meritocrat

Why do people feel it was 'unethical' to use nuclear weapons in this instance?

It was war!!!! IMO, the ending of the war (and protecting the lives of many Allied military personnel who may have died in invading Japan) is more 'ethical' than civilians dying in a nuclear attack.

Jinto

Let's see: using nuclear weapons on civilian targets, thereby killing thousands of innocent non-combatants, in order to change a conditional surrender (they wanted to keep their emperor) to an unconditional surrender. Yeah, real ethical.

meritocrat

As I said, it was war. Why is attacking civilians 'unethical'? Who defines what is unethical anyhow?

Mageth

The question is, in my opinion, was it necessary to drop the bomb? And, after Hiroshima, was Nagasaki really necessary? And why drop the bombs on cities, and not, for example, on one of the relatively uninhabited regions of one of Japan's northern islands? Or even ten or twenty miles off the coast of Tokyo?

Could the war have been brought to a close relatively peacefully and quickly without dropping either of the bombs, and in particular without dropping the second bomb? Many think it could have been, and I tend to agree.

In fact, none other than Gen. Eisenhower, Gen. Macarthur, Gen. "Hap" Arnold, and Adm. Leahy, Truman's Chief of Staff, among others, thought the war with Japan could have been ended without invading and without dropping the bomb.

The following is heavily exerpted from here:

Eisenhower reported in his 1963 Mandate for Change that he had the following reaction when Secretary of War Stimson informed him the atomic bomb would be used:

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as measure to save American lives."

Eisenhower also said:

"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face.". . .It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

In his memoirs, Leahy said:

"The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. . . . in being the first to use it, we . . . adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Army Air Forces commander, General Henry "Hap" Arnold, in his 1949 Global Mission: "It always appeared to us that atomic bomb or no atomic bomb the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

For Macarthur, and the opinions of others, see here. From this site, on Macarthur and the bomb:

As shown above, many of the top leaders in the military at the time didn't think it was necessary, and many were appalled at the decision to use the bomb.

My conclusion is that the decision to drop the bomb was likely not just an attempt at shortening the war, but was primarily a political decision to demonstrate our new toy to the Russians, and to keep the Russians from invading Japan, who by this time the U.S. was already beginning to recognize as the real threat in the world. As well as a bit of revenge for Pearl Harbor and other Japanese war acts.

Bumble Bee Tuna

It killed innocent lives unnecessarily. Unless you think killing innocents is somehow justified by calling it 'war'. Here's how I judge it:

If we had not dropped the bombs, would more or less innocent people have been killed?

The answer, IMO, is less, which is why it was wrong.

-B

meritocrat

Yes I do.

CALDONIA

My take on the whole issue of the A-bomb droppings is that our insistence on "unconditional surrender" met with a militarist/warrior cult of honor that could not be reconciled. The military government (that controlled Hirohito) did not care what cost would be paid in resistance to our invasion of the Homeland, but the American public was rather in awe of the prospective casualties the American forces would sustain.

The fact that it took three days for the Japanese to surrender after TWO A-bomb attacks shows how dogmatic the militarists were toward their mission of never giving up.

Maybe some sort of armistice would have worked, but everyone was soured by that from the First World War.

We did not know that the A-bomb was the ultimate weapon until the results were seen. Therefore, to say that we could have simply "demonstrated" its power and therefore saved lives assumes that we already knew what effect it would have on the Japanese. It is possible that without a figurehead like Hirohito in the government, the military command could have gone underground and decided to endure any number of A-Bombs in our arsenal.

My question is this: does "unconditional surrender" cause more mayhem than necessary?

Mageth

We did not know that the A-bomb was the ultimate weapon until the results were seen.

Umm, we tested the bomb before we used it. I think we knew going in what kind of effect it would have on a city.

CALDONIA

Mageth,

We knew the effect the A-bomb might have via tests in the desert, but what effects the bomb would have on the Japanese government were probably unknown.

In retrospect, the dropping of the A-bombs is nothing less than an atrocity, but the decision must be tied to the horrible costs to the general feelings of compassion and humanity brought by a world war of non-stop death, random and plotted. Wartime against savage opposition makes all participants savage and I can see how Truman could find wiping out cities justified (after all, they were just Japanese).

My point is that no matter what one makes of the potential of the A-bomb, and its potential aftermath in regard to future arms races and such, one must investigate the short-term goals of a nation very war-weary, a new President unsure of his bearings, and the paranoia of the Russian empire.

I usually refrain from debates about the A-bomb because the development and the implications of its use are so complicated. And arguments often devolve into the "we shoulda" vs. "we should'nt 'of" arguments.

Mageth

We knew the effect the A-bomb might have via tests in the desert, but what effects the bomb would have on the Japanese government were probably unknown.

If that's the case, then how was using it justified? If we weren't pretty damn sure the Japanese would capitulate, it wouldn't make much sense, or be justifiable IMO, to use it on a civilian population just on the off-chance that it might quickly end the war.

The fact is that many of the highest-ranking military officers, including Macarthur, the top dog in the war on Japan, and Eisenhower, the top dog in Europe, thought that it wasn't militarily necessary, thought that, if we played our cards right, Japan was ready to surrender anyway.

It appears that either the admin didn't consult the military leaders (which, for Macarthur, seems to be the case), or it chose to use the bomb for other reasons in spite of the recommendations of at least some of the top brass. Thus I think the justification for it was much more political than military. I think the "necessary to bring about a quick end to the war and thus not have to invade Japan" argument is not sound.

I usually refrain from debates about the A-bomb because the development and the implications of its use are so complicated. And arguments often devolve into the "we shoulda" vs. "we should'nt 'of" arguments.

You're probably right. But I think if you'll read my post above you'll see I didn't make those kinds of arguments.