5 ms·

I think the big difference is the thought of doing all of that with one single bomber, nearly instantly.

by xxpor 7y ago

cryptonector 7y ago
To the people on the ground, the fact that an A-bomb could be dropped from just one bomber made no difference. Fire bombing or A-bombing was roughly the same to them. Indeed, fire bombing was probably worse when it came in waves. There were no medium or large cities left to flatten in August 1946. I've read before, and I believe, that the Japanese military leaders and emperor were not that impressed with the A-bomb. And why should they have been? They already were ready for a one-condition surrender, and the U.S. did accept it (calling it unconditional, but the U.S. adhered to the one condition).
- secabeen 7y ago
  There has also been some debate about the factors that contributed to the Japanese surrender: https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-...
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    I've read enough of that to reach this conclusion: - the motives for dropping the bombs were various, and it depends on whom you asked, but also dropping the bombs was not that significant a thing to the Japanese (for reasons given above), - wanting an unconditional surrender seems like a legitimate or plausibly legitimate motive, - and the Soviet entrance in the war definitely sharpened minds all around.
JasonFruit 7y ago
I think the big similarity is the tortuous killing of innocents to stop the wrongdoing of governments over which they have almost no control.
- danielam 7y ago
  Yes. Morally, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified and evil. To say so is not to deny the evil of other bombing and destruction campaigns. The old claim that it was the only way to end the war is a utilitarian/consequentialist claim that misses the point which is that evil means cannot be used to accomplish good ends.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    I don't know how you can sidestep the question of whether we could have won the war with less hardship. It isn't missing the point it IS a really important point. Any more complex ethical framework is inevitably only ethical in anyone's judgement until such time as it leads to a bad enough effect that nobody would countenance. For example bombing cities is a horror whether its with nuclear or conventional weapons. If you could reliably predict that refraining from such unethical behavior would lead to an allied loss would you say that it remained the ethical choice knowing that it led to a greater evil end result? I would say that any strategy however ethical that led to a Nazi/Imperial Japanese empire across the world would have been an unforgivable evil no matter how high minded. Logically there is no just reason to desire the suffering of the Japanese people. A solution that also preserved the lives of the Japanese people would be most ethical but what if you have to pick? Even if the end result is not on net evil like Nazi domination of the globe those whose responsibility is the lives of say the English people seem duty bound to consider the needs of their charges over a foreign power. Is this not ethical too? How does that interact with your ethical framework or utilitarians? It seems more apt to suppose that a grand unified theory of ethics just doesn't exist. Its always more complicated than you think. It seems that in some cases refusing to sacrifice your personal ethics to prevent greater evil would itself be evil. Shitty right.
    - danielam 7y ago
      I'm not sidestepping the question. I'm claiming that the question is irrelevant because EVEN IF we knew that the war would have been shortened, fewer lives would have been lost, etc, etc, the committing of an evil action for a good end is NEVER justified. If you want a name for the principle behind this moral judgement, I refer you to the doctrine of double effect. The last bit is, frankly, nonsense. If sound moral judgement is how one determines what is good or evil, then how does the suspension of that moral judgement (what you quaintly and confusingly refer to as "sacrific[ing] your personal ethics") allow you to judge which evil is greater, or what is evil in the first place?

I think the big difference is the thought of doing all of that with one single bomber, nearly instantly.

by xxpor 7y ago

I think the big difference is the thought of doing all of that with one single bomber, nearly instantly.

To the people on the ground, the fact that an A-bomb could be dropped from just one bomber made no difference. Fire bombing or A-bombing was roughly the same to them. Indeed, fire bombing was probably worse when it came in waves. There were no medium or large cities left to flatten in August 1946. I've read before, and I believe, that the Japanese military leaders and emperor were not that impressed with the A-bomb. And why should they have been? They already were ready for a one-condition surrender, and the U.S. did accept it (calling it unconditional, but the U.S. adhered to the one condition).

secabeen 7y ago
There has also been some debate about the factors that contributed to the Japanese surrender: https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-...
- cryptonector 7y ago
  I've read enough of that to reach this conclusion: - the motives for dropping the bombs were various, and it depends on whom you asked, but also dropping the bombs was not that significant a thing to the Japanese (for reasons given above), - wanting an unconditional surrender seems like a legitimate or plausibly legitimate motive, - and the Soviet entrance in the war definitely sharpened minds all around.

JasonFruit 7y ago

I think the big similarity is the tortuous killing of innocents to stop the wrongdoing of governments over which they have almost no control.

danielam 7y ago
Yes. Morally, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified and evil. To say so is not to deny the evil of other bombing and destruction campaigns. The old claim that it was the only way to end the war is a utilitarian/consequentialist claim that misses the point which is that evil means cannot be used to accomplish good ends.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  I don't know how you can sidestep the question of whether we could have won the war with less hardship. It isn't missing the point it IS a really important point. Any more complex ethical framework is inevitably only ethical in anyone's judgement until such time as it leads to a bad enough effect that nobody would countenance. For example bombing cities is a horror whether its with nuclear or conventional weapons. If you could reliably predict that refraining from such unethical behavior would lead to an allied loss would you say that it remained the ethical choice knowing that it led to a greater evil end result? I would say that any strategy however ethical that led to a Nazi/Imperial Japanese empire across the world would have been an unforgivable evil no matter how high minded. Logically there is no just reason to desire the suffering of the Japanese people. A solution that also preserved the lives of the Japanese people would be most ethical but what if you have to pick? Even if the end result is not on net evil like Nazi domination of the globe those whose responsibility is the lives of say the English people seem duty bound to consider the needs of their charges over a foreign power. Is this not ethical too? How does that interact with your ethical framework or utilitarians? It seems more apt to suppose that a grand unified theory of ethics just doesn't exist. Its always more complicated than you think. It seems that in some cases refusing to sacrifice your personal ethics to prevent greater evil would itself be evil. Shitty right.
  - danielam 7y ago
    I'm not sidestepping the question. I'm claiming that the question is irrelevant because EVEN IF we knew that the war would have been shortened, fewer lives would have been lost, etc, etc, the committing of an evil action for a good end is NEVER justified. If you want a name for the principle behind this moral judgement, I refer you to the doctrine of double effect. The last bit is, frankly, nonsense. If sound moral judgement is how one determines what is good or evil, then how does the suspension of that moral judgement (what you quaintly and confusingly refer to as "sacrific[ing] your personal ethics") allow you to judge which evil is greater, or what is evil in the first place?