Vorkosigan

Suppose we had done that. And then all those boys who died in the invasion and subsequent occupation might well have an argument with you. Hiroshima was picked because it was both a key military target in the upcoming invasion -- HQ of the army in charge of defending Kyushu, and 1/3 soldiers -- and a city.

I'm not going to get into the debate here. Most of the claims made on this thread by the anti-bomb crowd are wrong. Why don't you reference the thread phaedrus and I have going.

here

Nowhere357

While perhaps if we had done that, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would thank us.

Exactly why I called second- guessing a "fools game".

There is a pro-bomb crowd? (But I know what you meant.)

Which claims do you think are wrong, exactly?

themistocles

It's strange that those who "oppose" the US' use of nuclear weapons of WW2 rarely offer a grand alternative idea...

But it should be noted that before we had "the bomb", the previous method of firebombing killed far more people and such bombings didn't do what the nukes did: end the war. So, really to be "against" the nukes, you'd have to necessarily ask for more dead civilians and an extension of the world's worst war in history. Great stance to have to morally chastise others from...

Nowhere357

How do you define "grand"?. Besides, one does not need to demonstrate viable options, to find mass human destruction objectionable.

Your conclusion doesn't follow. The war was ending anyway, and the nukes could have been used as a warning first.

To claim that anti-nuke people are for more civilian deaths, or for the extnsion of the war, is completely unsupported by the facts.

Do you feel that people are trying to morally chastise you? Why would you feel that way?

Peace

Jinto

Well, I'm going to interject something here: regardless of whether or not dropping the bomb was actually moral, it did have the effect of demonstrating the full horror of what such a weapon could do in a way that no amount of atomic tests ever could. In effect, this may be the reason why the cold war never got hot: it scared the shit out of people.

So it's possible to view this as a case of "wrong action, right result."

Nowhere357

Very clearheaded interjection, Jinto.

Peace

nermal

Something always gets lost in this debate. Japan was the aggressor, they started the war. The priorities of the war department were essentially as follows:
1. Win the war
2. Minimize American civilian casualties at all cost
3. Minimize American military casualties as much as possible
4. Maximize enemy military casualties
5. Minimize enemy civilian casualties as much as practicable

In about that order. I submit that the order of these priorities were entirely rational considerting the U.S. was invaded by a hostile nation.
If a way exists to minimize American military casualties at the cost of enemy civilians, it should be utilized. Any blame or consequence should fall on the government that started the war.

Ed

Vorkosigan

While perhaps if we had done that, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians would thank us.

Impossible, since the death toll was probably less than 200,000.

Which claims do you think are wrong, exactly?

Almost all of them, although I accept the terrorism charge. That's precisely what it was. Can we take it over to the other thread? You can read that and get a sense of where I am coming from.

Vorkosigan

Mageth

Most of the claims made on this thread by the anti-bomb crowd are wrong.

How about those of Eisenhower et al, some of the top Allied military leaders at the time, who seemed to think it was unnecessary because Japan was ready to fold anyway, if we played our diplomatic cards right?

Vorkosigan

Postwar claims by men feeling guilty and without access to the Japanese government's conversations with itself? Please, please visit the Bombing Germany thread and read pages 3-4-5 where I have addressed all this in long and detailed posts. I don't want to repeat myself.

The simple fact is that Japan would not have surrendered, because the military, the Emperor, the Supreme War Council, the Cabinet and the Diet all agreed that the war would continue until Japan was destroyed in an orgy of death. There was never a Japanese plan to end the war, and there were no peace feelers from the government in Tokyo. I have dealt with this in detail in the other thread.

Vorkosigan