Moral issues on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

during WW2 when the Nuclear bombs Fat-boy and little-man were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki many lives ...most lives were destroyed. there were many heat ray shadows left behind which are still in the cement today. I wanted to know if you thought the bombing was for a good cause or bad. the other option on that day was to just attack the Japanese on the ground..but that would,of been more costlier toll on lives because the Japanese will fight till death. so what is your opinion?

What does this have to do with the philosophy? 😖

On the note of the bombing, it should have never happened. They wanted to try out the nuclear bomb. Dropping two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was shamefull and discusting.

it has indeed saved a lot of casualties but I agree with Lil there were other ways, strategic normal bombings would have been "cleaner" IMO

Yes, not really Philosophy.

I think it is important to state for the record that no-one knows, or will ever know if the Japanese would have surrendered anyway. I have found strong viewpoints from both the American and Japanese sides, saying yes and no- that is four views in all, US yes, US no, Japanese yes, Japanese no, and they are all rather convincing. However, only half of them can be right.

Be sure- there are no certainties about this issue.

true

moved to GDF

It had to happen. There was no easy way to end the war. Truman gave ample warning, yet the Japanese refused to surrender. After the first bomb was dropped, they still refused to surrender. It took a second bomb to end the war. Did it suck? Yeah, big time, but there was no other way. Truman faced a difficult dilemea, he could end the war quickly, but have a lot of civilian causalities, or invade Japan and risk a million causualties and alots of cilvilian deaths. In the end, he made the right decision

No it didnt have to happen.

I can even come to some kind of understanding on dropping one, but dropping two, thats absolutely horrible and uncalled for.

I also once went out to see if I could figure out what exactly happened politics-wise before the dropping of the Hiroshima-bomb. Nothing seems conclusive. Would the Japanese have surrendered regardless? Who knows?
What makes me wonder is that in an August 9 report on the Potsdam conference, Truman declared: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians." (Quoted in Alperovitz, Decision, p. 521.)
Was Truman unaware of the fact that the vast majority of those who died were civilians?
Publicly and even privately Truman continued to refer to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as military targets and defended his decision to drop the bomb until the end of his life.
But Truman was so unmoved by the devastation in Hiroshima that he gave the order August 9 for Nagasaki to be bombed.
That one, the second bomb is a crime against humanity IMHO. There was no need.

Approximately 43,000 troops were stationed in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing, but the fact that the city had largely escaped conventional aerial bombardment as late as August 1945 speaks to the fact that the Allies considered the city to be of low importance militarily.
The criteria actually set out by the committee that had been established to identify possible targets for the new atomic bombs during its initial meetings in April 1945 were as follows: "(1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles diameter,
(2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and
(3) they are likely to be unattacked by next August." In addition, they agreed
that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. (Quoted in Alperovitz, Decision, p. 524.)

We’re told, that the Allies were forced to drop the bomb because the Japanese would never surrender – that the Japanese were ”a nation of fanatics”, where ”even the children would willingly commit suicide before surrendering”.
Paul McNutt, chairman of the War Manpower Commission, told a public audience in 1945 that he favored "the extermination of the Japanese in toto."
The Americans were told that the Japanese were so dangerous, in fact, that people of Japanese descent, irrespective of their citizenship status, were forced into concentration camps across the United States for the duration of the war with Japan.

It’s easy to look back almost 60 years later, with what we know today. Both sides had propaganda, both sides probably wanted an end to the war. What really happened… Who knows?

Kinda of hard to dispute what is right and what was wrong. If we gonna go with the idea of crime agaisn't humanity, why don't we also throw in the crimes that the Japanese committed on the Chinese and Russian prisoners during WWII. That's right, the Nazi's weren't the only ones that experimented with human lives. Unfortunally most of the sites where these experiments took place, were convenetly destroyed, and hardly any evidence was found.

As for the bombings is true those cannot be denied. But one thing is for certain the Mahanttan project had one object. That object was to develop a powerful weapon. I guess scientist achive that goal quite succesfully.

Winddancer> Since you’re bringing in the atrocities the Japanese committed during WWII, why don’t you supply some links and stuff? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but in a debate such as this one, it’s a very good idea to back up claims with evidence. It avoids confusion.

The scientists didn’t drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And whatever the goal of the Manhattan Project was, doesn’t change the fact, that bombing Nagasaki was – without a doubt – not necessary.
And why did major General Curtis E. LeMay bluntly assert in September 1945, that "the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all?” (Alperovitz, Atomic Diplomacy, p. 6.)
Maybe the Truman staff wanted more than to show their new weapons (They could have taken the advice of many scientists and advisers who were proposing a demonstration in an unpopulated area with representatives from various countries present)? Maybe they were thinking beyond the war to the time in which the victorious Allies would redraw the world map? The main contenders for dominance om the postwar period were – after all – the U.S: and the U.S.S.R.
If Russia entered the war against Japan as the Allies had planned or, alternatively, if they were to broker the peace with Japan, as Japan had implored them to do, then Russia would have a greater hold on Asia--which the Truman-administration did not want. This situation provided a major incentive to bring an end to the war before August 15, the date on which Russia was set to declare war on Japan, and also to do so in such a way as to strengthen the U.S. position after the war.
It IS a possibility after all.

Scientist did not drop the bomb on those cities. But they certainly BUILD the bomb! So where was their ethical minds at when they build it? Sure, blame the politics, but in the end who really has the knowledge to build the bomb?

I wish I had more info on the atrocities of the Japanese (obviously that will lead to more politics in this discussion) I just know very little of it. And from what I understand there is evidence about of them experimentin (sp?) on prisoners. Besides written history is in your favor. You were the first one to mention crimes agains't humanity in this thread. What I was trying to imply is that if we are going to concentrate on which side committed more crimes then we should be critical of both sides.

What was the Japanese response after the first bomb was dropped? If they refused to surrender, the a second bombed need to be dropped. It sucks, but somethings have to be done.

Winddancer> What is your point? That we should blame Oppenheimer and co. for the atrocities? Do you also blame gun-manufactureres for gun-related crimes?
I’m not saying that the Japanese did not commit terrible atrocities in the Emperors attempt to expand the Japanese Empire. But is that something you mention to justify Trumans decision to kill off almost 300.000 Japanese people (most of them not even military personel?).
I’m not debating “which side” committed the most crimes. This threads deals with the moral issue of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. If you start to mention Japanese war-crimes it sounds to me as if you want to justify one horrible act by another. Is that the case?

Agent Elrond> In later years, Truman was fond of citing the "fact" that had the U.S. not dropped the atomic bomb, "half a million" American troops would have died in the planned land invasion of Japan. This was the purest fabrication. The truth is that the Joint War Plans Committee estimated on June l0, 1945, that 40,000 Americans would be killed in the invasion of the Japanese mainland, not "half a million." Moreover, by the end of June, American military planners had concluded that Japan had already lost the war: Its cities were devastated, its people were demoralized, and its soldiers no longer had the capacity or will to fight. Japan had even made indirect overtures to the U.S. to discuss the possibility of surrender-rebuffed by Truman, who demanded "unconditional surrender."

Admiral William Leahy, who believed that an invasion of Japan was unnecessary, also advised Truman to accept a Japanese surrender that would allow them to retain the emperor. Many concur that Japan only needed the facesaving gesture of keeping the emperor in place to lay down its arms. By July, the emperor had already indicated that he was interested in suing for peace. "It is my opinion," wrote Leahy a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, "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."' In the end, following Japan's surrender days after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. did precisely what Leahy had earlier recommended-it allowed Japan to retain the emperor.

Why didn't the Truman-administration first demonstrate the power of the bomb on some un-inhabited island, with representatives from the Japanese government? You know, like "IF you don't surrender NOW, then we will..."

"This threads deals with the moral issue of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings"

Moral issue? I ask again! Who manufacture the bomb? Who had the plans? Who had the final decision on whether to make the bomb or not? It can be trace back to the scientists that were working on the project. I'm pretty sure they knew the power of their discoveries. So did they do something to stop the tests? NO! They went ahead with the idea of testing the bomb in the deserts. Why? because they wanted to see the magnitude of their discoveries! So in the end who really had the power to stop the project? Was it the politics or was the scientists? It was both of them. They had the choices on whether to make the bomb or not. But it was mostly the scientist who could had help stop the bombing by refusing to participate in the project. Of course they didn't! they were eager to discover how powerful their project was. So who are we going to blame in the end? The Japanese for starting the whole thing by bombing Pearl Harbor? Or The American Government because they wanted revenge? Or the Scientist who develop the bomb in the first place?

Winddancer> ” Who manufacture the bomb? Who had the plans? Who had the final decision on whether to make the bomb or not?”
The Manhattan Project wasn’t started by scientists. The United States initiated its program under the Army Corps of Engineers in June 1942. General Leslie R. Groves, Deputy Chief of Construction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, was appointed to direct this top-secret project. Scientists Who Invented the Atomic Bomb under the Manhattan Project: Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi, Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller.

Do you also blame gun-manufactureres for gun-related crimes?

But let’s see if we can agree on what to discuss. I’m dealing with the moral issue of DROPPING the bombs on people.

”It can be trace back to the scientists that were working on the project. I'm pretty sure they knew the power of their discoveries. So did do something to stop the tests? NO!”
Yes the did actually. In 1944, Szilard adamantly advocated against using the atomic bomb. Szilard was the drafter of a July 17, 1945 petition to the US president opposing the use of the bomb on moral grounds. 68 members of the metallurgical laboratory who worked on the atomic bomb signed the petition. Szilard also made a concerted effort to warn President Truman about the dangers of using the atomic weapons on Japan. Truman sent him to see Jimmy Byrnes, who was dismissive of Szilard.
”So who are we going to blame in the end? The Japanese for starting the whole thing by bombing Pearl Harbor?”
Ehrm, WWII started in 1939, and you are – I hope- aware of what made the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour, right?

Yes, The Omega I was aware that WWII started in 1939. Btw-where you aware that the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941?

You see in order to drop the bomb someone had to make it in the first place. So why not trace it back to the source? You have mention the people involved in the project. All of them very intelligent people who I'm sure were capable of making the final decisions on whether to cooperate on making the bomb. You mention a petition, but was that enough to stop the testing? Somehow some of the scientist involved still participated on conducting the testings. Which makes me question their true objective. Did it ever occur to them that maybe they should have resign from project instead of continuing? As far as I know some of them continue to work on the project. Why didn't they just resign to the project?

Now going back to the "Why did the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor?" I can only say that there were many reasons why they did in the first place.

The US insisted that Japan withdraw from China (Manchuria I believe). Japan refused to withdraw. The US imposed an embargo of raw materials (ie: steel, oil, rubber...) to force their withdrawl. Japan being poor in natural resources realized they needed to gain control of raw materials. Due to the embargo Japan had only enough raw materials for about six months so it was imperative that they move quickly. Since the US was the only country that could interfere with this plan Japan had to eliminate our Pacific fleet and consolidate their positions. The fact that the US underestimated Japan's resolve and ability to attack us is a major factor in the surprise at Pearl Harbor. Japan hoped for a short war (6 months to a year) and in fact Yamamoto knew that if the war continued for several years there was no way Japan could win due to our overwhelming production capabilities and raw materials (The Arsenal Of Democracy). To make a quick summary, Japan's reason/goal in attacking Pearl Harbor was to eliminate the US fleet so they could obtain the raw materials they needed in the Pacific. Maybe they were hoping that the attack would stop the embargo. It just made things worse.

Originally posted by Agent Elrond
It had to happen. There was no easy way to end the war. Truman gave ample warning, yet the Japanese refused to surrender. After the first bomb was dropped, they still refused to surrender. It took a second bomb to end the war. Did it suck? Yeah, big time, but there was no other way. Truman faced a difficult dilemea, he could end the war quickly, but have a lot of civilian causalities, or invade Japan and risk a million causualties and alots of cilvilian deaths. In the end, he made the right decision

see I agree with you. I also feel in away they had it comeing because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor......loads of lives were lost in Pearl Harbor and the bombings on Japan but like I said I think you put this perfectly 🙂

Originally posted by Fire
it has indeed saved a lot of casualties but I agree with Lil there were other ways, strategic normal bombings would have been "cleaner" IMO

Our fire bombing killed and destroyed way more.

Originally posted by The Omega
”So who are we going to blame in the end? The Japanese for starting the whole thing by bombing Pearl Harbor?”
Ehrm, WWII started in 1939, and you are – I hope- aware of what made the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour, right?

Official WW2 started in 39 for everyone
China and Japan started really in 32 ... 7 bloody years before anyone they were fighting.

German hard water factories in scandinavia were working to build the bomb to, and it took commandos to take those out... Japan was sent uranium to continue the project by submarine.