Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?
Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?
Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?
Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?
Was it ethical to use the A-bomb on the Japanese?
If so, was it ethical to bomb both Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
And if so, why did we not use the A-bomb on Berlin?
Are these questions still relevant for use in deciding the ethics of nuclear weapons deployment today?
wow Madeline did you open a can a worms . I can hear the clicking of liberal keyboards. we were murderers.
it saved the lives of millions of American servicemen. all who were grateful (and their families) it ended the war. my opinion
they did consider using it on the Nazi's. but it would have killied allied soldiers and civilians. fortunatley the war there ended.
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.]
Quatermass wrote:
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.]
Okay, this apparently is the POV you hold. The rest of the post you made contains the regrets and hindsight of men and women involved in the decision to use the A-Bomb on Japan....and I have no trouble believing they carried a powerful sense of conflict and regret over that choice till they died. They would not have been human if they did not. I seem to recall even Einstein regretted invention of the A-Bomb.
But emotion alone does not control the questions of ethics and the A-Bomb.
Personally I think it is irrelevant whether or not Japan had a "superior economic/political system" to the US's in 1945. I don't happen to believe that they did, but either side in a war seeks conquest. I like to think at least some military people place ethical limits on their warfare behavior.
In that vein, what I am asking is this:
* Was the A-Bomb a useful weapon? Did the war end faster because we unleashed it on Japan?
* Why was it necessary to drop TWO A-Bombs?
And most urgently:
* Did humans learn anything from the A-Bombing of Japan that military types today can or should reflect upon before firing off the nuclear weapons in their arsenals?
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
Quatermass wrote:
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.]
Okay, this apparently is the POV you hold. The rest of the post you made contains the regrets and hindsight of men and women involved in the decision to use the A-Bomb on Japan....and I have no trouble believing they carried a powerful sense of conflict and regret over that choice till they died. They would not have been human if they did not. I seem to recall even Einstein regretted invention of the A-Bomb.
But emotion alone does not control the questions of ethics and the A-Bomb.
Personally I think it is irrelevant whether or not Japan had a "superior economic/political system" to the US's in 1945. I don't happen to believe that they did, but either side in a war seeks conquest. I like to think at least some military people place ethical limits on their warfare behavior.
In that vein, what I am asking is this:
* Was the A-Bomb a useful weapon? Did the war end faster because we unleashed it on Japan?
* Why was it necessary to drop TWO A-Bombs?
And most urgently:
* Did humans learn anything from the A-Bombing of Japan that military types today can or should reflect upon before firing off the nuclear weapons in their arsenals?
ill bet your dad was relieved it was over. if Truman had not dropped it and he (your dad) died then your family found he had a weapon that could have ended it, they would have wanted Truman drawn and quatered. also you wouldn't be here today !!!!
the Jap Army did not believe we had more that one weapon. also they were starving their own people to stay in the fight.
Quatermass wrote:
Okay, this apparently is the POV you hold. The rest of the post you made contains the regrets and hindsight of men and women involved in the decision to use the A-Bomb on Japan....and I have no trouble believing they carried a powerful sense of conflict and regret over that choice till they died. They would not have been human if they did not. I seem to recall even Einstein regretted invention of the A-Bomb.
But emotion alone does not control the questions of ethics and the A-Bomb.
Personally I think it is irrelevant whether or not Japan had a "superior economic/political system" to the US's in 1945. I don't happen to believe that they did, but either side in a war seeks conquest. I like to think at least some military people place ethical limits on their warfare behavior.
In that vein, what I am asking is this:
* Was the A-Bomb a useful weapon? Did the war end faster because we unleashed it on Japan?
* Why was it necessary to drop TWO A-Bombs?
And most urgently:
* Did humans learn anything from the A-Bombing of Japan that military types today can or should reflect upon before firing off the nuclear weapons in their arsenals?
ill bet your dad was relieved it was over. if Truman had not dropped it and he (your dad) died then your family found he had a weapon that could have ended it, they would have wanted Truman drawn and quatered. also you wouldn't be here today !!!!
the Jap Army did not believe we had more that one weapon. also they were starving their own people to stay in the fight.
Japanese generals did not believe we had more than one A-Bomb? That seems incredible...almost suicidal. If I were Japanese, I'd be hating on those generals. Civilians should not be cannon fodder without reason.
Isn't surrender required (ethically) when civilian lives are at stake?
Yeah, we should drop the bomb on those with whom we are no longer at war.
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.
no they didn't. they were determined to fight to last man, woman and child if need be. surrender was not an option.
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.