4 ms·

While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no grou

by shabda 12y ago

While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no ground invasion. The allies had complete air and naval superiority and Russia had joined the the Japanese war theatre. If you have read the ethics of atomic bombings in any detail you are already aware of the details, so I would refrain from linking to wikipedia. To push your POV that the bombing was entirely necessary and entirely morally right is immoral. [Edit] As requested below: here are the detail about the military unneccesity of the atomic bombings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... There are other debates around this, but this discusses only if Japan would have speedily surrendered without the Atomic bombing.

kyberias 12y ago
Now is there really an equal number? How do you know?
sillysaurus3 12y ago
I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. EDIT: An excerpt from your link: This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. It seems hard to argue that literally firebombing an entire civilization into stoneage living conditions was more ethical than forcing a quick political decision to surrender and stop the madness. Can you imagine trying to live without basic necessities? Even if nobody was dropping bombs on you directly, you, your family, and everyone around you would be the definition of misery for the duration of the firebombing. The firebombing didn't simply destroy military targets. It also decimated infrastructure that we take for granted, such as the ability to deliver drinkable water, or to seek medical treatment at hospitals. How many were to die a miserable death due to the firebombing before Hiroshima and Nagasaki could objectively be called the more ethical decision? Also, the above analysis assumes both sides had perfect information. But information during wartime is asymmetric. It's entirely possible that America had no knowledge of the Japanese political framework at the time the decision to drop the bombs was made. If the Japanese were broadcasting their intention to surrender before the bombs were dropped, that would be different, but it doesn't seem like that was the case. Would you mind helping me understand why firebombing was more ethical than the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- angersock 12y ago
  We found Tokyo a city of paper, and left it a city of concrete? Maybe that's more ethical somehow?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- the_rosentotter 12y ago
  > It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. This was shown by post-war inquiries. Japan had already offered a complete surrender, contingent only on preserving the emperor. They had been trying to surrender since April, according to documents leaked by the president's Chief of Staff, on roughly the same terms that the Americans ultimately accepted. The rush to drop the bombs was that the Soviet Union had promised to join the war against Japan on August 10, giving the Western allies only a few days to make sure that they would be the ones occupying Japan, not the Soviets. A cynic might also suspect a bit of enthusiasm among U.S. military to field test the power of their new weapon.
kordless 12y ago
I believe the parent was relating what was believed at the time, not what is common knowledge today. I'm not sure he's pushing his views on anyone, but more relating what the view at the time was. Careful of cognitive dissonance here - what once once was isn't necessarily what is today.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  I apologize if it sounded like I was pushing my opinion on anyone. It wasn't my intent. I'm only here to learn, so I genuinely hope people will correct me when I'm wrong.
mikeash 12y ago
It's immoral to state one's opinion? If he truly believes that the bombing was the best outcome, how was that immoral? Note that even with the bombing and the Soviet intervention, there was a military coup aimed at preventing the surrender that very nearly succeeded. The contingent of the Japanese government that felt it was better to be obliterated than to surrender was large and powerful. One could certainly argue that they would be overcome as the realities of the situation set in, but one could also argue that they wouldn't. It is, as you say, debatable. Which makes it odd that you just dismiss the other side so readily.
ufmace 12y ago
I don't see a whole lot of point to discussing what we think Japan would have done, given the information that we have now. I have seen some of the research suggesting that Japan was more concerned about Russia's declaration of war than the atomic bombings, and might have surrendered based on that alone. But that research is based on a bunch of historians with unlimited access to Japanese records of high-level meetings and conversations, and all the time in the world to research, correlate, and discuss things. They may well be right, but American Military officers making decisions couldn't possibly know any of that. All they can know is what the Japanese government has said and done, and anything that their intelligence sources can pick up, which may or may not be believable. Everything they would have seen up to that point says that Japan is ruthless and determined to not surrender, and they can only be convinced otherwise if it's clear that they face total destruction otherwise. I can't see how any information available to them points to any other conclusion than that the bomb should be dropped as soon as it's ready to bring an end to the war as quickly as possible.

by shabda 12y ago

kyberias 12y ago

Now is there really an equal number? How do you know?

sillysaurus3 12y ago

I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. EDIT: An excerpt from your link: This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. It seems hard to argue that literally firebombing an entire civilization into stoneage living conditions was more ethical than forcing a quick political decision to surrender and stop the madness. Can you imagine trying to live without basic necessities? Even if nobody was dropping bombs on you directly, you, your family, and everyone around you would be the definition of misery for the duration of the firebombing. The firebombing didn't simply destroy military targets. It also decimated infrastructure that we take for granted, such as the ability to deliver drinkable water, or to seek medical treatment at hospitals. How many were to die a miserable death due to the firebombing before Hiroshima and Nagasaki could objectively be called the more ethical decision? Also, the above analysis assumes both sides had perfect information. But information during wartime is asymmetric. It's entirely possible that America had no knowledge of the Japanese political framework at the time the decision to drop the bombs was made. If the Japanese were broadcasting their intention to surrender before the bombs were dropped, that would be different, but it doesn't seem like that was the case. Would you mind helping me understand why firebombing was more ethical than the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

angersock 12y ago
We found Tokyo a city of paper, and left it a city of concrete? Maybe that's more ethical somehow?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
the_rosentotter 12y ago
> It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. This was shown by post-war inquiries. Japan had already offered a complete surrender, contingent only on preserving the emperor. They had been trying to surrender since April, according to documents leaked by the president's Chief of Staff, on roughly the same terms that the Americans ultimately accepted. The rush to drop the bombs was that the Soviet Union had promised to join the war against Japan on August 10, giving the Western allies only a few days to make sure that they would be the ones occupying Japan, not the Soviets. A cynic might also suspect a bit of enthusiasm among U.S. military to field test the power of their new weapon.

kordless 12y ago

I believe the parent was relating what was believed at the time, not what is common knowledge today. I'm not sure he's pushing his views on anyone, but more relating what the view at the time was. Careful of cognitive dissonance here - what once once was isn't necessarily what is today.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
I apologize if it sounded like I was pushing my opinion on anyone. It wasn't my intent. I'm only here to learn, so I genuinely hope people will correct me when I'm wrong.

mikeash 12y ago

It's immoral to state one's opinion? If he truly believes that the bombing was the best outcome, how was that immoral? Note that even with the bombing and the Soviet intervention, there was a military coup aimed at preventing the surrender that very nearly succeeded. The contingent of the Japanese government that felt it was better to be obliterated than to surrender was large and powerful. One could certainly argue that they would be overcome as the realities of the situation set in, but one could also argue that they wouldn't. It is, as you say, debatable. Which makes it odd that you just dismiss the other side so readily.

ufmace 12y ago

I don't see a whole lot of point to discussing what we think Japan would have done, given the information that we have now. I have seen some of the research suggesting that Japan was more concerned about Russia's declaration of war than the atomic bombings, and might have surrendered based on that alone. But that research is based on a bunch of historians with unlimited access to Japanese records of high-level meetings and conversations, and all the time in the world to research, correlate, and discuss things. They may well be right, but American Military officers making decisions couldn't possibly know any of that. All they can know is what the Japanese government has said and done, and anything that their intelligence sources can pick up, which may or may not be believable. Everything they would have seen up to that point says that Japan is ruthless and determined to not surrender, and they can only be convinced otherwise if it's clear that they face total destruction otherwise. I can't see how any information available to them points to any other conclusion than that the bomb should be dropped as soon as it's ready to bring an end to the war as quickly as possible.