C
Cave Fish
Guest
First, the Enola Gay exhibit? Nothing wrong with that. A museum's role is put important artifacts
and items on display. You want details, read a book.
-----
My feeling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Morally unjustifiable but I have the benefit of hindsight,
Truman didn't. Also, though unrelated to the ethical argument over Japan, the unconditional
surrender of Japan--ensured by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--was good for its future. It
allowed Americans to rebuild Japan in a very fundamental way which would have been impossible under
the military government, had it survived. We're facing the same problem in Iraq. If we had a
completely free hand and complete control as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII, we'd do a
better, more thoroughgoing job for Iraqis which will benefit them in the long run. But, the issue of
sovereignty is greater now than ever before, and Americans, especially after the Vietnam fiasco, is
careful not to appear the arrogant aggressor.
Yet, why do I think Hiroshima/Nagasaki--or Hirosaki--bombings were unjustified?
1. One argument says invading Japan would have led to casualties upward of 5 million lives, that as
horrible as the bombings were, on balance they saved lives by ending the war more quickly. The
problem with this argument is it's taking estimates as fact. Estimates are often wrong, often
very wrong. By ******'s estimates, Nazis would have conquered Russia in less than a year. By
McCarthur's estimates during the early stages of Korean War, Chinese wouldn't dare send troops
and if they did would be helpless against American military. According to respectable estimates
of American casualties prior to the Gulf War, we were led to expect numbers ranging from 20,000
to 50,000 in a war lasting several years. All wrong, scandalously wrong. It's possible that
casualties would have been high had Americans pressed forward with conventional means against
Japan but to say that the bombing of Hirosaki saved millions of lives is simply an estimate, not
a sound basis for objective argument.
2. Another issue concerns unconditional surrender as the ONLY option. Did United States really need
Japan to surrender unconditionally? Did United States need Japan to surrender at all? If invasion
of Japan would have cost over a million American casualties or if it entailed the used of nuclear
bombs, would it not have been more sensible to negotiate a conditional surrender? Or, a cease-
fire with a Japan already virtually isolated and destroyed? Why was unconditional surrender so
important? Was it revenge? After all, Japan started the war and bombed Pearl Harbor. But, if
revenge is the issue, United States avenged itself 10,000 fold prior to Hirosaki bombing. If you
look at the casualty ratio among American/Japanese soldiers, it was comparable to cowboys and
Indians. We really kicked their ass in every way. Also, how many died at Pearl Harbor? Besides,
it was a military target. Now, how many Japanese died as a result of American bombing of cities
like Tokyo? We are talking in the 100,000s. We are talking of leveling entire cities,
incinerating entire populations of children, women, gramps, etc. If revenge was the factor, we
got an oceanful of it. And, what was left of the Japanese navy, it's most prized military asset?
What had happened to its airforce or airfarce?
It's like some scrawny kid sneaking up and kicking the behind of a powerfully built muscleman and
then getting beat up until his nose is busted, his eyes black and blue, all his teeth missing, his
ribs crushed, his ears bitten off, etc. Does the strong man then have to pull out a gun and shoot
the bloody pulp unless he calls the big guy 'uncle'?
If not for revenge, how about to ensure longterm safety in the region by bringing Japan to its
knees? This is not a bad argument but did it justify nuclear bombs? Also, was Japan really a future
threat in the region even without surrendering? Historical facts show otherwise. If anything,
American victory and the rebuilding of Japanese economy and military ensured a more prominent role
for Japan in region(thus far for the good but who knows in the future?) than had Americans not
pressed for unconditional surrender and simply isolated Japan from the rest of the world. If so,
Japan would today be a backward, poor nation run by authoritarian overlords but no threat to anyone.
Japan, near the end of the war, had no viable navy or airforce. Its soldiers, streteched from
Siberia to Southeast Asia were on their last legs. 90% of transport ships carrying supplies were
routinely sunk by US planes. Japanese soldiers were exhausted and demoralized. They were on the
defensive and retreat in China where the Nationalists and Communists were regaining major
territories. Japanese had been terribly mauled by vastly superior Soviet troops in Manchuria. Japan
was a goner whether it surrendered or not. Had Japan not surrendered, it would have had no means to
rebuild its economy, its military, or its empire. Japan has little in terms of natural resources.
Cars in Japan near the end of the war were running on charcoal. Also, no Asian nation, which
suffered greatly under the Japanese, would have supplied Japan with raw materials. Neither would
have Soviets, certainly not US or Western Europeans nations. So, what kind of threat would Japan
have been?
It would have been militarily weak, economically desperate, diplomatically isolated from both West
and East it had once preyed upon. Americans had done such a total job of destroying the Japanese
military that the idea of the Japanese Empire was simply a ghost of a shell on the Asian mainland.
Indeed, even before Pearl Harbor, Japanese had gotten mired in China in a stalemate. For all its
talk of a great empire, Japan didn't have the material, the men, or stamina to sustain their
imperial ambitions. So, it seems irrefutable that Japan would have served as no future threat if
United States had simply set up a naval blockade around Japan and focused its attention on China,
mainly to keep communists at bay. Instead what happened? Americans devoted most of its energy and
talent to rebuilding Japan during which time neglected China fell to the communists.
3. Another argument is simply ends justify the means. Let's assume that invasion by conventional
means would have led to exceedingly high casualties. Therefore, whatever it took to lower that
casualty is justified. This sounds morally untenable. While it's true that extraordinary means
are often taken to achieve certain ends, there are certain rules, even in war. What was the
Geneva convention about? Why the law forbidding the use of poison gas? Even in war, there has to
be a modicum of rules, such as not bombing hospitals, etc. And, what does it say about American
fighting men that they would prefer an entire city be indiscrimately slaughtered so they
themselves could live? What soldiers go thru is horrible, and we must value the life of every
soldier but soldiers are meant to fight and die. If casualty estimates are too high, then you
don't send soldiers to useless, pointless slaughter. However, if it's a matter of gaining
military objectives, it must remain war between soldiers. Indiscrimate massacre of everyone to
save soldiers' lives is never justifiable. Pictures from Sep 11 is horrible enough. Hirosaki was
countless times that. We are talking of everyone getting incinerated or vaporized or left mangled
in the worst way, everyone from mother in a hospital giving birth to elder gasping his last
breath. We're talking of 100,000s of lives, from kindergarten to seniors. It's not just a matter
of numbers but of higher decency. I'd say two armies fighting one another with 10,000 casualties
is less indecent than indiscriminate massacre of 1,000 civilians. If US could have used the
nuclear bombs to target mainly soldiers, it would have been justified. But, dropping a bomb in
the middle of a city and killing that many civilians can't in any way be justified. And, I speak
not only of Hirosaki but Dresden and Tokyo. And, of course ******'s V1 and V2 bombings of London
but then ****** was a subhuman as*hole. Still, I would say Churchill's bombing raids against
Germany were more justified out of simple revenge because of ******'s bombing against British
civilians. United States doesn't have this claim against Japan. This isn't to say Japanese were
nice(they certainly bombed civilians in Shanghai)nor that Japan would not have used the nuke if
they had it. It's to say United States got revenge 1000x over and would have obtained its
objectives in the Pacific sphere even without Japan's surrender. Even without Japan's surrender,
US owned the Pacific and Japanese empire was in shambles, on its last legs, destroyed.
4. The implication of defending Hirosaki bombing is we could and should do it again if a similar
situation arises. Suppose a nation attacks US out of the blue, causing military casualties in
the 1000s. US wages war and breaks the back of that nation but the nation will not
unconditionally surrender. Pentagon estimates that US casualties will be high so we decide to
bomb two civilian targets. If one defends Hirosaki, he would have to defend this scenario. I
think it's crazy. Or, suppose US goverment had been overrun by belligerent military government
and we attack some nation out of the blue. We are engaged at war and that nation gains the
upperhand but we won't surrender. So does that give that nation the right to nuke Chicago and
Miami? I think this is crazy.
5. ... which brings us to the subject of when should use of atomic weapons be justified? If nukes
were used simply because one nation attacked another nation, the world would today be awash in
nuclear wars. United States isn't the only nation that was attacked unprovoked in the 20th
century. If US actions were justified, it would imply that in the case of every nation that
was attacked by another nation, use of nuclear weapons would have been a viable option. And,
these nations would have had more of a justification since they were far more vulnerable to
and helpless against enemy aggression than US to Japan's. Take Israel for instance. Beleagured
and vulnerable, surrounded by hostile nations, constantly under terrorist attacks against its
civilian populations. If Afghanistan had nukes, it would have been justified when Soviet tanks
came rolling in. Some would say Iraq, though nasty nation, had the right to use nuclear
nations to defend its sovereignty against the invading American force if indeed Iraq had such
weapons. Nevetheless, we are glad that nukes were not used even in those scenarios where the
fate of the nation was of far more drastic concern. Yet, US used nukes on a nation that was
defacto destroyed. It used nukes against its civilian populations. Nukes might be justified
just barely to defend a nation from being engulfed by an overwhelming hostile force(if Arab
nations blitzkrieged Israel). But, to use nukes on a nation defacto destroyed and bleeding to
death is overkill.
and items on display. You want details, read a book.
-----
My feeling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Morally unjustifiable but I have the benefit of hindsight,
Truman didn't. Also, though unrelated to the ethical argument over Japan, the unconditional
surrender of Japan--ensured by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--was good for its future. It
allowed Americans to rebuild Japan in a very fundamental way which would have been impossible under
the military government, had it survived. We're facing the same problem in Iraq. If we had a
completely free hand and complete control as we did in Germany and Japan after WWII, we'd do a
better, more thoroughgoing job for Iraqis which will benefit them in the long run. But, the issue of
sovereignty is greater now than ever before, and Americans, especially after the Vietnam fiasco, is
careful not to appear the arrogant aggressor.
Yet, why do I think Hiroshima/Nagasaki--or Hirosaki--bombings were unjustified?
1. One argument says invading Japan would have led to casualties upward of 5 million lives, that as
horrible as the bombings were, on balance they saved lives by ending the war more quickly. The
problem with this argument is it's taking estimates as fact. Estimates are often wrong, often
very wrong. By ******'s estimates, Nazis would have conquered Russia in less than a year. By
McCarthur's estimates during the early stages of Korean War, Chinese wouldn't dare send troops
and if they did would be helpless against American military. According to respectable estimates
of American casualties prior to the Gulf War, we were led to expect numbers ranging from 20,000
to 50,000 in a war lasting several years. All wrong, scandalously wrong. It's possible that
casualties would have been high had Americans pressed forward with conventional means against
Japan but to say that the bombing of Hirosaki saved millions of lives is simply an estimate, not
a sound basis for objective argument.
2. Another issue concerns unconditional surrender as the ONLY option. Did United States really need
Japan to surrender unconditionally? Did United States need Japan to surrender at all? If invasion
of Japan would have cost over a million American casualties or if it entailed the used of nuclear
bombs, would it not have been more sensible to negotiate a conditional surrender? Or, a cease-
fire with a Japan already virtually isolated and destroyed? Why was unconditional surrender so
important? Was it revenge? After all, Japan started the war and bombed Pearl Harbor. But, if
revenge is the issue, United States avenged itself 10,000 fold prior to Hirosaki bombing. If you
look at the casualty ratio among American/Japanese soldiers, it was comparable to cowboys and
Indians. We really kicked their ass in every way. Also, how many died at Pearl Harbor? Besides,
it was a military target. Now, how many Japanese died as a result of American bombing of cities
like Tokyo? We are talking in the 100,000s. We are talking of leveling entire cities,
incinerating entire populations of children, women, gramps, etc. If revenge was the factor, we
got an oceanful of it. And, what was left of the Japanese navy, it's most prized military asset?
What had happened to its airforce or airfarce?
It's like some scrawny kid sneaking up and kicking the behind of a powerfully built muscleman and
then getting beat up until his nose is busted, his eyes black and blue, all his teeth missing, his
ribs crushed, his ears bitten off, etc. Does the strong man then have to pull out a gun and shoot
the bloody pulp unless he calls the big guy 'uncle'?
If not for revenge, how about to ensure longterm safety in the region by bringing Japan to its
knees? This is not a bad argument but did it justify nuclear bombs? Also, was Japan really a future
threat in the region even without surrendering? Historical facts show otherwise. If anything,
American victory and the rebuilding of Japanese economy and military ensured a more prominent role
for Japan in region(thus far for the good but who knows in the future?) than had Americans not
pressed for unconditional surrender and simply isolated Japan from the rest of the world. If so,
Japan would today be a backward, poor nation run by authoritarian overlords but no threat to anyone.
Japan, near the end of the war, had no viable navy or airforce. Its soldiers, streteched from
Siberia to Southeast Asia were on their last legs. 90% of transport ships carrying supplies were
routinely sunk by US planes. Japanese soldiers were exhausted and demoralized. They were on the
defensive and retreat in China where the Nationalists and Communists were regaining major
territories. Japanese had been terribly mauled by vastly superior Soviet troops in Manchuria. Japan
was a goner whether it surrendered or not. Had Japan not surrendered, it would have had no means to
rebuild its economy, its military, or its empire. Japan has little in terms of natural resources.
Cars in Japan near the end of the war were running on charcoal. Also, no Asian nation, which
suffered greatly under the Japanese, would have supplied Japan with raw materials. Neither would
have Soviets, certainly not US or Western Europeans nations. So, what kind of threat would Japan
have been?
It would have been militarily weak, economically desperate, diplomatically isolated from both West
and East it had once preyed upon. Americans had done such a total job of destroying the Japanese
military that the idea of the Japanese Empire was simply a ghost of a shell on the Asian mainland.
Indeed, even before Pearl Harbor, Japanese had gotten mired in China in a stalemate. For all its
talk of a great empire, Japan didn't have the material, the men, or stamina to sustain their
imperial ambitions. So, it seems irrefutable that Japan would have served as no future threat if
United States had simply set up a naval blockade around Japan and focused its attention on China,
mainly to keep communists at bay. Instead what happened? Americans devoted most of its energy and
talent to rebuilding Japan during which time neglected China fell to the communists.
3. Another argument is simply ends justify the means. Let's assume that invasion by conventional
means would have led to exceedingly high casualties. Therefore, whatever it took to lower that
casualty is justified. This sounds morally untenable. While it's true that extraordinary means
are often taken to achieve certain ends, there are certain rules, even in war. What was the
Geneva convention about? Why the law forbidding the use of poison gas? Even in war, there has to
be a modicum of rules, such as not bombing hospitals, etc. And, what does it say about American
fighting men that they would prefer an entire city be indiscrimately slaughtered so they
themselves could live? What soldiers go thru is horrible, and we must value the life of every
soldier but soldiers are meant to fight and die. If casualty estimates are too high, then you
don't send soldiers to useless, pointless slaughter. However, if it's a matter of gaining
military objectives, it must remain war between soldiers. Indiscrimate massacre of everyone to
save soldiers' lives is never justifiable. Pictures from Sep 11 is horrible enough. Hirosaki was
countless times that. We are talking of everyone getting incinerated or vaporized or left mangled
in the worst way, everyone from mother in a hospital giving birth to elder gasping his last
breath. We're talking of 100,000s of lives, from kindergarten to seniors. It's not just a matter
of numbers but of higher decency. I'd say two armies fighting one another with 10,000 casualties
is less indecent than indiscriminate massacre of 1,000 civilians. If US could have used the
nuclear bombs to target mainly soldiers, it would have been justified. But, dropping a bomb in
the middle of a city and killing that many civilians can't in any way be justified. And, I speak
not only of Hirosaki but Dresden and Tokyo. And, of course ******'s V1 and V2 bombings of London
but then ****** was a subhuman as*hole. Still, I would say Churchill's bombing raids against
Germany were more justified out of simple revenge because of ******'s bombing against British
civilians. United States doesn't have this claim against Japan. This isn't to say Japanese were
nice(they certainly bombed civilians in Shanghai)nor that Japan would not have used the nuke if
they had it. It's to say United States got revenge 1000x over and would have obtained its
objectives in the Pacific sphere even without Japan's surrender. Even without Japan's surrender,
US owned the Pacific and Japanese empire was in shambles, on its last legs, destroyed.
4. The implication of defending Hirosaki bombing is we could and should do it again if a similar
situation arises. Suppose a nation attacks US out of the blue, causing military casualties in
the 1000s. US wages war and breaks the back of that nation but the nation will not
unconditionally surrender. Pentagon estimates that US casualties will be high so we decide to
bomb two civilian targets. If one defends Hirosaki, he would have to defend this scenario. I
think it's crazy. Or, suppose US goverment had been overrun by belligerent military government
and we attack some nation out of the blue. We are engaged at war and that nation gains the
upperhand but we won't surrender. So does that give that nation the right to nuke Chicago and
Miami? I think this is crazy.
5. ... which brings us to the subject of when should use of atomic weapons be justified? If nukes
were used simply because one nation attacked another nation, the world would today be awash in
nuclear wars. United States isn't the only nation that was attacked unprovoked in the 20th
century. If US actions were justified, it would imply that in the case of every nation that
was attacked by another nation, use of nuclear weapons would have been a viable option. And,
these nations would have had more of a justification since they were far more vulnerable to
and helpless against enemy aggression than US to Japan's. Take Israel for instance. Beleagured
and vulnerable, surrounded by hostile nations, constantly under terrorist attacks against its
civilian populations. If Afghanistan had nukes, it would have been justified when Soviet tanks
came rolling in. Some would say Iraq, though nasty nation, had the right to use nuclear
nations to defend its sovereignty against the invading American force if indeed Iraq had such
weapons. Nevetheless, we are glad that nukes were not used even in those scenarios where the
fate of the nation was of far more drastic concern. Yet, US used nukes on a nation that was
defacto destroyed. It used nukes against its civilian populations. Nukes might be justified
just barely to defend a nation from being engulfed by an overwhelming hostile force(if Arab
nations blitzkrieged Israel). But, to use nukes on a nation defacto destroyed and bleeding to
death is overkill.