[Godstud]

Hypothetical, perhaps, but not nearly as hypothetical as all the other things saying that it was NOT justifiable.

[Eran]

I agree that it is dangerous to use hindsight.

However, even given the information available at the time, the US authorities were very cavalier about civilian lives.

1. As mentioned above, the US and its allies have engaged in numerous bombing raids purposefully and successfully targeting civilians. The atomic bombs set no precedent in that respect.

2. Beyond issuing an ultimatum, the allies have done very little to explore, not to mention exhaust available peaceful avenues for concluding the war. Evidence showed that by the time the bombs were dropped, Japan was exploring honourable ways of terminating the conflict.

Some people expressed concerns about potential resurgence of Japanese militarism absent a total, humiliating and unconditional surrender.

However, the terms of the surrender being negotiate doesn't preclude any specific safeguards or terms. Realistically it now seems that the Japanese would have agreed to a surrender on almost exactly the same terms as were eventually imposed (keeping the Emperor in office and safeguarding ultimate Japanese independence).

In any event, American authorities had a duty to explore and exhaust such negotiations before even considering the mass murder of innocent women and children.

[fuser]

I am probably writting this in 3rd or 4th thread and here it goes again.

The nuclear strikes were not "justified" in any way.

Japan was ready to surrender, all she wanted was to retain her Emperor but allies were hell bent on getting an unconditional surrender i.e. Japan can't put any demands, a demand that was accepted by allies later any way but only after nuking Japan.

If the priority was saving lives, American or Japanese or both, the Japanese demand could had been just accepted.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

I don't believe they were justified, I also don't believe they were justified in fire bombing Dresden resulting in the deaths of over 140,000 men women and children (mostly women and children as the men were off fighting the war) in one night. The only reason America dropped the Bomb x2 is they wanted to carry out live field tests with their new toys. However I also believe had America not demonstrated the true destructive power of Nuclear weapons this planet would have suffered a mass nuclear holocaust decades ago during the cold war. Typical America, the only good they achieve is for the wrong reasons.

[Fasces]

The only duty American officials had during WWII was ensuring complete and total victory over Japan. If it was determined that a negotiated surrender would achieve the objectives of the American people, while minimizing American casualties, then that would have been the way to go - as it was, the Japanese Empire was unwilling to realize the enormity of its complete and utter defeat. The American government took the only morally correct course of action in persuading Japan to surrender unconditionally at the cost of no American lives.

The nuclear bomb was justified, and more than that, it was the best course of action. In an industrial society, there are no innocents - the Japanese citizens, like the American citizens, went to work, building bullets, tanks, planes, rifles, and other goods. They were integral components of the war effort. Civilians ceased to exist sometime in the 17th century - what we have now are combatants and noncombatants.

If we choose to not target noncombatants, because we have determined that doing that is in our interests, then great. But there is nothing evil about assuring the survival and prosperity of your people, whatever that may take.

This applies to any party - not just the United States. I can hate Osama bin Laden for attacking my country, and harming my people, but I understand the logic of his actions and accept that terrorism is just another method by which wars are fought, in this day and age. Terrorism is a product of the Information Age, where eradicating the will to act is more important and more practical than eradicating the ability to do so.

[Rei Murasame]

In an industrial society, there are no innocents - the Japanese citizens, like the American citizens, went to work, building bullets, tanks, planes, rifles, and other goods. They were integral components of the war effort. Civilians ceased to exist sometime in the 17th century - what we have now are combatants and noncombatants.

Correct. 'Civilian' has basically become shorthand for 'noncombatant'.

That's why I find the efforts to talk about 'poor Japanese civilians' to be misguided. Japan's fight against the United States (and against the USSR) was a complete and total mobilisation of all human beings in Japan - including school children - against the United States.

The 'poor civilian' argument often de-legitimises the grievances of the Japanese people, because it implies that Japanese people were taken up by the scruff of their necks and marched into combat by some heavy-handed slave-drivers. Nothing could be further from the truth, fighting against the Allies was as natural and necessary to everyone in Japan as breathing oxygen, it was learned just by suckling the milk from their mothers' breast.

In a sense, fascism and communism were the first truly mass movements.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Fully and totally justifiable. Given the behaviour of Japan and its 'honourable' military in the war they were damned lucky not to have been blown off the planet.

Pretty much. I guess the other alternatives were to keep burning them alive in fire raids, blockade and starve them to death or land a couple of million troops and slaughter them inch by inch while they contributed by scorch earthing and suicide defending. Most likely was that a combination of all three was going to be the way 1946 played out. They got off pretty lightly IMO.

[Rei Murasame]

I do find it comical though that Swagman is an Australian and wants to talk to Japan about 'honour'. Maybe the Crips will next start lecturing the Bloods about the brutality of their tactics as well?

What did they expect, Japanese military tradition is literally sophisticated gangsterism. Did anyone really expect that the globalised expression of that, was not going to involve Japanese soldiers trying to hack at Allied soldiers with swords, and did anyone really expect that Japan was going to accept people flying white flags of surrender?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

I don't believe they were justified, I also don't believe they were justified in fire bombing Dresden resulting in the deaths of over 140,000 men women and children (mostly women and children as the men were off fighting the war) in one night.

You might want to recheck those figures. Or you can keep those and I'll blame the Nazis for killing 48 billion Jews.

[Eran]

I guess the other alternatives were to keep burning them alive in fire raids, blockade and starve them to death or land a couple of million troops and slaughter them inch by inch while they contributed by scorch earthing and suicide defending.

Or trying to negotiate a mutually-acceptable surrender.

[Fasces]

The United States had set its terms - Japan refused to meet them. Sometimes compromise is neither possible nor desirable.

For example: I will pay you $100 for a blow job. Do you accept my offer?

No? You're not compromising. How about I pay you $200 for it?

Why won't you negotiate?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Or trying to negotiate a mutually-acceptable surrender.

No. Had Japan held the whip hand there would have been no 'mutually-acceptable surrender'. It would have been on Japan's terms. They tried to be the monster, and they fucked it up. You don't get to cry that the people you tried to fuck over turned out to be your match and then some.

I wouldn't have dropped the bombs, but only because I would have wanted to see Japan go through her own Götterdämmerung.

[Eran]

"Japan" isn't a single person.

Innocent Japanese children (of whom thousands were cruelly murdered) held no more responsibility for the decisions of their leaders than did American children.

Most people agree that people shouldn't be punished for actions of which they are innocent.

If you accept this principle, what Japan did (or would have done) is irrelevant when it comes to the lives of those children.

If you do not accept this principle, you lose the right to condemn acts of terrorism.

Which way do you go?

[Rei Murasame]

I think they will have to go with ceding the ability to condemn acts of terrorism on deontological grounds, and will have to use only consequentialist grounds. That's how they're going to have to do it if they all don't want to have to renounce their whole argument right back to page 1 of the thread.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Odd arguments.

My answer is simply to do harm to those that want to harm you (me).

The Japs wanted to harm me (or my grandparents, which is the unborn me) so therefore they should be destroyed.

The... uh... terrorists (whoever they may be) get dealt with on the same case by case basis.

[Eran]

The Japs wanted to harm me (or my grandparents, which is the unborn me) so therefore they should be destroyed.

Ah, but not ALL Japs wanted to harm you.

In particular, Japanese children and babies didn't.

So they shouldn't have been destroyed.

Or does your moral code suggest that it is permissible to destroy the children, wives, invalid and other countrymen of those who want to destroy you? And if it is, how are you better than terrorists?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

Ah, but not ALL Japs wanted to harm you.

In particular, Japanese children and babies didn't.

So they shouldn't have been destroyed.

Or does your moral code suggest that it is permissible to destroy the children, wives, invalid and other countrymen of those who want to destroy you? And if it is, how are you better than terrorists?

You're a weird one.

But yes. Yes it does.

I don't give a fuck about Japanese babies. I don't give a fuck about your kids. I don't give a fuck about 99.9% of the men, woman and children in this world. I care about my bloodline, and that's it.

The Japs made a mistake and paid for it. If that meant that their babies got roasted in the fires of Nagasaki then so be it. It sucks to be them, but that isn't my problem. I don't give a shit, and I'll bathe in their tears.

If you decide to pick a fight with me and mine then be prepared to see your "children, wives, invalid and other countrymen" of yours die if you get it wrong. If you can't do that then don't pick the fight. I won't pick one with you, because I'm not a warmonger, but if you try it on me then not only are the gloves off, but they were never on. I'd kill your people in horrible ways just for the fun of it.

[Fasces]

I do not condemn acts of terrorism, Eran, except in that they harm my countrymen.

[fuser]

Once again, all Japan was asking is to retain their Emperor but allies refused to listen to anything other than unconditional surrender, only to allow Japan to have their emperor anyway.

There is no justiication at all. Allies would had got the exact same result with Japan without nuking i.e. a disarmed occupied Japan with her Emperor at head (nominal).

[AFAIK]

I agree that it is dangerous to use hindsight.

However, even given the information available at the time, the US authorities were very cavalier about civilian lives.

As has been pointed out by other posters very few people fit the definition of "civilian" during total war- societies attempting to destroy societies.

The planners were making decisions in the fog of war. Mistakes could have led to widespread death and destruction for both parties.

I'd imagine it would be important to maintain morale during a war. This can more easily be achieved if progress is being made and victories won, rather than if everyone sits around the barracks whilst diplomats do their thing.

Innocent Japanese children (of whom thousands were cruelly murdered) held no more responsibility for the decisions of their leaders than did American children.

Most people agree that people shouldn't be punished for actions of which they are innocent.

British children were evacuated from major population centers during the Blitz. What responsibilities did Japanese parents and political elites have toward their children?

It's not as if USA secretly launched a preemptive attack on Japanese cities. Shouldn't Japs have taken precautions to protect their children's safety?


PS- I thought I was necromancing a topic that had been discussed multiple times so I am impressed to see so many new replies.