

It really is a close contest between them and the Germans over which were more horribly psycho. German's win by a nose (Even the Japanese thought the Germans were nuts) but it was a very close contest.

There are subjects that disturb me so much I don't make it a point to inquire further, Baruch Menachem. I'm having trouble watching a full episode of "The Pacific". I have never seen "Schindler's List" and never will. "Sophie's Choice" traumatized me permanently.

But I will admit I know virtually nothing about any Asian culture. Mebbe I will try. Is there a book or film you can recommend on the WW II era Japanese?

 

[rightwinger]

In the context of the time and the number of people who had already been killed on both sides, I would say the first bomb was ethical to end the war.

I still can't understand why it was necessary to drop a second bomb only three days later. We had already made our point with Hiroshima...Nagasaki was overkill

they refused to surrender after the first one.

Three days is not alot of time to make a decision. After Hiroshima we still could have bombed the shit out of them with conventional weapons while we pressured the Japanese leadership to surrender or we would drop more atomic weapons. They did not know we only had two at that time.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In the context of the time and the number of people who had already been killed on both sides, I would say the first bomb was ethical to end the war.

I still can't understand why it was necessary to drop a second bomb only three days later. We had already made our point with Hiroshima...Nagasaki was overkill

they refused to surrender after the first one.

Three days is not alot of time to make a decision. After Hiroshima we still could have bombed the shit out of them with conventional weapons while we pressured the Japanese leadership to surrender or we would drop more atomic weapons. They did not know we only had two at that time.

All I can tell you is read the documents.The Army did not care at all about the atomic Bomb, it meant nothing. The Emperor got interested but refused to get involved after the first bomb. Waiting would have just extended the war that much longer.