4 ms·

I think its a bad idea to characterize the entire defence industry as amoral implementors. Many that I've interacted with are very conscious about extrapolating

I think its a bad idea to characterize the entire defence industry as amoral implementors. Many that I've interacted with are very conscious about extrapolating to the conceptual uses of their creations.

noblethrasher 12y ago
Amoral means that they don't even consider the morality of the situation. I doubt any of those engineers are like that; indeed, they likely believe in the justness of what they're doing.
throwawayaway 12y ago
There was a great quote from the Scott Meyers video the other day at DConf, "If we don't do our job right, people could LIVE!"
- mpyne 12y ago
  > There was a great quote from the Scott Meyers video the other day at DConf, "If we don't do our job right, people could LIVE!" He left out the next part though: "And if those people LIVE, others will DIE!" I mean, you want to talk about ironic: Consider the atomic bombing of Japan. To the extent that it contributed in any meaningful way whatsoever to avoiding a land invasion of Japanese (American, Soviet, or both) it saved more Japanese lives than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, to say nothing of the Allied servicemembers staring down the barrel of the Japanese gun.
  - aidenn0 12y ago
    There is still a moral question of killing civillians versus killing volunteer soldiers versus killing conscripted soldiers. Then you need to remember there were two bombings of Japan. Was the second one necessary to prevent a land invasion of Japan? Furthermore it seems likely that a combined soviet/american land invasion would have prompted nearly as quick of a surrender as the atomic bombings. Of course we can play these "what-if" games all day; the people at the time needed to make a decision, and I don't think it was all that bad of a decision with the information they had. When the use of deadly force is appropriate is the biggest open question in ethics IMO.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > Furthermore it seems likely that a combined soviet/american land invasion would have prompted nearly as quick of a surrender as the atomic bombings. Perhaps (there always remains the question of where the Soviets would have found the needed amphibious shipping to make it happen, of course). But even if we assume it happens, now we have another Korea split into a Communist and non-Communist bloc. Great improvement, no? You're right about what-if games though... I'm just glad the decision wasn't mine to have to make, especially with those ethical questions still not fully settled even to this day.
    - katbyte 12y ago
      Before the atomic bombs were dropped, thousands of conventional bombs were dropped on Tokyo. For example in one night 1700 bombs were dropped on Tokyo killing 100,000 in what some call the "the single deadliest air raid of World War II" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
      - cam_l 12y ago
        From your link: "Curtis LeMay ordered the bombers to drop incendiary bombs to burn Japan's vulnerable wood-and-paper buildings." Not just conventional bombs, they deliberately burned a hundred thousand innocent people to death. Not nearly enough people know about this atrocity, especially in relation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
  - danudey 12y ago
    Well, I've heard[from whom?] speculation that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender anyway, and that dropping an atomic bomb was more about the US showing off their new toy and flexing their muscles than anything else. Basically kicking someone when they were down to show how hard they could kick. Thus, instead of potentially losing the lives of soldiers on either side, or possibly losing not that many lives thanks to surrender, they caused massive civilian casualties (a total of up to 240,000 deaths according to Wikipedia), plus plans for seven more after they saw how great the first two were. Thus, even if you argue that the atomic bombs did save soldiers' lives, they killed far more civilians, and could be argued to be war crimes which did less to encourage a Japanese surrender than Moscow's entrance into the war against Japan.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > Well, I've heard[from whom?] speculation Well that's a good question you ask yourself, since speculation is just that. There were certainly elements within the Japanese government that had wished to surrender for a long time, but the government was not in power: The military was. And the military leadership was not going to surrender. Even after the news came of the Nagasaki bombing (when the Japanese leadership had finally got around to meeting to discuss Hiroshima), the question of whether to surrender (after 2 bombings) came to a 3-3 tie. Emperor Hirohito himself broke the tie in favor for peace. After recording his surrender announcement for broadcast the next day, elements of the Imperial Japanese Army rebelled, killed the Prime Minister, and invaded the Imperial Palace looking for the recording (which was kept safe by one of Hirohito's advisers at great personal risk). You simply can't try to evaluate 1945 Japan in 2014 Western terms, you have no clue what the thinking was like. > Thus, even if you argue that the atomic bombs did save soldiers' lives I'm arguing that they saved Japanese civilian lives. Again, you have no baseline for what WWII was like if you think soldiers were the only ones to die in land combat. Look at the Battle of Okinawa for an example of what the Japanese Army did to the civilians of Okinawa. And if you want to remove "speculation" from your vocabulary, I recommend Michael Kort's "The Columbia Guide to Hiroshima and the Bomb".
      - katbyte 12y ago
        I honestly don't know much about this topic but i was curious and found an article (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html) that seems to indicate that japan was willing to surrender for months prior to the bombs, but not unconditionally, but the united states and the UK refused anything but an unconditional surrender. It also discusses how conventional bombs were doing a fine job of systematically destroying the country (and population), waiting would have likely produced the same effect as japan was blockaded and staving, as a show of force a military base would have been just as effective and how "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population." It finishes with "General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."" It doesn't seem like there is much to speculate on. However this is a random internet article and could be rather biased. >elements of the Imperial Japanese Army rebelled, killed the Prime Minister According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident) elements of the navy did rebel, but they were a small minority that did not manage to kill the prim minster despite attempts to do so.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >I mean, you want to talk about ironic: Consider the atomic bombing of Japan. To the extent that it contributed in any meaningful way whatsoever to avoiding a land invasion of Japanese (American, Soviet, or both) it saved more Japanese lives than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, to say nothing of the Allied servicemembers staring down the barrel of the Japanese gun. Yeah. Shame that no bomb and no invasion was necessary either, the Japanese were already literally begging to surrender, and they only asked for a few trivial conditions in exchange. It was just a way to live test the bomb on people, send the world a message, and kickstart the cold war to not let the Soviets get any ideas.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > the Japanese were already literally begging to surrender, and they only asked for a few trivial conditions in exchange Who specifically was begging to surrender? There were elements within the government willing to surrender, and the "few trivial conditions" they wanted were more or less the terms eventually agreed by the Allies. But they weren't in power. The elements within the government who were in power had far more than a "few trivial conditions" as their requirements for surrender. E.g.: "Kido [a confidant of the Emperor] proposed [in June 1945] that Japan withdraw from the formerly European colonies it had occupied provided they were granted independence, that Japan disarm provided this not occur under Allied supervision, and that Japan for a time be "content with minimum defense." Kido's proposal did not contemplate Allied occupation of Japan, prosecution of war criminals or substantial change in Japan's system of government." This was decided before the Potsdam Declaration and before serious overtures to the Soviet Union, and those conditions would have been completely unacceptable to the Allies and to the populations of those Allies (especially given Japanese treatment of Allied POWs). Even in May 1945 as meetings were taking place among the actual Japanese leadership to discuss the possibility of surrender, the leaders of Japan had to be very careful: "Because anyone openly supporting Japanese surrender risked assassination by zealous army officers, the meetings were closed to anyone except the Big Six, the Emperor, and the Privy Seal." The Wikipedia article on the surrender of Japan is very enlightening, if you can't be bothered to consult primary sources yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
  - lawnchair_larry 12y ago
    Whoa, let's avoid war crime apologetics. That's a pretty offensive claim.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      The claim is either true or not. If it is true (or even substantially so), how can it be simultaneously offensive?

noblethrasher 12y ago

Amoral means that they don't even consider the morality of the situation. I doubt any of those engineers are like that; indeed, they likely believe in the justness of what they're doing.

throwawayaway 12y ago

There was a great quote from the Scott Meyers video the other day at DConf, "If we don't do our job right, people could LIVE!"

mpyne 12y ago
> There was a great quote from the Scott Meyers video the other day at DConf, "If we don't do our job right, people could LIVE!" He left out the next part though: "And if those people LIVE, others will DIE!" I mean, you want to talk about ironic: Consider the atomic bombing of Japan. To the extent that it contributed in any meaningful way whatsoever to avoiding a land invasion of Japanese (American, Soviet, or both) it saved more Japanese lives than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, to say nothing of the Allied servicemembers staring down the barrel of the Japanese gun.
- aidenn0 12y ago
  There is still a moral question of killing civillians versus killing volunteer soldiers versus killing conscripted soldiers. Then you need to remember there were two bombings of Japan. Was the second one necessary to prevent a land invasion of Japan? Furthermore it seems likely that a combined soviet/american land invasion would have prompted nearly as quick of a surrender as the atomic bombings. Of course we can play these "what-if" games all day; the people at the time needed to make a decision, and I don't think it was all that bad of a decision with the information they had. When the use of deadly force is appropriate is the biggest open question in ethics IMO.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > Furthermore it seems likely that a combined soviet/american land invasion would have prompted nearly as quick of a surrender as the atomic bombings. Perhaps (there always remains the question of where the Soviets would have found the needed amphibious shipping to make it happen, of course). But even if we assume it happens, now we have another Korea split into a Communist and non-Communist bloc. Great improvement, no? You're right about what-if games though... I'm just glad the decision wasn't mine to have to make, especially with those ethical questions still not fully settled even to this day.
  - katbyte 12y ago
    Before the atomic bombs were dropped, thousands of conventional bombs were dropped on Tokyo. For example in one night 1700 bombs were dropped on Tokyo killing 100,000 in what some call the "the single deadliest air raid of World War II" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
    - cam_l 12y ago
      From your link: "Curtis LeMay ordered the bombers to drop incendiary bombs to burn Japan's vulnerable wood-and-paper buildings." Not just conventional bombs, they deliberately burned a hundred thousand innocent people to death. Not nearly enough people know about this atrocity, especially in relation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
- danudey 12y ago
  Well, I've heard[from whom?] speculation that the Japanese were on the verge of surrender anyway, and that dropping an atomic bomb was more about the US showing off their new toy and flexing their muscles than anything else. Basically kicking someone when they were down to show how hard they could kick. Thus, instead of potentially losing the lives of soldiers on either side, or possibly losing not that many lives thanks to surrender, they caused massive civilian casualties (a total of up to 240,000 deaths according to Wikipedia), plus plans for seven more after they saw how great the first two were. Thus, even if you argue that the atomic bombs did save soldiers' lives, they killed far more civilians, and could be argued to be war crimes which did less to encourage a Japanese surrender than Moscow's entrance into the war against Japan.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > Well, I've heard[from whom?] speculation Well that's a good question you ask yourself, since speculation is just that. There were certainly elements within the Japanese government that had wished to surrender for a long time, but the government was not in power: The military was. And the military leadership was not going to surrender. Even after the news came of the Nagasaki bombing (when the Japanese leadership had finally got around to meeting to discuss Hiroshima), the question of whether to surrender (after 2 bombings) came to a 3-3 tie. Emperor Hirohito himself broke the tie in favor for peace. After recording his surrender announcement for broadcast the next day, elements of the Imperial Japanese Army rebelled, killed the Prime Minister, and invaded the Imperial Palace looking for the recording (which was kept safe by one of Hirohito's advisers at great personal risk). You simply can't try to evaluate 1945 Japan in 2014 Western terms, you have no clue what the thinking was like. > Thus, even if you argue that the atomic bombs did save soldiers' lives I'm arguing that they saved Japanese civilian lives. Again, you have no baseline for what WWII was like if you think soldiers were the only ones to die in land combat. Look at the Battle of Okinawa for an example of what the Japanese Army did to the civilians of Okinawa. And if you want to remove "speculation" from your vocabulary, I recommend Michael Kort's "The Columbia Guide to Hiroshima and the Bomb".
    - katbyte 12y ago
      I honestly don't know much about this topic but i was curious and found an article (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html) that seems to indicate that japan was willing to surrender for months prior to the bombs, but not unconditionally, but the united states and the UK refused anything but an unconditional surrender. It also discusses how conventional bombs were doing a fine job of systematically destroying the country (and population), waiting would have likely produced the same effect as japan was blockaded and staving, as a show of force a military base would have been just as effective and how "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population." It finishes with "General Douglas MacArthur, Commander of US Army forces in the Pacific, stated on numerous occasions before his death that the atomic bomb was completely unnecessary from a military point of view: "My staff was unanimous in believing that Japan was on the point of collapse and surrender."" It doesn't seem like there is much to speculate on. However this is a random internet article and could be rather biased. >elements of the Imperial Japanese Army rebelled, killed the Prime Minister According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_Incident) elements of the navy did rebel, but they were a small minority that did not manage to kill the prim minster despite attempts to do so.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >I mean, you want to talk about ironic: Consider the atomic bombing of Japan. To the extent that it contributed in any meaningful way whatsoever to avoiding a land invasion of Japanese (American, Soviet, or both) it saved more Japanese lives than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, to say nothing of the Allied servicemembers staring down the barrel of the Japanese gun. Yeah. Shame that no bomb and no invasion was necessary either, the Japanese were already literally begging to surrender, and they only asked for a few trivial conditions in exchange. It was just a way to live test the bomb on people, send the world a message, and kickstart the cold war to not let the Soviets get any ideas.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > the Japanese were already literally begging to surrender, and they only asked for a few trivial conditions in exchange Who specifically was begging to surrender? There were elements within the government willing to surrender, and the "few trivial conditions" they wanted were more or less the terms eventually agreed by the Allies. But they weren't in power. The elements within the government who were in power had far more than a "few trivial conditions" as their requirements for surrender. E.g.: "Kido [a confidant of the Emperor] proposed [in June 1945] that Japan withdraw from the formerly European colonies it had occupied provided they were granted independence, that Japan disarm provided this not occur under Allied supervision, and that Japan for a time be "content with minimum defense." Kido's proposal did not contemplate Allied occupation of Japan, prosecution of war criminals or substantial change in Japan's system of government." This was decided before the Potsdam Declaration and before serious overtures to the Soviet Union, and those conditions would have been completely unacceptable to the Allies and to the populations of those Allies (especially given Japanese treatment of Allied POWs). Even in May 1945 as meetings were taking place among the actual Japanese leadership to discuss the possibility of surrender, the leaders of Japan had to be very careful: "Because anyone openly supporting Japanese surrender risked assassination by zealous army officers, the meetings were closed to anyone except the Big Six, the Emperor, and the Privy Seal." The Wikipedia article on the surrender of Japan is very enlightening, if you can't be bothered to consult primary sources yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
- lawnchair_larry 12y ago
  Whoa, let's avoid war crime apologetics. That's a pretty offensive claim.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    The claim is either true or not. If it is true (or even substantially so), how can it be simultaneously offensive?