4 ms·

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/v1

by 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.

mpyne 12y ago
> 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 So now ask yourself: Is it ethically better to use conventional weaponry to kill more people over a longer time? Conventional weaponry was used to firebomb Tokyo in March 1945; more people died in that one series of day/night raids than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. And they're saying this was better. They're also claiming that having a Japan "blockaded and starving" while we waited them out is ethically better. However difficult it is to precisely target an atom bomb, starvation is even more difficult to use as a weapon (as they're proposing): it doesn't obey rules of engagement, you can't direct at military objectives... hell, it would actually preferentially kill civilians, starting with the weakest, since the military would ensure they received higher rations. And this is always how this argument devolves: People suggesting things which are actually even more cruel since they find it axiomatic that there is no worse thing you can do to someone than to use a single very big bomb to kill them instead of a million tiny little cumulative cuts. (Edited to correct the subject proposing the bomb-'em-all argument). As far as MacArthur, he and his staff were certainly not alone in their estimate of the political situation in Japan. FDR's military aide, Adm. Leahy, also thought that the bomb was unnecessary, as did Adm. Nimitz in Honolulu. On the other hand, Leahy also thought the bomb would never work (he even used his "expertise in explosives" to support that argument). And both FDR and Truman had been briefed regarding the two proposed upcoming invasions (of Kyushu and then Honshu) that the American and Japanese casualties would be monumental. MacArthur was always thought he was the politician as much as he was the general; it's the reason he was fired from his service in the Korean War despite his absolutely brilliant orchestration of the Incheon landings to save the war effort for the U.N. He's not even wrong in this regard though: Using the atom bomb was not absolutely militarily essential. As your article mentions, we could simply haved starved them all to death instead, like the ethical and noble creatures that we are.

by katbyte 12y ago

mpyne 12y ago

> 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 So now ask yourself: Is it ethically better to use conventional weaponry to kill more people over a longer time? Conventional weaponry was used to firebomb Tokyo in March 1945; more people died in that one series of day/night raids than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. And they're saying this was better. They're also claiming that having a Japan "blockaded and starving" while we waited them out is ethically better. However difficult it is to precisely target an atom bomb, starvation is even more difficult to use as a weapon (as they're proposing): it doesn't obey rules of engagement, you can't direct at military objectives... hell, it would actually preferentially kill civilians, starting with the weakest, since the military would ensure they received higher rations. And this is always how this argument devolves: People suggesting things which are actually even more cruel since they find it axiomatic that there is no worse thing you can do to someone than to use a single very big bomb to kill them instead of a million tiny little cumulative cuts. (Edited to correct the subject proposing the bomb-'em-all argument). As far as MacArthur, he and his staff were certainly not alone in their estimate of the political situation in Japan. FDR's military aide, Adm. Leahy, also thought that the bomb was unnecessary, as did Adm. Nimitz in Honolulu. On the other hand, Leahy also thought the bomb would never work (he even used his "expertise in explosives" to support that argument). And both FDR and Truman had been briefed regarding the two proposed upcoming invasions (of Kyushu and then Honshu) that the American and Japanese casualties would be monumental. MacArthur was always thought he was the politician as much as he was the general; it's the reason he was fired from his service in the Korean War despite his absolutely brilliant orchestration of the Incheon landings to save the war effort for the U.N. He's not even wrong in this regard though: Using the atom bomb was not absolutely militarily essential. As your article mentions, we could simply haved starved them all to death instead, like the ethical and noble creatures that we are.