Aug 6, 1945

[MightyGiants]

As I said, this topic is not one that lends itself to simplistic thinking but is rather an extremely complex issue.   As I had already pointed out, WW 2 was one of the few (at least major conflicts) that featured civilians as a focus of military attack.  Throughout most of man's history, war was generally fought between armies, and the civilian population was left largely unharmed (with notable exceptions).

Of course, this change in WW2 was not brought about by some change in ethical beliefs, but rather the evolution of technology that allowed for the easy targetted of civilian populations while lacking the refinement to take out more justified targets (like the means of military production) while sparing civilians.

I also appreciate that Truman saw this decision through the lens of a war-weary nation that was wondering what it would take to stop a fanatical enemy who had resorted to organized suicide attacks. 

Still on the other side, I wonder about people who waive the "they started it" flag to ignore the fact that those bombs killed hundreds of thousands of innocent infants, children, and women.   I confess that maybe it was my Catholic upbringing, but I cringe at that sort of loss of life and certainly feel strongly that such acts need to be carefully considered and justified.

Of course, this debate will never be resolved and has been waged for many decades now.   There are many factors at play.  The lack of a warning before dropping the bomb, what role the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan played, and the very short (only a few days) period between the two bombings.  Would a blockade and continued conventional bombing have achieved the same goal?

Oh, and Paul, as a student of military history, I am more than aware that war is hell, I don't need you to tell me that.   Of course, here are some quotes from men who were far more familiar with war than you or I and how they felt about the use of the Atomic bomb

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [102]


The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [112]


The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [113]
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.

— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [114]


Personally, I sit sort of in the middle. I see valid arguments on both sides and I feel that this was such a gray area decision that it's difficult to label this act as "right" or "wrong." 

[Slugsy-Narrows]

As I said, this topic is not one that lends itself to simplistic thinking but is rather an extremely complex issue.   As I had already pointed out, WW 2 was one of the few (at least major conflicts) that featured civilians as a focus of military attack.  Throughout most of man's history, war was generally fought between armies, and the civilian population was left largely unharmed (with notable exceptions).

Of course, this change in WW2 was not brought about by some change in ethical beliefs, but rather the evolution of technology that allowed for the easy targetted of civilian populations while lacking the refinement to take out more justified targets (like the means of military production) while sparing civilians.

I also appreciate that Truman saw this decision through the lens of a war-weary nation that was wondering what it would take to stop a fanatical enemy who had resorted to organized suicide attacks. 

Still on the other side, I wonder about people who waive the "they started it" flag to ignore the fact that those bombs killed hundreds of thousands of innocent infants, children, and women.   I confess that maybe it was my Catholic upbringing, but I cringe at that sort of loss of life and certainly feel strongly that such acts need to be carefully considered and justified.

Of course, this debate will never be resolved and has been waged for many decades now.   There are many factors at play.  The lack of a warning before dropping the bomb, what role the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan played, and the very short (only a few days) period between the two bombings.  Would a blockade and continued conventional bombing have achieved the same goal?

Oh, and Paul, as a student of military history, I am more than aware that war is hell, I don't need you to tell me that.   Of course, here are some quotes from men who were far more familiar with war than you or I and how they felt about the use of the Atomic bomb

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [102]
The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [112]
The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

— Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945, [113]
The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment ... It was a mistake to ever drop it ... [the scientists] had this toy, and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it.

— Fleet Admiral William Halsey Jr., 1946, [114]


Personally, I sit sort of in the middle. I see valid arguments on both sides and I feel that this was such a gray area decision that it's difficult to label this act as "right" or "wrong."

And I don't need a lecture from you.  So if you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others!

It's obvious my view in politics and beliefs are in sharp contrast to yours (and thank god!).  So either don't comment on my thoughts or when you do be ready for mine back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ed Vette]

And I don't need a lecture from you.  So if you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others!

It's obvious my view in politics and beliefs are in sharp contrast to yours (and thank god!).  So either don't comment on my thoughts or when you do be ready for mine back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He's not the one who started the offensive.

" Period, end of  story and if that is something you aren't happy and doesn't align with your values, then pick another country you feel aligns with your values and feel free to move there as no one forces you to stay here and see if you are happier!!!"

[T200]

It is not an easy subject to discuss. It's even harder to discuss between people who have vastly different viewpoints.

@Slugsy-Narrows and @MightyGiants - you're both on record on where you stand. I urge you both to not let this deteriorate.

I also find myself straddling both sides of the issue. I am concerned from the human aspect at the loss of innocent lives. However, I do understand the casualties of war and very unfortunately, find them necessary.

My two sons and I used to wrestle and play fight a lot. They stopped as we all got older and they subsequently got stronger. I couldn't let them beat me. I'm dad, after all. If you asked them why they stopped, their answer will always be, "Dad doesn't play fair." Damn right. I could be in a wheelchair and I'll find a way to take you out! 

[Slugsy-Narrows]

He's not the one who started the offensive.

" Period, end of  story and if that is something you aren't happy and doesn't align with your values, then pick another country you feel aligns with your values and feel free to move there as no one forces you to stay here and see if you are happier!!!"

Wrong Ed I'm sorry before you point out who did what follow the whole thread.....

I didn't quote anyone and just voiced MY thoughts in it.

Then of course the lecture from the "All Mighty" comes in to reprimand me for my thoughts.

"Paul, ethics, and morals should not be the exclusive preview of Americans you hate (the "bleeding hearts" as you so condescendingly called them) but are something all people should abide by.  Every person on the planet should abide by the golden rule of do unto others.   People should try empathy rather than screwing over and even killing others while claiming they are doing it under the false banner of either "freedom" or the "constitution" (as that has proven almost never to be the case).

Paul (and to the posters that support his statement) this country and the world needs more empathy and kindness.  It needs more justice and tolerance.  What we don't need is more hate-filled rants wrapped in false patriotic wrappers.  We can have INTELLIGENT and NUANCED conversations about the killing of hundreds of thousands of people without going into the toxic pit of nationalism and hatred/intolerance for others."

He easily could have left my name out of it and posted his own thoughts as I did!  I mentioned no one in my initial post yet he went out of his way to name me in his.

If you all haven't figured me out by now I'm not letting that go, never have and never will! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MightyGiants]

And I don't need a lecture from you.  So if you don't like it done to you, don't do it to others!

It's obvious my view in politics and beliefs are in sharp contrast to yours (and thank god!).  So either don't comment on my thoughts or when you do be ready for mine back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Much like Japan, you STARTED this, Paul (with your gratuitous "bleeding heart" comment).  By your reasoning, I would be more than justified to go nuclear on you, but I won't.  I will not go nuclear on you, nor will I express the sort of disdain that you clearly have for Americans that don't share your radical political beliefs.  In the end, we are all Americans, and we are all Giants fans and that should be enough that we can at least get along most of the time. 

Despite your protests to the contrary, I believe our nation needs more kindness, respect, tolerance, understanding, and a belief that ethics and moral principles matter.  We need to seek out common ground and unite rather than divide.   

[Slugsy-Narrows]

It is not an easy subject to discuss. It's even harder to discuss between people who have vastly different viewpoints.

@Slugsy-Narrows and @MightyGiants - you're both on record on where you stand. I urge you both to not let this deteriorate.

I also find myself straddling both sides of the issue. I am concerned from the human aspect at the loss of innocent lives. However, I do understand the casualties of war and very unfortunately, find them necessary.

My two sons and I used to wrestle and play fight a lot. They stopped as we all got older and they subsequently got stronger. I couldn't let them beat me. I'm dad, after all. If you asked them why they stopped, their answer will always be, "Dad doesn't play fair." Damn right. I could be in a wheelchair and I'll find a way to take you out! 

T

Yes we are vastly different on our beliefs and will always be at odds.

I too have empathy for the loss of innocent life and stated that in my posts.  It's sad what had transpired and any loss of life 1 or thousands is terrible.  It's not like I'm saying bomb the whole country and to hell with everyone!  But when war is started it's not pretty!  The days if 2 armies lining up and just shooting each other are long long gone!  The only way to win is to dominate the other totally.  That can't be done with empathy.  A mad man can't be reasoned with until they are completely defeated.

As for wrestling with your dad, I too did so!  And it was my freshman year of college I came home and pop and I started to wrestle and I saw I had him, and I couldn't do it!  I rolled over and let him pin me down and laugh and say see this old man still can whoop your @$$ and sadly it was the last time we horsed around like that.  He knew and I knew.  It's a respect thing!  I think about that occasionally and miss those days! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LennG]

I can see how a good discussion can deteriorate into this.

Anyway, that is false that Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. The Emporer had no intention of surrendering and their top generals were preparing the general public to take up arms to fight till the death to protect their homeland. Surrender was not even considered.

Truman did issue a warning to Japan, to surrender or face the utmost dire consequences. That said he did NOT mention what he had in store for them and was criticized for that. But I doubt Japan would have listened anyway.

As far as what Admiral Halsey said, later on, I have told this many times, I had a great friend who was on the USS Missouri when the Japanese surrendered. My friend was a Marine assigned to that ship and every day they were training to invade Japan. When word came that the Japanese were going to surrender and after they did, Admiral Halsey addressed the crew and basically said 'Thank God for those bombs as they saved who knows how many lives both American and Japanese. This damn war is finally over.

No one really thinks of how many Japanese lives were saved by not invading Japan. As I said, Japan was already arming the general public to defend Japan and if so, they predicted more civilians would have died in the invasion and afterward, then died because of the bombing.

[MightyGiants]

I can see how a good discussion can deteriorate into this.

Anyway, that is false that Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped. The Emporer had no intention of surrendering and their top generals were preparing the general public to take up arms to fight till the death to protect their homeland. Surrender was not even considered.

Truman did issue a warning to Japan, to surrender or face the utmost dire consequences. That said he did NOT mention what he had in store for them and was criticized for that. But I doubt Japan would have listened anyway.

As far as what Admiral Halsey said, later on, I have told this many times, I had a great friend who was on the USS Missouri when the Japanese surrendered. My friend was a Marine assigned to that ship and every day they were training to invade Japan. When word came that the Japanese were going to surrender and after they did, Admiral Halsey addressed the crew and basically said 'Thank God for those bombs as they saved who knows how many lives both American and Japanese. This damn war is finally over.

No one really thinks of how many Japanese lives were saved by not invading Japan. As I said, Japan was already arming the general public to defend Japan and if so, they predicted more civilians would have died in the invasion and afterward, then died because of the bombing.

Len,

As long as the name-calling is put aside, I have no problem with dissenting views.  I will say, though, that based on the fact that there are varying reports and conclusions in terms of Japan's thinking and likely course of action, I don't think you can make any sort of declaration with certainty.    I think to be fair, you need to qualify any claim with an uncertainty disclaimer. 

For those that are interested in learning more, I would suggest Wikipedia's entry on the debate.  The entry does an excellent job of giving both sides of the argument.   


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[MightyGiants]

Here are a few more interesting articles


https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs


and one from Stars and Stripes


https://www.stripes.com/special-reports/world-war-ii-the-final-chapter/would-japan-have-surrendered-without-the-atomic-bombings-1.360300

and to balance out the LA Times article

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/