CDZ Hiroshima Debate: The End of the Age of Reason?

[jwoodie]

70 years ago, we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan which helped end WW2. Since then, we have been subjected to endless debate about the wisdom and morality of using those weapons. Since there is no rational argument against the specific use of those weapons,* it is evident that the basis for this debate is entirely emotional. One may rationally argue the morality and effectiveness of bombing cities during WW2, but ascribing some special depravity to the use of an atomic bomb for this purpose is entirely devoid of logical reasoning.

What is most concerning is the fact that almost all debate on national issues is now based on emotional, rather than rational, arguments. Is this a sign of the times that we have left behind the age of reason?

*These bombs were, by definition, no more powerful than an equivalent amount of TNT. In fact, given much greater geographical dispersal, one thousand 10 ton TNT bomb loads would have a far greater destructive effect (such as in Tokyo) than a single 10 kiloton atomic bomb. Besides, how many more Japanese cities would have to be (conventionally) bombed to force a surrender? Based on our experience with Okinawa, millions more might have died if we had not used these atomic weapons.

 

[emilynghiem]

70 years ago, we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan which helped end WW2. Since then, we have been subjected to endless debate about the wisdom and morality of using those weapons. Since there is no rational argument against the specific use of those weapons,* it is evident that the basis for this debate is entirely emotional. One may rationally argue the morality and effectiveness of bombing cities during WW2, but ascribing some special depravity to the use of an atomic bomb for this purpose is entirely devoid of logical reasoning.

What is most concerning is the fact that almost all debate on national issues is now based on emotional, rather than rational, arguments. Is this a sign of the times that we have left behind the age of reason?

*These bombs were, by definition, no more powerful than an equivalent amount of TNT. In fact, given much greater geographical dispersal, one thousand 10 ton TNT bomb loads would have a far greater destructive effect (such as in Tokyo) than a single 10 kiloton atomic bomb. Besides, how many more Japanese cities would have to be (conventionally) bombed to force a surrender? Based on our experience with Okinawa, millions more might have died if we had not used these atomic weapons.

The argument I've seen is that the Japanese were already trying to send a message of surrender
but either it didn't get through in time, or it was ignored to experiment with atomic power to send
a stronger message to the USSR and any other country that might even consider trying something.

The other objections are that the damage from the nuclear fallout amount to genocide,
and are not proportional to the lives that were saved. The danger of radiation continuing to harm
the people, environment, and planet exceeds the benefits. And the real benefit is if people learn
NOT to go to this extreme again, but to use this lesson as an absolute commitment to prevent war in the future.

Don't even start down that road if this is where it leads.

The children who suffered most needlessly from the after effects of the bombing
have passed on that message of the Absolute Necessity to make peace and prevent
war at ANY level. The peace camps and conflict resolution/nonviolence training that
have sprung from and use this historic event to teach from far outweigh the benefits of war.

That is how I see this event taught from where it is consistent with ethics,
as an argument to PREVENT war not to justify more of the same.

 

[CremeBrulee]

There was a good piece on Fresh Air this morning about this. Something that stuck out was how Hiroshima was selected. A commission was created composed of scientists and military personnel among others. Apparently some wanted to drop the bomb on Tokyo Bay while others suggested a remote military instillation to let the world know of it's existence. Anticipating the production of hydrogen bombs many of the scientists wanted to maximize the damage and casualties of the first bomb to "warn" the world of the dangers of these types of weapons.

 

[Disir]

There was no justification.
Was Hiroshima Necessary

There has never been an unconditional surrender.

 

[blackhawk]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

 

[Mr. H.]

The peaceful use of nuclear power can be just as destructive, if not more so.

That fact that these bombs were used at that time may have very well prevented their subsequent use. None have been used since, and in all likelihood never will.

 

[Disir]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

 

[jwoodie]

We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

Well, a negotiated settlement was their aim from the get-go. (That is why they bombed Pearl Harbor.) Nothing less than complete occupation (a la Germany) would have replaced their militaristic culture.

 

[Syriusly]

. Since there is no rational argument against the specific use of those weapons,*.

That is entirely your opinion.

While I believe that dropping the atomic bombs in Japan were rational decisions- and decisions that I agree with, that doesn't mean that there are not rational arguments on why dropping the bombs were wrong.

 

[Disir]

We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

Well, a negotiated settlement was their aim from the get-go. (That is why they bombed Pearl Harbor.) Nothing less than complete occupation (a la Germany) would have replaced their militaristic culture.

Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives.

But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said:

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike

Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380):

In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of ‘face’. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude….

Admiral William Leahy – the highest ranking member of the U.S. military from 1942 until retiring in 1949, who was the first de facto Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and who was at the center of all major American military decisions in World War II – wrote (pg. 441):

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 REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives Washington s Blog

It was unnecessary and it was known at the time. There is no justification. There is more at the link.

 

[blackhawk]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

That may be but Japan was not going to get a conditional surrender which is what they were trying to negotiate atomic bomb or not their treatment of civilians and prisoners of war assured that.

 

[jwoodie]

The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives Washington s Blog

It was unnecessary and it was known at the time. There is no justification. There is more at the link.

Complete BS. Note how the subject has been changed from the number of lives saved by bringing the was to an earlier end to whether Japan would have eventually surrendered without these bombs. To suggest that they were irrelevant to the quick surrender is ludicrous.

Our actual experience, both in Germany and Okinawa, was that house-by-house fighting would have been necessary to subdue and occupy Japan. If we had the bomb a year earlier, we would (and should) have dropped it on Germany. Would that have been worse for the liquified residents of Dresden?

This pretentious soul-searching after the fact is just another facet of the Left's endemic racism: As civilized Caucasians, no vilification or punishment was too much for the Germans. However, the less civilized Asians should not be held to the same standards, no matter what their atrocities.

Sound familiar?

 

[Camp]

Dropping those bombs was a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" dilemma. The dog chasing his tail has more chance of success than the people seeking an answer to whether the decision to drop those bombs was correct or incorrect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Even if this is correct - hindsight is 20/20, son.

In war, you do all you can to end is as quickly as you can, because to do so is to save lives; the nuclear strikes saved lives.

 

[Disir]

The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.

Even if this is correct - hindsight is 20/20, son.

In war, you do all you can to end is as quickly as you can, because to do so is to save lives; the nuclear strikes saved lives.

First off---I am not your son. Secondly, that wasn't hindsight. It was known at the time that it was unnecessary. Those aren't my words.

 

[Disir]

The REAL Reason America Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan It Was Not To End the War Or Save Lives Washington s Blog

It was unnecessary and it was known at the time. There is no justification. There is more at the link.

Complete BS. Note how the subject has been changed from the number of lives saved by bringing the was to an earlier end to whether Japan would have eventually surrendered without these bombs. To suggest that they were irrelevant to the quick surrender is ludicrous.

Our actual experience, both in Germany and Okinawa, was that house-by-house fighting would have been necessary to subdue and occupy Japan. If we had the bomb a year earlier, we would (and should) have dropped it on Germany. Would that have been worse for the liquified residents of Dresden?

This pretentious soul-searching after the fact is just another facet of the Left's endemic racism: As civilized Caucasians, no vilification or punishment was too much for the Germans. However, the less civilized Asians should not be held to the same standards, no matter what their atrocities.

Sound familiar?

Yep, all of those people that were quoted and had direct knowledge were spouting BS. Good to know.

 

[Disir]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

That may be but Japan was not going to get a conditional surrender which is what they were trying to negotiate atomic bomb or not their treatment of civilians and prisoners of war assured that.

As I stated before-----there has never been an unconditional surrender. Ever.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First off---I am not your son.

Settle down, son.

Secondly, that wasn't hindsight. It was known at the time that it was unnecessary. Those aren't my words.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):...
July 1946. Post-facto. Hindsight.

Oh...

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan

Ike had nothing to do with the war against Japan, especially in terms of making plans to fight them.

 

[blackhawk]

What has been rather intresting is the fire bombings of Tokyo before the use of the atomic bombs caused equal if not more loss of life yet there has been very little debate over that. Couple of other interesting points even after we dropped both bombs and the Emperor had recorded Japans surrender a group of military officers tried to overthrow him and prevent the surrender from being announced if they had succeded and we had to invade Japan it's likely the combined United States and Japanese casualties would have exceeded those caused by the two atomic bombs.

I would wager that many people have no idea that there were firebombings. We can tell by the number of individuals that still maintain that Japan was a threat. They have no idea that Japan had made three attempts to negotiate a surrender.

That may be but Japan was not going to get a conditional surrender which is what they were trying to negotiate atomic bomb or not their treatment of civilians and prisoners of war assured that.

As I stated before-----there has never been an unconditional surrender. Ever.

That is debatable but it does not change the fact Japan's actions during war were going to prevent them from getting any of the conditions they wanted for their surrender. That left two choices use the bombs to try and force there surrender or invade Japan it's self if your goal was to try and end the war and save American lives you use the bombs. As I pointed out already even after both bombs were used there was still those in Japan's military that did not want to surrender and even tried to prevent it by trying to overthrow the Emperor.

 

[Disir]

First off---I am not your son.

Settle down, son.

Secondly, that wasn't hindsight. It was known at the time that it was unnecessary. Those aren't my words.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56):...
July 1946. Post-facto. Hindsight.

Oh...

General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan

Ike had nothing to do with the war against Japan..

Ok. I can see that you are having difficulty with this.
Hon, I'm a woman.
I'm not your son.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.'