That does not really follow though, as the two bombs it did not actually result in a nuclear war.
One could argue that the timely demonstration by the party that had them first, prevented any bold attempts on the parts of newcomers to the nuclear elite to try to make a similar point. I suspect that if the USSR had attained the weapon at the same time as the US, the ‘point to make’ would have appeared far more drastic to the commanders in chief. So far we’re not doing so bad, nuclear-holocaust-wise. People all across the board actually seem to be intent on not letting it happen. That says something in a world ruled by alcohol, cocaine and prescription drugs.
For those, who are still not understanding the issue, let me put it into perspective.
By nuking Japan, US did the same what Christians did in Crusades, Hitler did to the Jews to in that Holocaust, what is being done by Muslim extremists in the name of Jihad, what Al Quida did at 9/11, what ISIS did at Charlie Habdo and so on.
And, none of those acts were justified.
If anyone thinks that Nuking Japan was a holy act and 9/11 was a cruel one, he is hugely mistaken and perhaps biased too.
Violence should be used only when is inevitable, and only to that extent also which is inevitable. It is not meant for demonstrating one’s strength.
If one is attacked by a robber in a lone street at the night, it is justified to use violence to counter the robber. The defender may knock the robber down. The limit of the justification or the violence ends here. It is not justified to kill that robber either in revenge or just to give message to other robbers, to prevent further such attacks.
If the purpose can be achieved by just raising the gun, it is not justified to shoot by assuming further events.
The one and only purpose of any act should be either to enhance the goodness or minimize the harm. Any other purpose, whatsoever it may be, is unjustified. But, remember it is an ideal situation but does not play out always in the same way in the reality, because we are not perfect.
By the way, I am not holding Japan a holy cow either. Japan did the same when it attacked Pearl Barber without any justified reasons. US was not involed in the WW2 by then, at least directly.
What actually happened in nuking Japan, is that the robber having a knife got killed because the defender had the gun and fired that too.
This argument does not hold water that Nuking Japan prevented further loss of lives.
First of all, not only millions died in that attack, its bad affects affected the future generations too.
Secondly, there cannot be any justification for the second bomb.
Thirdly, US may have demonstrated the mass destruction power of the nukes by doing that anywhere else. It was not necessary at all to kill so many people just to prove its strength.
If a person is attacked by a robber, it is sufficient to raise the gun to threaten him. Or, one can fire in the air to let the robber know that the gun is not empty but full and can be used against him, if the other party would be forced.
It is not necessary to shoot the robber right in the head, just to prove the killing power of the gun.
The idea that nuking Japan prevented further loss of lives strikes me as a weak argument made by folks who can't stomach the truth. It wasn't about preventing further loss of lives, it was about preventing further loss of [i]American[/i] lives. Nobody enters a war intending to minimize casualties on both sides, that's just stupid. In war, victory is a virtue. The US could have won with a lengthy ground campaign in which plenty of Japanese and Americans were killed, or it could win with two great big bombs in which plenty of Japanese and no Americans were killed. The second is the right answer, the tally on both sides doesn't enter into it; I'd rather have a war where the death toll is one death on my side and a million on yours, than 10 thousand on both sides- taking for granted that there has to be a war in the first place.
EDIT: That said, it is possible that the nukes did result in a total loss of life lower than a ground campaign would have, I have no idea. I just don’t think it’s a primary concern unless you’re trying to apologize to a strident anti-war person and can’t afford to be honest.
They may had been closer to development than we could know, and with an absolute certainty such an act deserves.
What if they had not given in at that point? How many other cities would have been bombed, and what if they still didn’t give in.
Hindsight makes it all seem ok now, but we couldn’t have known how other powers in the world would react to such a demonstration.
The precedent it sets is that if you get their first, you should use that power prior to any other parties esp your enemies. So it doesn’t matter what politics one has, we just need to be the one’s who invents the next game-changing thing.
consider the possible weapons that could come with the knowledge and technology of quantum computing, and the possible forces at work in the universe[‘s] both at that and the multi-verse level. All you need to be is their first and imagining you are in the right.
I agree that so far even madmen like Stalin have not used them, knowing the consequence. …but that doesn’t mean there wont be one who does if they think they have got to the latest thing first.
That is why it is necessary not to let such situation create when rationality would be put on the backburner. And, that burden lies on both parties, even if one party is provocating. The war has to be avoided as far as the harm causing by provocation is less than what it would be in the war. But, if the provocation starts causing more harm, it is justified to get into full-fledged war.
True. Though, i see one more reason, which was to establish the suprimacy of US in the new post war world order.
The implications of the first nuclear bomb were more than enough to prevent any further loss of American lives. There was no way that Japan was going to retaliate after that. Yet, US nuked again. Why?
The second nuking was not meant to harm Japan. It was already dead by then.
So, what was the point in emptying the whole magazine on such the opponent, who has been already killed only by the first bullet?
That was intentionally done to warn the whole of the world that, how ruthless US could be when its interests would be on the stake. That was the clear cut message to the both of its allies and enemies for the future.
True.
Victory is certainly a virtue in the war but it is not stupid to keep a watch on the harm of the opponent too, besides its own. This also should be kept in the mind that at which cost the victory is coming. It is wisdom but that does not happen in the majority of the cases. One cannot expect wisdom in such situations.
Objectively speaking, it is not. It is right only when one keeps the only the interests of US in the mind. It would be a selfish and biased decision, though it is the thumb rule in such cases. But, that does not justify it in any way.
That may be your decision. But if you ask me, i would prefer having 20,000 casualties combine, instead of 1 million, irrespective of the fact that which side would have to bear more or less.
Having said that, there is no such gurantee that i would be able to maintain my wisdom intack in such situation. That may or may not happen. I am not sure either way.
Because Japan didn’t surrender. You have to understand that prior to the Korean war, people didn’t fight wars with the intention of killing a few people, blowing a few things up until a ‘point was made’ and the losers leader promised to behave. When a war was declared, you defeated the enemy until they surrendered and agreed to peace terms, and they surrendered because they had no other way to keep you from killing all their people, sacking their cities, and replacing their leaders. What is the track record of your suggested method, where you attack somebody until are reasonably assured that they won’t retaliate, and then you just stop and go home? I think of Israel, I think of North Korea, I think of Vietnam, I think of the first Gulf War. Japan and Germany have recovered nicely from annhilation. North Korea will be a shithole until somebody conquers them and does it right. Even if they reformed tomorrow, you’re talking about 50 years of totalitarian hell from then until now because the job wasn’t finished.
Of course, every side in every war has that aspect to consider. The world is watching, and looking weak is a vice- your own people will suffer horribly if you give the impression you can’t defend them.
Killing the enemy was not our cost, it was their's. We spent bombs and they spent lives. They could have surrendered. Japan could have not attacked Pearl Harbor, could have surrendered after Midway. Or Iwo Jima, or Potsdam, or Hiroshima. At every stage they made a choice to continue fighting, to continue throwing lives away in a war that was increasingly obvious they could not win. Do you know why Japan didnt surrender after Hiroshima? Their scientists calculated that we couldn't possibly have more than 1-2 more nukes, and decided to [i]endure the devestation and keep on fighting.[/i] That's right. They made a calculated decision that having more cities nuked was acceptable to them over surrender. There's your moral failing.
It’s not selfish in the least, and here the bias is morally obligatory. First of all, we needed the ok from the UK before we could nuke Japan, they saw it as in their benefit too, and wanted to be publicly associated with the decision. So it wasn’t just a US thing. Secondly, imagine you’re a general at war. You have a choice- devestate the enemy in a way that will cause catstrophic death to them, none to you, and lead to their surrender. Or, you can engage in a ground war will will kill tons of your own people, as well as their’s, but a lower overall death count, and lead to surrender. Utilitarianism is bullshit- you have a great obligation to your countrymen and none at all to your enemy who could surrender at any time. Obviously a military leader is keeping only the interests of the nation he fights for (and allies) in mind. To do otherwise would be insane and evil. Traitorous.
What you would prefer, and what is the right thing to do, are often very different. The issue here is that war is a sort of subsystem of life, with it’s own virtues, it’s own vices, and it’s own morality. The moral question for a civilian is “when is it alright to go to war”. Once that line is crossed and a war has happened, you are playing by different rules.
Nothing have changed since the ages, if you are talking about the people. We are still the same. The only thing that has been changed is the means, not the intention.
You can give any many examples as you like, but that does not change the reality that it is not justified. I also did not say that it does not happen. Yes, it happens but it should not happen. Perhaps, i will do the same but that is not a justification.
We all speak lies sometimes, is that a justification for speaking lies?
If we all do something wrong, can that default tendency can be a justification of that wrongdoing?
Secondly, you are forgetting that going by your perception, 9/11 was as justified as nuking Japan. Afghans neither came to US nor initiated the war there, yet US send troops there and killed many Afgans, and still doing so. So, was it not justified to kill some US civilians to prove their point?
And, what if some Iraqis and Vietnamese repeat another 9/11 tomorrow? Would you consider it justified then?
You said in your last post that all is justified if the war is brought upon you.
But, that was not true in all these three cases; Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. US intentionally went to all these countries and asked for war and kill their people. Yet, you claim that all is jusfied in the war!
Right. That is precisely the reasoning of ISIS when they live telecast the beheading of westners. Do they not have the same right as US to initiate fear amongst their enemies? Those Muslim extremists killed the journlists for the same reason too.
Then, on which ground you criticise them? Or, are you okay with their stratagy?
My premise cannot fail under any circumstances.
I do not know if Japan was still making plans after getting nuked. I am hearing this from you for the first time. My guess is that is not true. My impression of the situation was that Japan was either the verge of defeat or already accepted that. I am giving judgment based only what i know. If the facts would change, the judgment will also change accordingly.
Nuking Japan can be justified only in one condition that Japan still had the capacity to kill the US citizens somewhere near the numbers in which Japanese got killed. Only then, it could be justified for US to kill such numbers of Japanese.
This argument is not acceptable at all.
One killer cannot take the plea that he had the consent of his fellow killer to kill a third person. Will any judge accept this argument in the court of law?
Ucci, there is a limit to everything. Extremes should not be followed in any case. They are always dangerous.
I certainly would have an obligation to my country as a general, but, in the same way, i also have the same obligation to the mankind also. Am i not a human, in the first place? If so, how can i put that obligation on the backburner, and why? Give me reasons.
I have some obligations towards my family. If a war would broke out between my family and the neighbor’s one, and one of them will try to kill any my family person, if will certainly kill that person. I will also kill some others from the family also if I know that they will attack my family members tomorrow. It is justified up to here.
But, I will certainly not kill all men and even infant boys of that family anticipating that they may kill my family members in the future. That is not justified.
As I stated earlier in this thread, I am now convinced that the Japanese were far more fearful of the Russians taking Hokkaido than of a few cities being wiped out. The Japanese wren’t unfamiliar with wiping out large portions of their own population now and then, as I understand. Surely it is possible that I am misinformed. But from what I have gathered up to now, I do not think the nukes were the push - I think they were the face-saving grace. Better to submit to the Americans than to the Soviets, who are neighbors and would have had no qualms about occupying the holy island indefinitely, which would basically be the end of Japanese dignity, which would be the end of Japanese society.
Hindsight still makes it incredibly fearful to me… All I have is hindsight and it is terrifying. I am not trying to make it appear as if it’s A-okay to drop nukes. But there are even worse things that can happen to a nation.
Like what? What can produce deadlier force than nuclear reaction chains?
There are a whole lot of weapons being employed now, up to in your living room, that weren’t conceivable back then. But the nuclear bomb is no less frightening because of it – neither is medieval torture.
Agreed. This is why I am against any more Islamic nations obtaining that weapon. No afterlife-seeking people should have a world-annihilating device at their disposal.
You're taking a utilitarian approach here, shouldn't you be concerned with the results? What are the results of attacking North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Palestine, and etc. just to the point that you've beaten them up, then leaving? What are the results of attacking a country like we did Germany and Japan and utterly defeating them and forcing them to accept unilateral surrender?
Yeah, I saw some other folks in the thread say that. How so? No war was declared, no terms of surrender was offered. The 9/11 attack didn’t happen in the context of an actual battle with an actual enemy. It was an unprovoked attack. If you want to compare 9/11 to something, try Pearl Harbor.
I’m not justifying anything, I’m criticizing your claim as to a lack of justification. If Iraq or Vietnam did something like that to the US tomorrow, then the right thing for the US to do would be to make sure that there was no such thing as Iraq or Vietnam the day after tomorrow. THAT is justification. And before you respond, preportionate responses are a bad idea. If your response is proportionate, then you are telegraphing your moves to an enemy, and letting them know in advance how much reprisal they can expect from any given aggression. The idea is for aggression to be beyond consideration, not a calculated risk.
I didn’t say anything even vaguely approximating that. Quote me.
Why are you talking about rights? I don’t think you realize what a war is. For ISIS to try to intimidate their enemies and show their strength is a tactically wise thing to do if they want to achieve their goals. They would be stupid not to, and they sure aren’t going to do it with a show of conventiional military force because they lack in that regard.
I criticize them because they’re our enemy, the things they are doing are done to us, and so we have to wipe them off the face of the earth. Why would you think I’d have to find something wrong with their tactics in order to see the necessity in their destruction or consider them an enemy? You are conflating rhetoric with warfare and politics, I think. In a debate, if you disagree with someone it has to be because their reasoning is incorrect and they are doing something you can find fault with. War and politics are not that simple. Sorry.
Not just the nukes. We crippled their navy at the battle of Midway. It should have ended there. We won basically every land battle from Iwo Jima to Okinawa. After took Okinawa, we told them "Surrender now or we are going to wipe you out with weapons the likes of which mankind has never witness before", that was the Potsdam announcement. They didn't surrender. We nuked Hiroshima- a city where a bunch of their military leadership, including their mainland defense forces, were HQed. They sent scientists to the site, confirmed it was a nuclear detonation, and concluded that we couldn't have manufactured more than 1-2 more bombs, so decided to stick it out. We gave them a few days, then nuked Nagasaki, the site where the torpedos they used against us at Pearl Harbor were manufactured. Kyoto and Tokyo were both considered as nuke targets- they were rejected because while they would have a huge impact on Japan's morale, they had little strategic value.
Shortly before that second bombing, the USSR announced they were going to attack Japan too, so they surrendered. The various conferences/announcements they gave about their surrender were confused- some cited the USSR are the reason, some cited the nukes, some cited both.
By the way, it was predicted by our military leadership that a land invasion of Japan would have cost half a million to a million American lives. Now, maybe that’s an exaggeration and I’m GIVING you the thesis that more lives were lost to nukes total than would have been lost ina land war, but it is by no means a certainty, keep that in mind as well.
So that’s what you’re criticizing the US for, and saying is comparable to 9/11 somehow.
That’s just a declaration you’ve pulled out of your ass with no justification and I don’t buy it.
You argued that it was purely done out of US interest. This isn’t true.
Because we are free people and being a human in general doesn't come with any but the most meager of responsibilities/duties. If you had to save a human life- either that of a stranger or that of your kin, you are obligated to save your kin over a stranger. People aren't just a mass of collective homo sapiens with no relevant attachments. That's to take the personhood out of personality. You spend a lifetime cultivating relationships, you owe those relationships more than a stranger. You earn accolades and respect enough to be awarded by your fellow citizens the title of General (or doctor, or priest, or mother or whatever), those titles come with duties and obligations reciporical to the respect they confer upon you. The general who decides the enemies life is worth no less than the soldier's who are under his command certainly didn't make public those beliefs or he never would have made it to general.
So yes, you do have an obligation to a strangers by virtue of being human, but there are so many other obligations that can overrule it. That said, I'm not arguing that any amount of death and suffering of the enemy is justified regardless of circumstance. Of course there are limits and the particulars of the situation to consider, and your obligation to fellow human beings isn't nil even if they are the enemy. But to argue that your obligations are to all fellow humans equally without regard for family, country, or expected duty is straight up Peter Singer bullshittery.
Right, yes. So that’s the basic idea from which I’m drawing my position. We agree on that much.
Oh, not today. But if that thesis had been proven true over centuries- i.e., if it really was the case that those boys would grow up to try and kill your family, and you knew this because that enemy had been doing exactly that for many generations, what then? Not saying that's the case with WWII, of course, but what I am saying is that the line between soldiers and civilians, and guilty and innocent isn't really that black and white in war.
Sanjay is right… the US could have just called the Axis powers to an island to watch a nuke go off… and say, there’s more at stake here than our petty differences. No need to bomb them.
And actually, if the US had called all the countries together to watch this nuke, the world would most likely be much more peaceful… we already knew about radiation sickness by then. It may have brought the world closer together, but hindsight is 20/20. Truman fucked up, and here we are.
When we dropped the first nuke on Japan, actually dropped it on them, they didn't surrender. So why would dropping it someplace uninhabited and saying "look what we can do" make them surrender? That makes absolutely no sense. You are speculating something that we have clear evidence to the contrary. What's more, we only had 2 nukes, and it was going to take us a month to make more. If they would have called our bluff we would have been screwed; The nuclear arms races in Russia, Japan, Germany and the US were similar enough that their scientists could estimate how many nuclear bombs we had, and in fact they did so, which is why they didn't surrender after the first; they knew we weren't going to glass the entire country, they knew we had 1 or 2 more bombs at most, and they were right. Dropping half of our nuclear arsenal into the middle of the ocean to chest thump would have emboldened them.
We could have dropped 2… they would know we had at least more than one, we could just say we found a way to mass produce them. The moral of the story however is what nukes do, and this could have been explained to anyone. Game theory is not your strong suit IMO. Nor was it Truman’s, or his advisors. These people would have been hailed heroes for lying their asses off.
We could have said that we didn’t want to add more toxic radiation to the environment and that’s why we only used two… to show that we can mass produce them, and that there are bigger stakes here than our petty differences, but we won’t be afraid to use them if you continue your aggression.