american drones - not so efficient

[Guest American Woman]

The question... Is it moral to sacrifice the life of a second party to save the life of a bunch of other people, based on the fact that in the end more lives will be saved.

You can boil this down to its most basic element with the following question...

Theres four guys in a hospital. One will die without a liver, the other will die without a kidney, the other will die without a heart... the fourth guy is perfectly healthy. If you strap the healthy guy down and sieze his liver, kidney, and heart then 3 people in the set will live. If you dont, only 1 will live.

If the healthy person isn't sacrificed to save the unhealthy people, they will die natural deaths. No one is causing their death. In the situation I am referring to, healthy people would die by our lack of action. "In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing." ie: There is no "evil" causing the deaths in the scenario you presented, so there is no legitimate "moral" comparison.

Edited October 4, 2012 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

The problem is you didnt. Japan was already cut off and surrounded at that point. They were beaten.

So beaten that the Japanese Army and Navy continued to attack Allied aircraft even after the surrender.

[Guest American Woman]

So the people who justify something like Hiroshima on humanitarian grounds, while they might be totally correct in their judgement that it was for the "greater good" would have a completely different moral spin on things if it was their city that gets to be the one sacrificed.

One distinct moral construct for "me and my friends", and another for "those people over there".

The Chinese, the hundreds of thousands murdered by the Japanese, were "those people over there." My question is, why not be thankful for the means to stop such atrocities from continuing?

[dre]

The Chinese, the hundreds of thousands murdered by the Japanese, were "those people over there." My question is, why not be thankful for the means to stop such atrocities from continuing?

I already answered this. The vaporizing of Japanese cities did NOT prevent such atrocities from continuing. Japan was already contained by an effective sea blockade and conventional bombing.

And I AM thankfull that the US fought the Japanese, but Japans capacity to commit further atrocities like the ones you mention was already removed by the time the bombs were dropped.

the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing

It is my opinion 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 because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons

the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs

Even people that hold the view that the vaporizing of two cities full of civilians was necessarily wouldnt support your scenario. Japan was surrounded at that point, and were in no position to commit more atrocities in China or anywhere else.

The bombs were not used to prevent further atrocities, they were used for one of two reason depending on who you believe.

1. To avoid a bloody invasion of mainland Japan.

2. To win before the Russians got involved.

Edited October 4, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

Japan was already contained by an effective sea blockade and conventional bombing.

The hypocrisy of your thinking is mind boggling. It is ok to starve a nation to slowly (how many civilians would have died from hunger and disease)? But but here is a problem with dropping a nuclear bomb. Cruel and twisted can only describe it. Edited October 4, 2012 by TimG

[DogOnPorch]

I already answered this. The vaporizing of Japanese cities did NOT prevent such atrocities from continuing. Japan was already contained by an effective sea blockade and conventional bombing.

Even people that hold the view that the vaporizing of two cities full of civilians was necessarily wouldnt support your scenario. Japan was surrounded at that point, and were in no position to commit more atrocities in China or anywhere else.

The bombs were not used to prevent further atrocities, they were used for one of two reason depending on who you believe.

1. To avoid a bloody invasion of mainland Japan.

2. To win before the Russians got involved.

I see you're ignoring the fact the Japanese fought on well after the surrender. Some isolated and surrounded groups fought-on until the 1950s. Sixty thousand undefeated Japanese still held New Britain and similar situations existed all over the Pacific. Vast areas of the Philippines were still under Japanese control. All of Indochina. Japan was keen to negotiate as that was the plan from the start. Take a vast area, hold it and then let the Allies negotiate a settlement. There were no plans to invade California.

But America was clear. Unconditional surrender or the s**t continues to impact the fan. Even with that, the carrot of keeping the Emperor had to be tabled in order to wrap things up on the Home Islands.

[dre]

The hypocrisy of your thinking is mind boggling. It is ok to starve a nation to slowly (how many civilians would have died from hunger and disease)? But but here is a problem with dropping a nuclear bomb. Cruel and twisted can only describe it.

Your inability to read is breathtaking. I pointed out a couple of times already in this thread that its possible that the use of the atomic bombs quite possibly resulted in less Japanese deaths than if they had not been used. None of us have any idea if that is indeed the case but its certainly a plausible scenario. I didnt take a position that using the bombs was right or wrong. Theres compelling arguments to be made both ways, and no way to be sure what would have happened if things had been done differently.

But what AW and I were discussing is the prevention of more atrocities like the ones committed by the Japanese against the Chinese.

[bleeding heart]

That and selective history. It's rather a pill to one's anti-American rant to have to point out the atrocities perpetrated against Americans that might have influenced their decision to drop the Bomb on two Japanese cities amongst other things. It's preferable to show America as an inhuman monster as per bud. Thoughtless and uncaring. Ruthlessly dealing a nuclear blow to the poor bedraggled Japanese over a war that was some how America's fault to begin with.

Meh.

Those complaining continually about anti-Americanism are mostly indulging in a form of political correctness.

[DogOnPorch]

Meh.

Those complaining continually about anti-Americanism are mostly indulging in a form of political correctness.

Meh, yourself. We see plenty of anti-Americanism on MLW to know it isn't a isolated affair. Folks with zero understanding as to what happened before 1945 pretending they would have had the moral clarity to end WW2 without casualties. That somehow, they know better than MacArthur, Nimitz, LeMay, Truman, Mountbatten, Stilwell, Slim and numerous others that FOUGHT the Japanese.

Edited October 4, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

Meh, yourself. We see plenty of anti-Americanism on MLW to know it isn't a isolated affair.

And again, more often than not, the sanctimonious little shouts about "anti-Americanism" are precisely the same as any other type of political correctness.

And like all the other types, it occasionally hits its target accurately...but like a shotgun blast in the dark.

The rest of the time, best to dismiss it with the derision it deserves.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

And again, more often than not, the sanctimonious little shoutss about "anti-Americanism" are precisely the same as any other type of political correctness.

And like all the other types, it occasionally hits its target accurately...but like shotgun blast in the dark.

The rest of the time, best to dismiss it with the derision it deserves.

That might be true if the same posters could name the capital of Oregon without hitting Google.

[bleeding heart]

That might be true if the same posters could name the capital of Oregon without hitting Google.

It's true in and of itself.

[DogOnPorch]

It's true in and of itself.

Well, sez you.

[carepov]

Nagasaki: Japan didn't surrender, thus the double tap. Plus, much effort and dollars were put into the Manhattan Project. It would be political suicide to send young American men to invade and die in the Pacific when you, as President, had the means to end it all with a powerful new weapon.

Tokyo: Curtis LeMay's move from using high explosives to fire bombs. Much of Japan' war industry was located here. Devastating results...but Japan fought on.

Dresden: Air Marshall Harris's attempt to be the guy who ended WW2 in Europe. Failed.

As for saving lives, the Allies were going to invade Japan. The plans were already prepared. Up to 7 devices were planned for tactical use (that's used in battle) during Olympic/Cornet.

I have a question for you: why did you put good guys in quotes?

dre is 100% correct about the a-bomb, thank you especially for the quotes of Hoover etc... There are good points on both sides.

Re Nagasaki: really after three days? And did it really need to be dropped on such a populated city?

Tokyo: I do not know enough to take a position, something about it just feels wrong to me, but for now I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Dresden: I'm glad that you agree with me.

Just to be clear, I am usually certain of the bad guys are: Nazis, Japs, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Taliban, Bin Laden... We don't usually mention their atrocities because there is nothing to discuss - they were evil.

The enemy of evil is not necessarily good, for proof think of Stalin vs. Hitler. I suppose I used "good guys" meaning relatively good guys - again, think of Dresden. Or think of the idiots at Versailles that helped seed WW2. All the blood spilled in WWI and Korea for mere football field advancements what about Nam, who are the "good guys" there? Thinking of Iraq I cannot call the Bush administration good guys.

The USA is the most virtuous superpower in the history of the world – but I wish they were even more virtuous.

[bleeding heart]

Well, sez you.

Sez me. Just so.

[DogOnPorch]

dre is 100% correct about the a-bomb, thank you especially for the quotes of Hoover etc... There are good points on both sides.

Re Nagasaki: really after three days? And did it really need to be dropped on such a populated city?

Tokyo: I do not know enough to take a position, something about it just feels wrong to me, but for now I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Dresden: I'm glad that you agree with me.

Just to be clear, I am usually certain of the bad guys are: Nazis, Japs, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Taliban, Bin Laden... We don't usually mention their atrocities because there is nothing to discuss - they were evil.

The enemy of evil is not necessarily good, for proof think of Stalin vs. Hitler. I suppose I used "good guys" meaning relatively good guys - again, think of Dresden. Or think of the idiots at Versailles that helped seed WW2. All the blood spilled in WWI and Korea for mere football field advancements what about Nam, who are the "good guys" there? Thinking of Iraq I cannot call the Bush administration good guys.

The USA is the most virtuous superpower in the history of the world – but I wish they were even more virtuous.

You're aware, I assume, that isolated Japanese forces continued to fight into the 1950s. When I was a kid, it was a regular occurrence for some Japanese soldier to finally surrender after years held-up on some remote island. The two big final battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, showed that even with their backs to a wall, the Japanese would fight like devils and never surrender while inflicting punishing casualty rates on the Allied forces.

My point re: Nagasaki stands.

[carepov]

You're aware, I assume, that isolated Japanese forces continued to fight into the 1950s. When I was a kid, it was a regular occurrence for some Japanese soldier to finally surrender after years held-up on some remote island. The two big final battles, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, showed that even with their backs to a wall, the Japanese would fight like devils and never surrender while inflicting punishing casualty rates on the Allied forces.

My point re: Nagasaki stands.

Well I guess we should all ignore the analysis and wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy, and Herbert Hoover. What do they know anyways?

[DogOnPorch]

Well I guess we should all ignore the analysis and wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy, and Herbert Hoover. What do they know anyways?

Oh please, even Oppenheimer was quoting the Gita after Trinity. Nuclear weapons are nothing if not impressive.

[dre]

Well I guess we should all ignore the analysis and wisdom of Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy, and Herbert Hoover. What do they know anyways?

You can throw in General Douglas MacArthur as well.

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

[dre]

Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."

If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms. On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." (Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress).

[bleeding heart]

You can throw in General Douglas MacArthur as well.

Well, what we've learned in this thread--and it's a fact I genuinely did not know--is that Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy, Herbert Hoover, and General MacArthur were all indulging in anti-Americanism!

[dre]

Well, what we've learned in this thread--and it's a fact I genuinely did not know--is that Dwight Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy, Herbert Hoover, and General MacArthur were all indulging in anti-Americanism!

Hah!

You could also say that it was a political decision as opposed to a stategic military decision.

Having said that... reality branches when these decisions are made. Once these bombs had been created maybe it was inevitable that they were going to be used at least once. If we hadnt learned how awful they are in Japan then maybe the cold war would have gone hot and we would all be dead.

Or maybe the EOJ would have refused to surrender for another year even with a conventional bombing campaign and even more Japanese would have died.

We just dont know, and we never will.

Edited October 4, 2012 by dre

[DogOnPorch]

I suppose there's always a chance that Japan will demand a do-over like the Arabs. As far as I recall from the history books, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. Not spared by MacArthur who viewed himself the next Shogun*. Also, Carl Spaatz didn't order the dropping of the Atomic Bomb. Truman and the JCOS did. Notably, General 'Hap' Arnold. It was Curtis LeMay in the XX and later XXI Bomber Command that was physically running the strategic bombing campaign against Japan. Spaatz's soon to be Chief of Staff. Spaatz had transferred over with the 8th AF (yet to arrive...never really did) less than a month before the end of hostilities. As for the rest, none actually served in the PTO. They weren't the fellows that had to do the deed. And as the old saying goes: Opinions are like......everybody has got one.

As for Japan wanting to negotiate: That started right after Pearl Harbor as their 'Co-Prosperity Sphere' is what they were after. East Indies oil and rubber. By May 1942, Japan had all that and was ready for peace. Coral Sea and Midway followed.

As far as anti-Americanism: the day I come to MLW and find a thread praising America for its actions, I'll let you know.

* I have a great collection of items with the mark 'Made in Occupied Japan'. My favorite being a small rocking skull ashtray that shoots flames from its eyes.

[DogOnPorch]

To follow-up on a thought....

This leaflet was dropped by B-29s out of Saipan over Japanese cities including Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug 1st, 1945

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Firebombing_leaflet.jpg

It read: “Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately.”

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol46no3/article07.html

[eyeball]

To follow-up on a thought....

This leaflet was dropped by B-29s out of Saipan over Japanese cities including Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Aug 1st, 1945...

...in accordance with America's humanitarian policies...

Good. Now if they'd only do that before dropping drones on people America might have a point to make.