Iran refuses to meet nuclear deadline

[Black Dog]

And if we're entering the domain of speculation "what would have happened if ...", who said that there had to be a full blown invasion of Japanese mainland? The country was going down cut off supplies and resources. A full naval blockade with targeted bombing of selected military objects, together with Soviet's advance in the north would probably have led to the same result (i.e. surrender), albeit maybe somewhat later and on different terms.

With an even greate rloss of life and the possible division of Japan along Soviet and western lines a la Germany, Thaty was precisely what the use of nukes was intended to avoid.

Or maybe, defeating Japan wasn't the only factor? Or perhaps (as you rightfully mentioned) not such an important factor as proving one's might to the whole world? At the expense of 200,000 lives.

As oppossed to trying to show morality by not unleashing a terrifying weapon and instead resorting to a course of action that would have cost millions more lives? Also consider this: Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed the world the power and horror of nuclear weapons. That demonstration likely reduced the probability of their use in future conflicts.

[Figleaf]

The ethics of the use of the atom bomb against Japan in 1945 is very complicated. I'm not sure it's as simple as Myata suggests. Let's say you are Truman. Your ethical challenge is the choice is between:

a- the death of their civilians in the mid-hundreds of thousands;

or

b- an invasion that yields the deaths of your military and their civilians in the low hundreds of thousands;

or

c-an attrition/containment policy until the collapse of the Japanese regime.

In the context of the rights and wrongs of WWII and his ethical obligation to protect his own people, it's not totally clear that Truman's choice of A over B was wrong. I think the challenge lies more in dismissing the appeal of C.

[myata]

The ethics of the use of the atom bomb against Japan in 1945 is very complicated. I'm not sure it's as simple as Myata suggests. Let's say you are Truman. Your ethical challenge is the choice is between:

a- the death of their civilians in the mid-hundreds of thousands;

or

b- an invasion that yields the deaths of your military and their civilians in the low hundreds of thousands;

or

c-an attrition/containment policy until the collapse of the Japanese regime.

In the context of the rights and wrongs of WWII and his ethical obligation to protect his own people, it's not totally clear that Truman's choice of A over B was wrong. I think the challenge lies more in dismissing the appeal of C.

Right. Given, that unlike war in Europe, this one was fought 1000s miles away from the US territory and there was never a survival threat to them (only a threat to their "interests" in the Pacific), I can't see how anyone pretending to be (genuinly) "moral" and ethical would even consider A. The choice would be between B and C and I agree that the former would be extermely high cost.

Yet, some here are trying to pretend that C does (did) not exist. Is it genuine blindness - or the old tired "one set of rules for us, another - for them", I wonder.

[Figleaf]

If someone is capable of convincingly writing off C, then the choice between A and B is not so easy, IMO.

[Black Dog]

Right. Given, that unlike war in Europe, this one was fought 1000s miles away from the US territory and there was never a survival threat to them (only a threat to their "interests" in the Pacific), I can't see how anyone pretending to be (genuinly) "moral" and ethical would even consider A. The choice would be between B and C and I agree that the former would be extermely high cost.

Yet, some here are trying to pretend that C does (did) not exist. Is it genuine blindness - or the old tired "one set of rules for us, another - for them", I wonder.

Bullshit. There's no doubt in my mind that the option chosen was probably the best one and least costly in terms of human lives. Also: what the hell is "moral" about slowly strangling a nation to death? The quick end to the war meant the Allies were able to start reconstruction and bring aid to Japan's civilian population. Policy C would have prevented that and left millions at the mercy of starvation and disease.

Also, I think Figleaf is low-balling the costs of B and C. Both sides estimated that an invasion would have cost millions of lives.

[myata]

Bullshit. There's no doubt in my mind that the option chosen was probably the best one and least costly in terms of human lives. Also: what the hell is "moral" about slowly strangling a nation to death? The quick end to the war meant the Allies were able to start reconstruction and bring aid to Japan's civilian population. Policy C would have prevented that and left millions at the mercy of starvation and disease.

Gee, sounds like a calculus of gods. You live and you die - all for the better future. I thought that was something we so despised in communism. No I guess it's OK when we're doing it - we know that we're the good guys, after all.

Also, I think Figleaf is low-balling the costs of B and C. Both sides estimated that an invasion would have cost millions of lives.

Then I'm sure you can substantiate it with some analysis, given the numbers already posted in this thread?

[myata]

If someone is capable of convincingly writing off C, then the choice between A and B is not so easy, IMO.

You mean, more convincingly that utter immorality / unethicity of using WMD against civilians? Yes, I'd like to hear that argument too.

[Black Dog]

Gee, sounds like a calculus of gods. You live and you die - all for the better future. I thought that was something we so despised in communism. No I guess it's OK when we're doing it - we know that we're the good guys, after all.

I find this whinging a bit hypocritical given that you are doing the same calculus yourself in advocating for other options that you find more palatable for some reason, despite the certainty that those options would have also resulted in some people living and others dying. You've clearly acceptted that calculus as unavoidable.

Face it: we're talking about war and, in war, people die. It sucks, and pretending that there's a moral way to kill is a joke. The only moral thing to do is to try to minimize the horror as much as possible.

Then I'm sure you can substantiate it with some analysis, given the numbers already posted in this thread?

Huh? Figleaf said that an invasion would "yield the deaths of your military and their civilians in the low hundreds of thousands." which flies in the face of the estimates.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.

A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea. A study done by Gen. MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days. When these figures were questioned by Gen. Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.

In a conference with President Truman on 18 June, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties). Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000). Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.

Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa, and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000–1,000,000 fatalities, and were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."

Note that many of the estimates above are for U.S. combat forces only and exclude Japanese military and civilian deaths.

As for the much touted option C: it's hard to venture a guess at how long it would have taken to strangle Japan into submission. Given the fact that a prolonged blockade would also have entailed continued air attacks against Japanese cities and given the already perilous state of millions of Japanese civilians, it's not unreasonable to think that at least as many would die in a blocakade scenerio as perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Also: I see no one has addressed the implications of the Soviet's entry into the war. I don't see how a strategy would have left millions of people to Stalin's tender mercies can possibly be considered the moral choice.

[Riverwind]

As for the much touted option C: it's hard to venture a guess at how long it would have taken to strangle Japan into submission. Given the fact that a prolonged blockade would also have entailed continued air attacks against Japanese cities and given the already perilous state of millions of Japanese civilians, it's not unreasonable to think that at least as many would die in a blocakade cscenerio as perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Iraq is 1/4 the population of Japan at the time yet we have been told that 100,000s of people died as result of the very porous trade sanctions in the 90s. Could anyone really believe that Japanese civilian casualties from a blockade would be less?

[Black Dog]

Iraq is 1/4 the population of Japan at the time yet we have been told that 100,000s of people died as result of the very porous trade sanctions in the 90s. Could anyone really believe that Japanese civilian casualties from a blockade would be less?

Good point.

[myata]

Your own numbers are quite different from what you're trying to say. 100,000 military CASUALTIES is not the same as 240,000 civilian DEAD (Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

No, I'm not advocating calculus. I'm just saying that it's beyond morality or ethicity. I.e. anyone involved in it, no matter on which side, loses all grounds to claims of morals or ethics. No we could not prevent some deaths if the story turned one way or another. But we wouldn't cause massive suffering as direct result of our own actions.

And, that war is war thing, one can see through it too. There're wars and wars. This particular one was not a war of survival, but of dominance for a particular territory. Using WMD in such a war, against civilians, was even more reprehensible.

[Black Dog]

Your own numbers are quite different from what you're trying to say. 100,000 military CASUALTIES is not the same as 240,000 civilian DEAD (Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

I'm aware of that. But perhaps you can tell me how fighting in densely populated areas which would result in 100,000 military dead on one side alone would not result in a exponentially greater number of civilian deaths (especially since the civilian population would hgave been mobilized against an invasion as well)? Again: Okinawa makes for a useful comparison: U.S losses numbered 72,000, while civilian deaths were in the 140-150,000 range.

No, I'm not advocating calculus. I'm just saying that it's beyond morality or ethicity. I.e. anyone involved in it, no matter on which side, loses all grounds to claims of morals or ethics. No we could not prevent some deaths if the story turned one way or another. But we wouldn't cause massive suffering as direct result of our own actions.

If it's beyond morality, then why are you saying some courses of action are more moral than others?

And, that war is war thing, one can see through it too. There're wars and wars. This particular one was not a war of survival, but of dominance for a particular territory. Using WMD in such a war, against civilians, was even more reprehensible.

Why the squamishness over WMD as opposed to other forms of killing? Would you be satisfied with a blockade that resulted in an equal number of civilians deaths simply because the means are, to you, less vile (though I would even argue that point: given the choice betwen death by starvation or disease, I'd take the quick out of a nuclear fireball).

[Remiel]

Of course it would of been risky to use conventional means of defeating Japan. Using nuclear weapons was also risky. In hindsight, we know that the Japanese gave up after the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, I've heard before they were thinking of giving up after the first one, but hadn't decided yet. The point is though, at the time, they did not know Japan would surrender just because of the bombs. What if they hadn't surrendered? How many more nuclear weapons was the U.S. willing to use? How many people *could* have died, since we are talking about theoreticals here, had history gone just a little differently?

[myata]

Because I wouldn't be playing god and will be held responsible for my own actions whichever way history may turn (which there's no way to tell with any certaintly).

Your personal choice may be whatever you like, but what about those who were never asked?

With a blockade, the opposition has the choice to end their suffering and surrender.

By nuking them, you take that choice from them.

That makes you and you only (in figurative meaning - not B.D. as individual) responsible for the deaths.

The rest is just rationalizations you bring in to justify your decision.

[Wilber]

Once that secret weapon no longer became a secret, Pandora's Box was opened. We are still feeling reprocussions from that day. My father/brother could have easily been killed in many other situations comming home from the war. Trip fallen on a ship and broke his neck falling down some stairs. That weapon does not guarentee anyone comming home alive, no matter what side you are on.

Yes the box was opened, do you think it would have been better if it remained closed? Someday, somewhere, someone was going to try one of these things on a real target. At least the first use of this weapon was to end the most destructive war in history, not start the last.

Of course, they might have come home the only survivors from their regiment and in the meantime you might have broken your neck in the bathtub. There are no guarantees to life at any time. The subject is a war and the use of weapons, not random accidents.

Of course it would of been risky to use conventional means of defeating Japan. Using nuclear weapons was also risky. In hindsight, we know that the Japanese gave up after the use of nuclear weapons. In fact, I've heard before they were thinking of giving up after the first one, but hadn't decided yet. The point is though, at the time, they did not know Japan would surrender just because of the bombs. What if they hadn't surrendered? How many more nuclear weapons was the U.S. willing to use? How many people *could* have died, since we are talking about theoreticals here, had history gone just a little differently?

Maybe they were thinking of giving up after the first one. How was Truman supposed to know that?

If the Japanese were still prepared to fight on after the use of two nuclear weapons, that is a further vindication of those who predicted a huge bloodbath after an invasion of the main islands.

Your own numbers are quite different from what you're trying to say. 100,000 military CASUALTIES is not the same as 240,000 civilian DEAD (Hiroshima, Nagasaki).

There were over 200,000 military and civilian Japanese dead and missing during the invasion of Okinawa alone. That would have been peanuts compared to an invasion of Honshu or Kyushu.

[Black Dog]

With a blockade, the opposition has the choice to end their suffering and surrender.

They had that choice all along, but held out long after the war was obviously lost in order to try and bring about favourable terms. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagaskai simply helped speed the inevitable.

That makes you and you only (in figurative meaning - not B.D. as individual) responsible for the deaths.

Nope: the responsibility lies in large part with a leadership that initiated total war and who opted to disregard the suffering of their own people and keep up the fight long after the cause was lost.

[Wilber]

Because I wouldn't be playing god and will be held responsible for my own actions whichever way history may turn (which there's no way to tell with any certaintly).

Your personal choice may be whatever you like, but what about those who were never asked?

With a blockade, the opposition has the choice to end their suffering and surrender.

By nuking them, you take that choice from them.

That makes you and you only (in figurative meaning - not B.D. as individual) responsible for the deaths.

The rest is just rationalizations you bring in to justify your decision.

The Japanese made their choice when they decided to go to war in the first place. They did not give the people of Korea, China, The Philippines or any of the other countries they occupied a choice. An estimated 10 million Chinese or almost 2% of the population was killed as a result of WW2.

[myata]

My final word on this:

you surely understand that once you said that ethic considerations take back seat to expediency (i.e. it's OK to nuke civilians in their 100,000 s to achieve a military objective, if other means aren't feasible, or cost prohibitive (or you think them to be cost prohibitive)), that same logic can (and will) be applied to you by the other side.

And you will be in no position whatsoever to condemn them taking that morality stand. You simply lost that ground and opted out for the good all "winner takes all" strategy. Be honest and admit it: can't have it both ways. And don't whine (i.e fan moral goodness ethics words) when someone else does the same thing to you. It's a wild world. You yourself made it that way.

[Black Dog]

you surely understand that once you said that ethic considerations take back seat to expediency (i.e. it's OK to nuke civilians in their 100,000 s to achieve a military objective, if other means aren't feasible, or cost prohibitive (or you think them to be cost prohibitive)), that same logic can (and will) be applied to you by the other side.

That's why it's called total war. You think the Japanese or Germans would have refrained from nuking civilian populations had they the means?

And you will be in no position whatsoever to condemn them taking that morality stand.

You said yourself: these type of things are beyond morality. But I don't agree. Given that all options available would have resulted in a horrific number of deaths, the moral choice is the one that keeps the number of deaths to a minimum.

You simply lost that ground and opted out for the good all "winner takes all" strategy. Be honest and admit it: can't have it both ways. And don't whine (i.e fan moral goodness ethics words) when someone else does the same thing to you. It's a wild world. You yourself made it that way.

I have no idea what your point is here. If you're saying that making tough and morally questionable choices in wartime exempts the other side from considering the morality of their actions, that's crap. And if you look at the specific circumstances we're discussing, it's safe to say the other side were the one's that called the tune in the first place.

[myata]

That's why it's called total war. You think the Japanese or Germans would have refrained from nuking civilian populations had they the means?

Very well said. You're putting yourself on the same level with your presumably morally inferior opponents.

Given that all options available would have resulted in a horrific number of deaths, the moral choice is the one that keeps the number of deaths to a minimum.

Except you never proved it and moreover, it's impossible to prove - one'd need a crystal ball to the way future actually turns (what if, as Remiel said, Japanese would have surrendered the day after the invasion? what if they didn't after first two nukes - would you take out a city each week till they did?). Anyways, this argument can obviously be pulled whatever way is necessary to justify the act post factum and so there's no point in going there.

I have no idea what your point is here. If you're saying that making tough and morally questionable choices in wartime exempts the other side from considering the morality of their actions, that's crap.

Sure, they can "consider". And choose mass killing of innocents if it proves cost effective in their analysis.

And the point isn't limited to "wartime" (whatever it's supposed to mean - defending one's homeland / struggle for control or a remote territory / meddling in other peoples' affairs through proxies?) or this particular "other side" or that. You either apply ethics to yourself - or lose the right to apply them to the others.

[Black Dog]

Very well said. You're putting yourself on the same level with your presumably morally inferior opponents.

Yeah: nuking Hiroshima puts the west on the same moiral level as the fucking Nazis and the despoilers of Asia. Give your head a shake, sunshine, then read up a bit on the Axis.

Except you never proved it and moreover, it's impossible to prove - one'd need a crystal ball to the way future actually turns (what if, as Remiel said, Japanese would have surrendered the day after the invasion? what if they didn't after first two nukes - would you take out a city each week till they did?). Anyways, this argument can obviously be pulled whatever way is necessary to justify the act post factum and so there's no point in going there.

Yet that doesn't stop you from applying a post-facto moral judgement on those who made the decision based on the information available at the time. I happen to think that the argumenet holds up well.

Sure, they can "consider". And choose mass killing of innocents if it proves cost effective in their analysis.

Again: mass killing of innocents was the only forseeable consequense of any action undertaken, based on the circumstances of the time.

And the point isn't limited to "wartime" (whatever it's supposed to mean - defending one's homeland / struggle for control or a remote territory / meddling in other peoples' affairs through proxies?) or this particular "other side" or that.

This discussion is about wartime.

You either apply ethics to yourself - or lose the right to apply them to the others.

In general, I agree. But, again: we're talking about a very unique set of circumstances.

Going over this thread, I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make here. "Nukes are bad" seem sto be the sum total of it.

[myata]

Yeah: nuking Hiroshima puts the west on the same moiral level as the fucking Nazis and the despoilers of Asia. Give your head a shake, sunshine, then read up a bit on the Axis.

I'm sure you've got better arguments, just didn't happen to find them (yet).

In your own words, this particular act is in every way what the side would do.

Yet that doesn't stop you from applying a post-facto moral judgement on those who made the decision based on the information available at the time. I happen to think that the argumenet holds up well.

No, wrong. I condemn the act because of ethics which are eternal and absolute, not "would / could have" guesswork which can be pulled any way depending on the need. One can always behave ethically regardless of what happens.

This discussion is about wartime.

That is, to say, if someone believes themselves to be in a wartime condition, and couldn't find a more cost efficient alternative to mass killing of innocents to achieve their objectives, such an act, in your view, would be fully justified? Of course, as long as they also consider their situation to be very unique?

BTW, here's another option that could have been (but was never) tried, let call it "a warning shot". Drop the thing 10 miles off shore in the full view of the emperor's palace. Might have worked. Except would cost one of the eight? precious bombs. Was the cost too high (to clarify: dollar cost) for a moral consideration too? Or, there's another moral reason why it hadn't been tried - given potential impact?

[Black Dog]

In your own words, this particular act is in every way what the side would do.

Yeah, they would. And, might I add, without any of the moralistic hemming and hawing that accompanied the decison to destory Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That fact, however, does not create any sort of moral equivilance between the parties. It simply is an acknowledgement of the circumstances.

No, wrong. I condemn the act because of ethics which are eternal and absolute, not "would / could have" guesswork which can be pulled any way depending on the need. One can always behave ethically regardless of what happens.

So what would you have done "ethically and morally?"

That is, to say, if someone believes themselves to be in a wartime condition, and couldn't find a more cost efficient alternative to mass killing of innocents to achieve their objectives, such an act, in your view, would be fully justified? Of course, as long as they also consider their situation to be very unique?

Sop you're saying decisions made in the circumstances of an unquestionable state of total war need to be weighed against how the precedent could be applied in totally different circumstances?

BTW, here's another option that could have been (but was never) tried, let call it "a warning shot". Drop the thing 10 miles off shore in the full view of the emperor's palace. Might have worked. Except would cost one of the eight? precious bombs. Was the cost too high (to clarify: dollar cost) for a moral consideration too? Or, there's another moral reason why it hadn't been tried - given potential impact?

It was considered but rejected. The demonstration bombs would not have had the same effect. Plus, there was the risk of what might occur if the "wonder weapon" turned out to be a dud. Plus, at the time, they had but two bombs available. If the demonstration failed in it's intended effect, then what?

[myata]

So what would you have done "ethically and morally?"

Scroll down...

Sop you're saying decisions made in the circumstances of an unquestionable state of total war need to be weighed against how the precedent could be applied in totally different circumstances?

Sure, if they (oppenents) deem themselves to be in that state of "total war", why not? It's your words, not mine. What's the meaning of "total war" anyways? When survival is at stake? Or power balance in a territory thousand miles away?

BTW, here's another option that could have been (but was never) tried, let call it "a warning shot". Drop the thing 10 miles off shore in the full view of the emperor's palace. Might have worked. Except would cost one of the eight? precious bombs. Was the cost too high (to clarify: dollar cost) for a moral consideration too? Or, there's another moral reason why it hadn't been tried - given potential impact?

It was considered but rejected. The demonstration bombs would not have had the same effect. Plus, there was the risk of what might occur if the "wonder weapon" turned out to be a dud. Plus, at the time, they had but two bombs available. If the demonstration failed in it's intended effect, then what?

OK, the morality's wearing thinner with each question. It might still have had some effect. Perhaps sufficient effect to cause opposition to surrender, avoiding 100,000 civilian death. Wouldn't it be worth a try by someone so moral? Plus, didn't they have tests in Arizona, which clearly demonstrated the power of the weapon? Plus, they could, of course, make more (as they did), it'd only take some cash and a bit of time - presuming that first demo would actially fail.

Whatever way it's prodded, it just does not appear to be that doomsday apocaliptic situation that simply pushed their fingers to the button. There were options and choices, definitely more ethical and possibly less deadly. Maybe it's time to admit the truth - that the war situation itself was not the main factor in the decision?

[Wilber]

you surely understand that once you said that ethic considerations take back seat to expediency (i.e. it's OK to nuke civilians in their 100,000 s to achieve a military objective, if other means aren't feasible, or cost prohibitive (or you think them to be cost prohibitive)), that same logic can (and will) be applied to you by the other side.

More civilians died in WW2 than military personnel. 50% of the dead in WW2 were civilians in allied countries, mostly Russians, Chinese and Poles. The logic was applied by both sides and it was applied by the other side first. The German bombing of Guernica in Spain and the Japanese bombing and subsequent rape of Nanjing resulting in the deaths of 295,000 Chinese both occurred in 1937. Far more people died from conventional bombing during that WW2 than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the final two of a long list, the difference was the weapon used.

If my government decided it had to nuke 100,000 civilians on the other side to avoid the deaths of even more people on our side and ultimately far more on their side, I would consider that ethical but tragic. Not only that, I would expect them to do it.