WWII use of nukes? (again)

[Epidemic]

I often hear how bad the use of nukes was in WWII. I tend to think they were a big plus based on projections. However people keep citing how they killed civilians.

It struck me last night, how many people would have died in conventional carpet bombing of japan. In WWII I believe that there was alot of civillian casualties during conventional bombing.

So I contend that the nuke may very well have even saved a huge number of civillians.

[OuTpaTienT]

You must be talking to the wrong people. All the people I talk to understand it was a necessary move to prevent an all out country-wide blood-bath on the island of Japan.

Not only did the bombs save hundreds of thousands of American lives (because realistically ground invasion was our only next step), but they also ironically enough, saved probably millions of Japanese citizens, both military AND civilian. It needs to be understood (and it is by most) that their civilian population was just as ready to fight to the death as their soldiers. And a ground invasion from swarms of American military soldiers would have met resistance at literally EVERY corner. Our forces would have had no choice but to take out every moving target. The word "civilian" would have become meaningless.

The bombs were indeed horrific and a terrible, ugly step to have to take. But it was an unquestionably necessary step. It's undeniable. Japan's rulers were NOT about to give up otherwise. And their population was being prepped to fight to the death. It would have been MUCH uglier without the bombs. And those that do deny that, don't know their world history well enough.

[Theophylact]

And of course the "conventional" firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo killed more civilians than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Epidemic]

Outpatient,

I agree with you that it was the best and only choice at the time. We could have done the old nuke Mt Fugi for effect. But when you only have two bombs doing a demonstration on a low population area would have been risky at best.


As for most agreeing that it was the right choice. Hmmmmm, there are alot of people that think the use of nukes in japan was completely wrong and unjustifyable.


Theo,

You surprise me. I thought you fell into the group of total anti nuclear weapons past and present..

[Theophylact]

Epidemic, you misunderstand. It's not that I'm in favor of nuclear weapons; I'm opposed to the targeting of civilian populations with indiscriminate weapons, including incendiaries.

Michael Walzer's book, Just and Unjust Wars, is clarifying on this issue. You can undertake a war justly and yet prosecute it unjustly; the side that is in the right is by no means relieved of its responsibility to behave as decently as possible under the circumstances.

[Epidemic]

Ok theo, I am not saying that nukes were great either. just that they were an better alternative than conventional sacking of japan.

[M_Six]

I also don't believe America had a choice. The Japanese military had proven time and again their willingness to not only fight to the death, but to commit unspeakable atrocities against military and civilians alike.

However, I also believe the time of "acceptable" use of nuclear weapons is long past. ANY use of nukes today would most likely lead to an all out holocaust and the end of humanity as we know it.

Are you listening India/Pakistan????

[Epidemic]

I think I agree with the fact that future use of Nukes on human targets with the knowledge we have now is probably not acceptable. But in WWII I think they were the best alternative to a bad situation.

The polution and escalation are the main concerns I have with the use of nukes today.

I agree with Epidemic. Escalation is the primary concern of this day and age. The US used nuclear devices in WWII because of a supposed monopoly (Germany did complete preliminary conceptualized ideas for possible nuclear weapons before war's end) on the technology, thus had little fear of an equal response. Now that even many 2nd world nations possess nuclear arms, any use of an atomic weapon would have severe consequences.

[OuTpaTienT]

Prime Minister Suzuki told his American interrogators after the war that the atomic bomb had enabled his military colleagues to surrender honorably. to surrender when one's powers of resistance remained was dishonorable; to surrender to a force of overwhelming power was acceptable without loss of face. No brigades of children with bamboo spears, no kamikaze attacks, no spiritual strengths could overcome such might.

Japan had reversed itself previously in the face of superior power. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the prospect of more to come, compelled Japan to surrender, lest it be destroyed forever. This was the argument that Hirohito made in council to his government, and it ended the war.

from: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/lastact5.html