2 ms·

read the opposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_ove

by kgarten 10y ago

read the opposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... yes, the torpedo factories are a valid target. How large were those, how many square meters of the final destruction was a military target? A city with families and children is not a valid target. If Truman gave a warning to the civilians beforehand most of them could have been saved and they could have still destroyed the factories ... According to the geneva conventions it is a war crime (not arguing about how reasonable the conventions are etc.).

thrownaway2424 10y ago
Didn't the Air Force drop millions of leaflets on these cities (and others) urging their evacuation? Didn't Truman warn of Japan's "prompt and utter destruction" less than two weeks before the bomb? I mean, maybe the Japanese though that Truman was blowing smoke, but "utter destruction" is pretty unambiguous. By the way if you want a semi-scholarly but not entirely dry treatment of the moral problem of Truman's bombs I can recommend the book "Prompt and Utter Destruction".
- nucleon 10y ago
  They did drop generic leaflets warning of generic (conventional) bombing on many cities. They did not specifically warn Hiroshima of any specific attack, or make any specific warning about the atomic bomb. Given that the atomic bomb was secret, "prompt and utter destruction" is only a warning in retrospect. There is no way that you can read the Potsdam declaration and think, "oh, they are going to start dropping atomic bombs on cities soon," if you don't know what an atomic bomb is or that they exist. I wonder how important "warning" really is though if it is this vague. Imagine country A is at war with country B. Country A issues an announcement: "if country B does not do what we want, we will set off a bomb in one of country B's major cities." If they follow through with it, does this sort of warning absolve them of responsibility? Does the presence or absence of this kind of vague warning have any effect either way on the ethical calculus regarding the targeting of civilians? It seems to me that if it is ethical then it is ethical without the warning, and if it is not ethical then it is not ethical with the warning. Which makes the warning question a red herring.
  - Amezarak 10y ago
    Does it really matter? The firebombing of Tokyo (one of many examples - many Japanese cities suffered mass destruction in conventional bombings) was just as, if not more, horrific than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Why would the residents care whether they were being firebombed or nuclear bombed?
yarper 10y ago
I think it's unfair to characterize this as a tactical movement - its primary application was strategic. Also, it's probably not clear cut if it is a war crime. War is a horrible grizzly thing and very little is off limits in terms of offensive action.
omegaham 10y ago
Yeah, the "They had torpedo factories there" argument is a little silly from an argument standpoint. The intent of the atomic bombs was to show that Japan's strategy of "Make the cost of invasion too high to stomach" was becoming less and less viable. They showed this intent by indiscriminately slaughtering civilians and military personnel. Personally, I'm okay with it, mostly because the alternative was invasion, which would have caused a million American casualties and wiped Japan off the face of the map. That would have been unpleasant.

by kgarten 10y ago

thrownaway2424 10y ago

Didn't the Air Force drop millions of leaflets on these cities (and others) urging their evacuation? Didn't Truman warn of Japan's "prompt and utter destruction" less than two weeks before the bomb? I mean, maybe the Japanese though that Truman was blowing smoke, but "utter destruction" is pretty unambiguous. By the way if you want a semi-scholarly but not entirely dry treatment of the moral problem of Truman's bombs I can recommend the book "Prompt and Utter Destruction".

nucleon 10y ago
They did drop generic leaflets warning of generic (conventional) bombing on many cities. They did not specifically warn Hiroshima of any specific attack, or make any specific warning about the atomic bomb. Given that the atomic bomb was secret, "prompt and utter destruction" is only a warning in retrospect. There is no way that you can read the Potsdam declaration and think, "oh, they are going to start dropping atomic bombs on cities soon," if you don't know what an atomic bomb is or that they exist. I wonder how important "warning" really is though if it is this vague. Imagine country A is at war with country B. Country A issues an announcement: "if country B does not do what we want, we will set off a bomb in one of country B's major cities." If they follow through with it, does this sort of warning absolve them of responsibility? Does the presence or absence of this kind of vague warning have any effect either way on the ethical calculus regarding the targeting of civilians? It seems to me that if it is ethical then it is ethical without the warning, and if it is not ethical then it is not ethical with the warning. Which makes the warning question a red herring.
- Amezarak 10y ago
  Does it really matter? The firebombing of Tokyo (one of many examples - many Japanese cities suffered mass destruction in conventional bombings) was just as, if not more, horrific than Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Why would the residents care whether they were being firebombed or nuclear bombed?

yarper 10y ago

I think it's unfair to characterize this as a tactical movement - its primary application was strategic. Also, it's probably not clear cut if it is a war crime. War is a horrible grizzly thing and very little is off limits in terms of offensive action.

omegaham 10y ago

Yeah, the "They had torpedo factories there" argument is a little silly from an argument standpoint. The intent of the atomic bombs was to show that Japan's strategy of "Make the cost of invasion too high to stomach" was becoming less and less viable. They showed this intent by indiscriminately slaughtering civilians and military personnel. Personally, I'm okay with it, mostly because the alternative was invasion, which would have caused a million American casualties and wiped Japan off the face of the map. That would have been unpleasant.