was it necessary to drop the atomic bombs on japan?

Originally posted by TacDavey
But those are people who have decided to fight. So killing them is justified.

I'm not sure I get this...

you see no moral problems with killing people who could even half way be defined as soldiers?

Like, I'm with you on the pacifism thing because I think all death in war is immoral, especially the young men and women who die on battlefields.

It seems strange, like, not only are you arguing against the pragmatism of the nuclear bomb, but you are then dividing people into camps where, it is ok that some died, but not all.

If only "soldiers" were killed by the nuke, you would have no problems with it?

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not sure I get this...

you see no [b]moral problems with killing people who could even half way be defined as soldiers?

Like, I'm with you on the pacifism thing because I think all death in war is immoral, especially the young men and women who die on battlefields.

It seems strange, like, not only are you arguing against the pragmatism of the nuclear bomb, but you are then dividing people into camps where, it is ok that some died, but not all.

If only "soldiers" were killed by the nuke, you would have no problems with it? [/B]

I don't want to sound like I want people to die. Obviously, it would be better if no one were killed.

But if someone attacks you and you fire back, that's justified. If you can avoid killing them, I think you should, but I don't think you should just sit there and let them kill you.

If a "civilian" picks up a weapon and decides to fight you, I think you are justified in fighting back. Like soldiers, they are making the decision to put there life on the line for their country.

I have a much greater problem with actively attacking non combatants. So in a sense, yes, I'm saying it's better to kill some people and not others.

But again, if you can avoid killing them I think you should. If a guy charges you with a sharpened stick, I'm betting you can stop him without killing him.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I don't want to sound like I [B]want people to die. Obviously, it would be better if no one were killed.

But if someone attacks you and you fire back, that's justified. If you can avoid killing them, I think you should, but I don't think you should just sit there and let them kill you.

If a "civilian" picks up a weapon and decides to fight you, I think you are justified in fighting back. Like soldiers, they are making the decision to put there life on the line for their country.

I have a much greater problem with actively attacking non combatants. So in a sense, yes, I'm saying it's better to kill some people and not others.

But again, if you can avoid killing them I think you should. If a guy charges you with a sharpened stick, I'm betting you can stop him without killing him. [/B]

Whether the killing would be justified or not isn't what I was talking about, I was addressing the fact that all indications pointed to a prospective invasion of Japan as being horribly bloody for Americans but more so for the Japanese people.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
This is all besides the point as the argument that I was commenting on was that an invasion of Japan wouldn't have in your view led to more civilian deaths than the Atomic Bombings inflicted.

Whether the killing would be justified or not isn't what I was talking about, I was addressing the fact that all indications pointed to a prospective invasion of Japan as being horribly bloody for Americans but more so for the Japanese people.

that may be true, but to someone who rejects all forms of violence as being immoral, killing 1000 to save 100000 doesn't come up as a morally acceptable solution.

would you rather murder 8 innocent children or 25? well, from a pacifist point of view, those are just too few options.

Originally posted by TacDavey
So killing all those civilians was the goal? That's what I can't accept.

Originally posted by King Kandy
But i'm not sure what you think the better alternative is. The "conventional" bombing you suggested, actually killed MORE civilians. So the bomb was the LESS destructive alternative.

Less destructive to who? And if the bombs destructive ability was what we were trying to demonstrate, why didn't we drop one on an isolated military base? Why did we dump it in the middle of a civilian filled city?

We were either actively trying to kill civilians (Not acceptable under any circumstance)

Or the specific military set ups in the city were our target, in which case we could have done a normal bombing run and done the least amount of damage to the surrounding populace.

if regular bombing runs kill more people, how is that less destructive?

Originally posted by inimalist
that may be true, but to someone who rejects all forms of violence as being immoral, killing 1000 to save 100000 doesn't come up as a morally acceptable solution.

would you rather murder 8 innocent children or 25? well, from a pacifist point of view, those are just too few options.

And in any case, I wasn't discussing the rightness or wrongness of it, just commenting on the fact that he claimed that civilian deaths would have been 'accidental' in the event of an invasion. I pointed out that it ceases being accidental when said civilians attack the soldiers and make themselves into targets.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Less destructive to who? And if the bombs destructive ability was what we were trying to demonstrate, why didn't we drop one on an isolated military base? Why did we dump it in the middle of a civilian filled city?

We were either actively trying to kill civilians (Not acceptable under any circumstance)

Or the specific military set ups in the city were our target, in which case we could have done a normal bombing run and done the least amount of damage to the surrounding populace.

A conventional bombing wouldn't have had the same impact and would have required us to do it again and again. America gave up on strategic bombing after they found out it wasn't working, 500000 Japanese were already dead from the new methods. Continuing that would have been a disaster in terms of human life lost. Going back to the strategic bombings would have meant leaving the civilians in China and Korea to die.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The world is a very difficult place for pacifists sometimes.

And in any case, I wasn't discussing the rightness or wrongness of it, just commenting on the fact that he claimed that civilian deaths would have been 'accidental' in the event of an invasion. I pointed out that it ceases being accidental when said civilians attack the soldiers and make themselves into targets.

no, totally

I also don't see how the civilian deaths in that case are any more accidental than in the atomic bomb drops.

Originally posted by inimalist
if regular bombing runs kill more people, how is that less destructive?

Multiple bombing runs across more civilized areas cause more destruction. I'm talking specifically about the targets in the city.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And in any case, I wasn't discussing the rightness or wrongness of it, just commenting on the fact that he claimed that civilian deaths would have been 'accidental' in the event of an invasion. I pointed out that it ceases being accidental when said civilians attack the soldiers and make themselves into targets.

I wouldn't consider them "civilians" in the same way. They are now basically less trained, less protected soldiers. The difference is in the choice to fight. I would say you are justified in defending yourself against someone who picks up a weapon and decides to fight you. The people in the city didn't do that.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
A conventional bombing wouldn't have had the same impact and would have required us to do it again and again. America gave up on strategic bombing after they found out it wasn't working, 500000 Japanese were already dead from the new methods. Continuing that would have been a disaster in terms of human life lost. Going back to the strategic bombings would have meant leaving the civilians in China and Korea to die.

If the object was to "create an impact" they didn't need to bomb a city to do that. Any place would have been acceptable to show the bombs power.

But it seems like they bombed the city because that would kill the most people. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of these people were non combatant civilians.

If that's true, then the civilians WERE a part of the target. And actively targeting civilians is wrong. Plain and simple.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I wouldn't consider them "civilians" in the same way. They are now basically less trained, less protected soldiers. The difference is in the choice to fight. I would say you are justified in defending yourself against someone who picks up a weapon and decides to fight you. The people in the city didn't do that.

Are you justified in killing a person who picks up a gun and is forced to fight you? (Not that I know of the Japanese planning to do this, I just think it's an interesting moral question).

Originally posted by TacDavey
If the object was to "create an impact" they didn't need to bomb a city to do that. Any place would have been acceptable to show the bombs power.

A very reasonable argument.

Originally posted by TacDavey
But it seems like they bombed the city because that would kill the most people. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of these people were non combatant civilians.

Do we know this for sure? People were already being removed from the outlying islands like Hiroshima and the island apparently had a military staging area on it. I can't seem to find any numbers about how the ratio of civilian to military casualties (though it would make sense fore the city to have far more civilians than military).

Originally posted by TacDavey
If that's true, then the civilians WERE a part of the target. And actively targeting civilians is wrong. Plain and simple.

Where did I saw civilians were actively targeted?

Originally posted by TacDavey

I wouldn't consider them "civilians" in the same way. They are now basically less trained, less protected soldiers. The difference is in the choice to fight. I would say you are justified in defending yourself against someone who picks up a weapon and decides to fight you. The people in the city didn't do that.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Less destructive to who? And if the bombs destructive ability was what we were trying to demonstrate, why didn't we drop one on an isolated military base? Why did we dump it in the middle of a civilian filled city?

We were either actively trying to kill civilians (Not acceptable under any circumstance)

Or the specific military set ups in the city were our target, in which case we could have done a normal bombing run and done the least amount of damage to the surrounding populace.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm talking about the military targets specifically, not bombing all of Japan. If we wanted those targets gone, we should have taken them out without killing everyone around them.

Cos that's how war works, especially in the 1940's. You drop a bomb and it magically doesn't kill anyone you deem not acceptable. Same goes for fighting in the streets, the bullets and shrapnel magically avoid the mother and child hiding in the house but kill the soldier and three peasants turned samurai.

Weeeee, it's fun to avoid reality and take the moral high-ground. I'm starting to think you're purposely ignoring everything people have told you of the situation at the time and are doing it for a laugh.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Are you justified in killing a person who picks up a gun and is forced to fight you? (Not that I know of the Japanese planning to do this, I just think it's an interesting moral question).

I would say so, if that is the only option available to you.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Do we know this for sure? People were already being removed from the outlying islands like Hiroshima and the island apparently had a military staging area on it. I can't seem to find any numbers about how the ratio of civilian to military casualties (though it would make sense fore the city to have far more civilians than military).

Indeed. It was far more city than military base.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Where did I saw civilians were actively targeted?

I didn't mean to imply you claimed this, that's the conclusion I came to. If we bombed the city to show it's power, we must have been looking to kill as many people as possible.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
So IYO its better to kill a million "poorly trained soldiers" than to kill a hundred thousand civilians?

As I said, cold as it sounds, it's better to kill soldiers than civilians.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You aren't paying attention. We DID, and that "normal" bombing run, killed MORE civilians than the atomic bomb.

Over more bombing runs and more targets. I'm talking about this one target specifically.

Originally posted by Robtard
Cos that's how war works, especially in the 1940's. You drop a bomb and it magically doesn't kill anyone you deem not acceptable. Same goes for fighting in the streets, the bullets and shrapnel magically avoid the mother and child hiding in the house but kill the soldier and three peasants turned samurai.

Weeeee, it's fun to avoid reality and take the moral high-ground. I'm starting to think you're purposely ignoring everything people have told you of the situation at the time and are doing it for a laugh.

I'm not saying bombs don't kill civilians. I've already clarified that. I'm saying we shouldn't actively try to kill civilians. Civilians who get caught in the cross fire are accidental deaths. We should do everything we can to avoid them. Nuking civilians isn't doing everything we can.

Originally posted by TacDavey
I'm not saying bombs don't kill civilians. I've already clarified that. I'm saying we shouldn't actively try to kill civilians. Civilians who get caught in the cross fire are accidental deaths. We should do everything we can to avoid them. Nuking civilians isn't doing everything we can.

So your end point as it pertains to Japan in WWII (if we don't ignore the reality of the situation) is you're okay with more civilians dieing (what would have happened in a land invasion); as long as they're not actively targeted/nuked.

Brilliant and moral.

Originally posted by TacDavey
As I said, cold as it sounds, it's better to kill soldiers than civilians.

The issue is that it's foolish to look at it in such a binary way when many of those "soldiers" are going to have been "civilians" just the previous day. A quick war by me prevents those civilians from turning into soldiers for you to kill.

There's not much point in looking at the bomb decision in isolation. A view that 'we should not intentionally target civilians' is all very well and noble, but you'd have to turn the clock back a long way in the war to make that call.

The Allies had been intentionally targeting civilians in Germany and then Japan for years by the point the bomb was used, and if the bomb had not been used the US would've flattened those cities with conventional explosives anyway with probably more civilian deaths.

No-one should be under any illusion that precision bombing of military targets was the way things were done in Japan. Civilians were not collateral damage. It was mass indiscriminate firebombing designed to kill and uproot as many civilians as possible.

So as far as the practicality of the question is concerned not using the bomb would not have saved civilians, and I don't think there's much point in trying to avoid that.

If you want to say the entire Allied bombing strategy in World War 2 was immoral, then sure, and plenty think that. It's a much bigger issue than just the bomb though.

-

All that said, though- I have never been convinced that the Japanese would not have surrendered without the bomb. I think that is a convenient mode of thought some liked to adopt at the time but not the strategic reality, and the decision to use the bomb was more influenced by its political consequences than its military.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Over more bombing runs and more targets. I'm talking about this one target specifically.

What alternative plan do you think could have defeated the empire? One target means nothing, when facing a whole country.