Japan In Wwii

[dairygirl4u2c]

cmother and most or all that i can think of, people here who refuse to change their positions, are known for their stubbornness, even in the face of being wrong. i wouldn't take em too seriously, as if they are reputable people that would seeminly then have reputable stances worth considering.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='05 April 2010 - 01:18 PM' timestamp='1270491508' post='2087059']
cmother and most or all that i can think of, people here who refuse to change their positions, are known for their stubbornness, even in the face of being wrong. i wouldn't take em too seriously, as if they are reputable people that would seeminly then have reputable stances worth considering.
[/quote]
I disagree strongly.

Stubborn, maybe, but I believe in their intellectual honesty, at the end of the day.
We disagree on this issue, and I think that my position is the only justifiable one, ([size="1"]and I don't even think their arguments are very good, personally[/size] ) but I don't think they're disagreeing with me because they refuse maliciously to be proven wrong.

[Sternhauser]

Admiral Leahy, speaking to consequentialists. "It is my opinion that the use of the 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 ... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

See Eisenhower's similar thoughts. [url="http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html"]http://www.ihr.org/j...3p-4_Weber.html[/url]

This isn't about [i]efficacy[/i], however. This isn't about the "results," or of "outcomes averted." Those arguments belong in the mouths of heretical consequentalists. This is about morality. The action of deliberately targeting innocent civilians, using their deaths as a means to an end, is [i]murder[/i]. You are advocating murder. The nature of an intrinsically evil act does not change because of the real or alleged negative repercussions of doing the morally right thing.

~Sternhauser

Edited April 5, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Lilllabettt]

Admiral Leahy was in the Navy. He had his reasons for wanting to convince people that nuclear bombs (and the air power needed to deliver them) were not the way to organize national defense in the future. Not to say that his moral repugnance is not sincere. But there must be some significance to the fact that the Navy was all against it, and the air force as all for it.

Whatever his feelings afterwords, the Admiral didn't push very hard at the time things were going down; at least not at the Interim Committee meetings. Maybe that was the problem; even those who felt uncomfortable said nothing.

Eisenhower, too. He had his reasons for wanting to, you know. Say what he did in his memoirs. He was looking forward to a political career.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Lilllabettt

[aalpha1989]

It is always wrong to attack non-combatants. Japanese treatment of prisoners does not change that.


We might as well speak of the firebombings inflicted upon Germany. Churchill started bombing German civilians in the hope that Germany would reciprocate the action, saving Britain's airfields. It worked, and Britain won the war... but it was still highly immoral.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='05 April 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1270493126' post='2087088']


This isn't about [i]efficacy[/i], however. This isn't about the "results," or of "outcomes averted." Those arguments belong in the mouths of heretical consequentalists. This is about morality. The action of deliberately targeting innocent civilians, using their deaths as a means to an end, is [i]murder[/i]. You are advocating murder. The nature of an intrinsically evil act of does not change because of the alleged negative repercussions of doing the morally right thing.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]


This.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='05 April 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1270494604' post='2087117']
Admiral Leahy was in the Navy. He had his reasons for wanting to convince people that nuclear bombs (and the air power needed to deliver them) were not the way to organize national defense in the future. Not to say that his moral repugnance is not sincere. But there must be some significance to the fact that the Navy was all against it, and the air force as all for it.

Whatever his feelings afterwords, the Admiral didn't push very hard; at least not at the Interim Committee meetings. Maybe that was the problem; even those who felt uncomfortable said nothing.

Eisenhower, too. He had his reasons for wanting to, you know. Say what he did in his memoirs. He was looking forward to a political career.
[/quote]
Are you suggesting that those in power at the time were motivated by selfish goals?? Perish the thought!


I think that's exactly what the problem was. A few powerful people supported those actions, and many more were too worried about their political hides and their careers to say what needed to be said.


Here's a question: Let's say you are a man fit for military service at the outbreak of WWII, and, believing it to be a just war, you enlist and end up as a bomber in the Air Force. If you were ordered to drop the bombs either that razed Nagoya, Osaka, Tokyo, Kobe, etc., or if you were ordered to drop Fat Man and Little Boy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would you refuse? Why or why not?

I would, whether it meant being court martialed, or even executed. That's one thing I think I could do.

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='05 April 2010 - 03:19 PM' timestamp='1270495145' post='2087127']


Here's a question: Let's say you are a man fit for military service at the outbreak of WWII, and, believing it to be a just war, you enlist and end up as a bomber in the Air Force. If you were ordered to drop the bombs either that razed Nagoya, Osaka, Tokyo, Kobe, etc., or if you were ordered to drop Fat Man and Little Boy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would you refuse? Why or why not?

I would, whether it meant being court martialed, or even executed. That's one thing I think I could do.
[/quote]


I would refuse because it is immoral to attack non-combatants.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='05 April 2010 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1270495211' post='2087129']
I would refuse because it is immoral to attack non-combatants.
[/quote]
There we go. I think it's a pretty simple question and answer too.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='05 April 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1270491508' post='2087059']
cmother and most or all that i can think of, people here who refuse to change their positions, are known for their stubbornness, even in the face of being wrong. i wouldn't take em too seriously, as if they are reputable people that would seeminly then have reputable stances worth considering.
[/quote]
I love you too cowlady

Its nice to be able to sit back and criticize people when your opinions don't mean a beaver dam because there are no real consequences.
I think the choice came down to fighting on island by island, inch by inch, with millions more war dead, or dropping a bomb to hopefully end the war. Its a hellish choice. We have more facts now than they did on what the japanese said, what various capabilities of army were etc.
Military ports, and army headquarters and supply depots are legitimate targets, even if non-military people live there, so the argument that you can't drop a bomb where there are cilvlians is a non-argument, this is war, not chess. Given the choice I think they made the right decision, and I not going to pander to political correctness on some people's part [ not you Nilly etc] to make it seem like I agree.
To say you will not attack if there are non-combatants present means you refuse to fight altogether, why do you think the middle east war is so messy? You do your best to get people out of harms way, you warn them etc, but in the end its war, not a game and you fighting to win not lose.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='05 April 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1270478864' post='2086932']
So what you're saying is that it's ok to sacrifice morals now and then, if the situation is really really tough?
[/quote]
I'm saying you're correct, but wrong. The bombs helped end the war. No doubt in my mind that they, in tandem with the entry of the Soviets, convinced hardline Japanese gov't officials that further resistance was pointless. Only thing a warrior culture like that would understand.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='05 April 2010 - 02:57 PM' timestamp='1270497444' post='2087163']
I love you too cowlady

Its nice to be able to sit back and criticize people when your opinions don't mean a beaver dam because there are no real consequences.
I think the choice came down to fighting on island by island, inch by inch, with millions more war dead, or dropping a bomb to hopefully end the war. Its a hellish choice. We have more facts now than they did on what the japanese said, what various capabilities of army were etc.
Military ports, and army headquarters and supply depots are legitimate targets, even if non-military people live there, so the argument that you can't drop a bomb where there are cilvlians is a non-argument, this is war, not chess. Given the choice I think they made the right decision, and I not going to pander to political correctness on some people's part [ not you Nilly etc] to make it seem like I agree.
To say you will not attack if there are non-combatants present means you refuse to fight altogether, why do you think the middle east war is so messy? You do your best to get people out of harms way, you warn them etc, but in the end its war, not a game and you fighting to win not lose.
[/quote]
Why does the choice have to be between the bombs and an invasion though? I'm no strategist, so I can't say much on the subject, but I still think it sounds suspiciously like a false dichotomy. What about a sustained campaign of assassination of political and military leaders? What about wrecking every single sea port and not allowing them to be rebuilt?

As far as I can tell, the last time conventional warfare "worked" was in WWII, and even then it was becoming appallingly costly. That's why taking Japan conventionally would have been too much to bear. So why stick to convention?

Now, I'm not saying necessarily that my two suggestions above were not considered, or even that they are good suggestions, but my point is that the choice between bombing and invasion didn't have to be limited in such a way. They were probably very smart people who could have entertained other options.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='05 April 2010 - 03:01 PM' timestamp='1270497711' post='2087166']
I'm saying you're correct, but wrong. The bombs helped end the war. No doubt in my mind that they, in tandem with the entry of the Soviets, convinced hardline Japanese gov't officials that further resistance was pointless. Only thing a warrior culture like that would understand.
[/quote]
How is that not utilitarian and consequentialist?

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='05 April 2010 - 03:18 PM' timestamp='1270491508' post='2087059']
cmother and most or all that i can think of, people here who refuse to change their positions, are known for their stubbornness, even in the face of being wrong. i wouldn't take em too seriously, as if they are reputable people that would seeminly then have reputable stances worth considering.
[/quote]
Not sure anymore if you are a native English speaker, but this seems vaguely insulting.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='05 April 2010 - 03:57 PM' timestamp='1270497444' post='2087163']
I think the choice came down to fighting on island by island, inch by inch, with millions more war dead, or dropping a bomb to hopefully end the war. Its a hellish choice. We have more facts now than they did on what the japanese said, what various capabilities of army were etc.
[/quote]

...they shoulda dropped the bombs on the islands...oh wait...we needed the islands to establish military posts closer to the Japanese homeland....oh wait...with the atomic bombs dropped on civilian cities...we didn't need the islands....so...why didn't we drop the bombs on the islands?