Dropping the bomb

[pahl]

The Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bombings.

Where they needed?

And was it morally defensible?

[Compugasm]

yes.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Yes ( I know you already know my answer), by all acounts, Japan's people would have been destroyed along with at least a million Americans. We'd be left with Islands of ash instead of two cities of ash. Imagine fighting like that in Germany, but worse, with people who had been drilled their whole lives into sacraficing themselves for their country without flinching and who believed that death is preferable to life in defeat.

[Epistemologist]

The Americans didn't want to lose the large number of soldiers that they would lose if they were to invade Japan by foot since the Japanese government would not surrender. They started using more kamikazes as well as a final defense against nearby U.S. battleships and aircraft carriers. So, to help their own interests, the Americans deployed the two atom bombs against the Japanese cities.

Some historians have also said that the Americans used the atom bombs in order to scare the Soviets into submission after the war, although there's not much evidence to support this theory.

So, the bombs weren't actually needed, because the Allies could have just invaded Japan, so there were other reasonable options, although the criteria for reasonability are somewhat specious. Also, its moral defensibility largely depends on what side you're on.

If you're on the U.S. side and are an ethical teleologist, then you would probably say that using the atom bombs served the greater good and was thus just. If you're on the Japanese side and are an ethical teleologist, you would it's unjust. Also, if you're a ethical deontologist who disapproves of bombs, mass murder, killing civilians, or something like that, then you'd be against the bombs regardless of your side.

In terms of the philosophy of war, if you're an American realist, then you'd be for the bombs, and if you're a pacifist on either side, then you'd be against them. Keep in mind that civilians were killed, as I mentioned earlier.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Civilians killed on an unheard of scale would have been the consequence of an invasion.

[Epistemologist]

True, I just mentioned that as a side note.

[Gods_Mercenary]

As to the Morally defensible part, I tend to be a pragmatist, so I say that if it got the job done and killed the least amount of people, than yes. But to a more idealistic person who thinks civilians shouldn't be targeted no matter what, than no.

[pahl]

I do not agree with that it was nessesary, i mean there are always an other option. The japanese did not know the US had that kind of fire power, so a meare demonstration might have been enough to push the already pressured japanese to give up. And the war would have ended because of the russians anyway.

Besides, i think it is a morally indefensible to target civilians with a weapon such as the atomic bomb. Approx. 140.000 civilians died by the first bomb's primary effects. Almost half of those did not die instantly but suffered hell on earth their last moments in life.
If an other country had used a atomic bomb against the US it would without doubt be classified as a crime against humanity.

[Gods_Mercenary]

You kidding me, it took two bombs to make them surrender, you think a demonstration would have done it? And I think the Japanese would have taken a few bombs rather than be raped by the russians, who would have demanded the islands as their own.

As I said before, it really depends on your outlook, I see it as actually saving civilian lives therefore preferable, you think that you shouldn't specifically target civilians, no matter what. I can see where your coming from, I hope you see where I'm coming from.

[The_Genius]

It was a disgraceful act of the US. If you think about the civillian deaths and the biological effect it had on people... It was simply disgusting.

[Gods_Mercenary]

So you support an invasion that would have killed far more people and destroyed japanese society as well as possibly putting them under brutal Soviet control for around a half a century?

[The_Genius]

That "russian invasion" is a mere assumption. Russia did not even posess nuclear weapons at that time...

[Gods_Mercenary]

They were likely to.You think a man like Stalin would have let the chance to grab another chunk of land fall through his fingers? Why does the fact that they didn't have nuclear weapons matter? As it is, a U.S. alone invasion would have entailed possibly the worst fighting seen in history. Think of how the japanese fought to defend a little rock called Iwo Jima. They fought literaly until the last man. Imagine how they would have fought to defend the Islands that they had inhabited long before they began writing their history down.

[The_Genius]

Dude, we are talking about a historical event. It has nothing to do with something "would've or could've happened".....

You see, I am trying my best to understand your perspective. But given the way you defending/supporting the bombing, I really don't think you are being rational...

Thats my opinion...

[Gods_Mercenary]

We have to consider what could've happened because, as you said, it was an historical event. We can't know what would've happened so we have to speculate. As far as I see it there was no realistic alternative to the bombing, if you can provide an alternative to what the U.S. did then I'll agree that the bombing was unnessecary and therefore wrong, but if you can't then I'll say that the bombing was the lesser of the evils and the best course to take.

I'm not saying the bombing was right, but that it was necessary.

[Osborn F Enready]

Diplomacy was an option, just not one used.

It was not justified, but it was understandable from the position of the Americans, as well as the Japanese.

The Japanese chose force over submission without a fight, and lost.

The Americans chose overwhelming force, as opposed to more conventional force, to which the Japanese were well prepared to make it a costly battle for the Americans.

The people of both nations, should have refused to allow their governments to take such actions in their name, that would have been justified. They should have enforced it by not giving the government funds or labor to execute its plans.

That requires enlightenment though, and in war, logic and reason often fall prey to propaganda and falsehoods.

“Facts must be distorted, relevant circumstances concealed, and a picture presented which by its crude coloring will persuade the ignorant people that their Government is blameless, their cause is righteous, and that the indisputable wickedness of the enemy is beyond question.
A moment's reflection would tell any reasonable person that such obvious bias cannot possibly represent the truth. But the moment's reflection is not allowed; lies are circulated with great rapidity. The unthinking mass accept them and by their excitement sway the rest.
The amount of rubbish and humbug that pass under the name of patriotism in wartime in all countries is sufficient to make decent people blush when they are subsequently disillusioned.”
-Arthur Ponsonby, Falsehood in Wartime, 1928

[The_Genius]

I really do not think Japan was a super power capable of defeating the US. You want an alternative? Here it is....

Bomb Japanese military bases, arsenals, government buildings. NOT INNOCENT CIVILIANS...

[Gods_Mercenary]

The Japanese as a culture could not accept defeat, so diplomacy was out of the question.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Quote by: The_Genius I really do not think Japan was a super power capable of defeating the US. You want an alternative? Here it is.... Bomb Japanese military bases, arsenals, government buildings. NOT INNOCENT CIVILIANS...

We had, almost all their navy was toast, as well as their air force and their army.

Besides, bombs weren't exactly precise, to target a building in a city you basically targeted the whole city

And at first, Japan had one of the best armed forces in the world, much better than the U.S.'s. A betting man would have picked Japan in the fight at first.

[The_Genius]

Was bombing Iraq was necessary?