4 ms·

Er, what? Japan was the aggressor, their allies started the war. If Americans wouldn't drop the bombs, even more civilians would lose their lives. From the uti

Er, what? Japan was the aggressor, their allies started the war. If Americans wouldn't drop the bombs, even more civilians would lose their lives. From the utilitarian perspective, the bombs and quick end of the war actually saved lives, so it was the right thing to do. If you want to argue against the morality from the deontological perspective, I wonder about your argument. Japan initiated the fight, and unless Americans planned to surrender, they would end up killing even more people. Are you arguing that it matters that they did it all at once, compared to doing it bit by bit? Also, to shine some perspective - Japan's losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 250k. Their allies killed 400k Jews in Warsaw Ghetto alone.

close04 7y ago
> Japan's losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 250k. Their allies killed 400k Jews in Warsaw Ghetto alone Judging them based what their allies did makes it a bit of an unfair comparison, especially when those allies were half a world away with little actual input [0]. I'm sure the Japanese were responsible for their own share of carnage caused without "consolidating" numbers. Russia was on the Allied side and received active support even after committing massacres, mass arrests, executions, and deportations [1]. So consider that if you want to tally "by team". Also killing 250.000 civilians "because they also did it" kind of puts them all in the same bucket. There's no moral high ground to claim in this situation unless you're always willing to justify anything as long as it fits your personal views. Would it be justified or moral for you to kill some random Russians as payback for Katyn? [0] You wouldn't be judged based on what your grandparents did, and there might be a stronger connection between you. Or for what your fellow countrymen do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#World_War_II
- briffle 7y ago
  Then we can look at the Japanese occupation of China and the killing of 10-25 Million civilians.. The west does not learn much about that part of WW2.
  - liberte82 7y ago
    China sure hasn't forgotten, though.
- ycombinete 7y ago
  On top of this, there’s fairly well established historical record showing that the dropping the bombs was unnecessary, even for attaining Japan’s Surrender. You can find this in sources as mainstream as Oliver Stone’s _Untold History of the United States_
  - 52-6F-62 7y ago
    Wasn't it [as much or more] about demoralizing the enemies on the Western front? Oliver Stone... I hesitate to rely on him as a sole source for such information. No slight on him—but it's as editorialized an outlet for information as there ever was.
    - ycombinete 7y ago
      Fair enough
  - ericmcer 7y ago
    There was an attempted military coup by the ministry of war when the emperor decided to surrender. That was after the second bomb had been dropped. Part of the terms of surrender was the emperor admitting he was not a god. They were not close to surrender pre-bomb in my opinion, most of my info is from podcasts though so who knows.
plufz 7y ago
> From the utilitarian perspective, the bombs and quick end of the war actually saved lives, so it was the right thing to do No, it was very mixed opinions even among high militaries about the decision. Some people saying that the war was in fact over, and the losses would have been less just waiting out the Japanese. You can have different opinions about this, but it is not a fact that it is the utilitarian perspective to nuke.
- Retric 7y ago
  Even without an invasion they still probably saved lives. Had the same cities been bombed using conventional bombs, similar numbers of civilians would have died as the fires caused most civilian casualties. The reality is the nukes caused about 1% of the just civilian casualties (50 to 55 million) in WWII, making them a rounding error in the overall war.
- wil421 7y ago
  Sources please. I’ve asked a family member who was on a boat on the way to invade Japan until the bombs fell. They also stayed half of the occupation working in General McArthurs office. The sentiment was the bombs would cause much less casualties on at least one of the sides (US would drop more if they didn’t surrender). The surrender saved lives on both sides. I’m sure some officers didn’t agree.
  - whatisthiseven 7y ago
    "Whether it was the use of nuclear weapons or Soviet invasion that more forcefully led to surrender has been hotly debated between historians. Hasegawa places greater emphasis on the Soviet invasion, suggesting that Japan would likely have stood steadfast under multiple atomic bombings as it had done in the face of firebombing. Asada directly references and disputes his account, claiming that nuclear weapons and the threat they posed to the homeland reflected a much more "direct" impetus to end the war rather than the invasion of Manchuria, and offered an easier way out for the leadership. Further, they came as a complete surprise to Japanese leadership, whereas eventual conflict with the USSR was expected. Frank's account, and most other anti-revisionist historians support this thesis." [1] I think it can be fair to say that the perception of the Allies/America was the bombs would lead to surrender, but from the Japanese perspective that isn't so cut-and-dry. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_didnt_japan_surrender_after_the_first_atomic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_d...
ceezuns 7y ago
The Nazis were already developing nuclear bombs, Hitler just didn't really put a priority on it. Even if the US had never developed it, when the Soviets and Americans took the Nazi scientists in they would have eventually developed them anyways.
simion314 7y ago
A honest question, is it (and was it then) legal to destroy an entire city full of civilians? Or only the ones that lose the war are accused of war crimes? A different question, what happened with the guys that droned(or was an helicopter I do not remember) those civilians. I am referring at the incident where the video tape was leaked, was anybody found guilty?
- liberte82 7y ago
  There's no such thing as international law. It's just a set of treaties. With no one to enforce it, it's not real law, so things like war crimes and the like are decided by the victors, there is no legitimate objective body.

close04 7y ago

> Japan's losses in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 250k. Their allies killed 400k Jews in Warsaw Ghetto alone Judging them based what their allies did makes it a bit of an unfair comparison, especially when those allies were half a world away with little actual input [0]. I'm sure the Japanese were responsible for their own share of carnage caused without "consolidating" numbers. Russia was on the Allied side and received active support even after committing massacres, mass arrests, executions, and deportations [1]. So consider that if you want to tally "by team". Also killing 250.000 civilians "because they also did it" kind of puts them all in the same bucket. There's no moral high ground to claim in this situation unless you're always willing to justify anything as long as it fits your personal views. Would it be justified or moral for you to kill some random Russians as payback for Katyn? [0] You wouldn't be judged based on what your grandparents did, and there might be a stronger connection between you. Or for what your fellow countrymen do. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_crimes#World_War_II

briffle 7y ago
Then we can look at the Japanese occupation of China and the killing of 10-25 Million civilians.. The west does not learn much about that part of WW2.
- liberte82 7y ago
  China sure hasn't forgotten, though.
ycombinete 7y ago
On top of this, there’s fairly well established historical record showing that the dropping the bombs was unnecessary, even for attaining Japan’s Surrender. You can find this in sources as mainstream as Oliver Stone’s _Untold History of the United States_
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  Wasn't it [as much or more] about demoralizing the enemies on the Western front? Oliver Stone... I hesitate to rely on him as a sole source for such information. No slight on him—but it's as editorialized an outlet for information as there ever was.
  - ycombinete 7y ago
    Fair enough
- ericmcer 7y ago
  There was an attempted military coup by the ministry of war when the emperor decided to surrender. That was after the second bomb had been dropped. Part of the terms of surrender was the emperor admitting he was not a god. They were not close to surrender pre-bomb in my opinion, most of my info is from podcasts though so who knows.

plufz 7y ago

> From the utilitarian perspective, the bombs and quick end of the war actually saved lives, so it was the right thing to do No, it was very mixed opinions even among high militaries about the decision. Some people saying that the war was in fact over, and the losses would have been less just waiting out the Japanese. You can have different opinions about this, but it is not a fact that it is the utilitarian perspective to nuke.

Retric 7y ago
Even without an invasion they still probably saved lives. Had the same cities been bombed using conventional bombs, similar numbers of civilians would have died as the fires caused most civilian casualties. The reality is the nukes caused about 1% of the just civilian casualties (50 to 55 million) in WWII, making them a rounding error in the overall war.
wil421 7y ago
Sources please. I’ve asked a family member who was on a boat on the way to invade Japan until the bombs fell. They also stayed half of the occupation working in General McArthurs office. The sentiment was the bombs would cause much less casualties on at least one of the sides (US would drop more if they didn’t surrender). The surrender saved lives on both sides. I’m sure some officers didn’t agree.
- whatisthiseven 7y ago
  "Whether it was the use of nuclear weapons or Soviet invasion that more forcefully led to surrender has been hotly debated between historians. Hasegawa places greater emphasis on the Soviet invasion, suggesting that Japan would likely have stood steadfast under multiple atomic bombings as it had done in the face of firebombing. Asada directly references and disputes his account, claiming that nuclear weapons and the threat they posed to the homeland reflected a much more "direct" impetus to end the war rather than the invasion of Manchuria, and offered an easier way out for the leadership. Further, they came as a complete surprise to Japanese leadership, whereas eventual conflict with the USSR was expected. Frank's account, and most other anti-revisionist historians support this thesis." [1] I think it can be fair to say that the perception of the Allies/America was the bombs would lead to surrender, but from the Japanese perspective that isn't so cut-and-dry. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_didnt_japan_surrender_after_the_first_atomic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_d...

ceezuns 7y ago

The Nazis were already developing nuclear bombs, Hitler just didn't really put a priority on it. Even if the US had never developed it, when the Soviets and Americans took the Nazi scientists in they would have eventually developed them anyways.

simion314 7y ago

A honest question, is it (and was it then) legal to destroy an entire city full of civilians? Or only the ones that lose the war are accused of war crimes? A different question, what happened with the guys that droned(or was an helicopter I do not remember) those civilians. I am referring at the incident where the video tape was leaked, was anybody found guilty?

liberte82 7y ago
There's no such thing as international law. It's just a set of treaties. With no one to enforce it, it's not real law, so things like war crimes and the like are decided by the victors, there is no legitimate objective body.