Octokun

Meritocrat, by you're reasonong then the innocent lives lost on 9-11 were also justified since the terrorists and organizers of the attacks had declared war on the U.S.; or, in their words, a "holy" war.
But I hardly hear anyone other then the supporters of the events saying the killings of those people were justified.

Vorkosigan

Remind me again. When did the US attack Bin Laden or his supporters and start a war with them?

Vorkosigan

Amen-Moses

First off I haven't read any of the thread past the OP.

Secondly my personal feeling is that if the first bomb had been dropped in (not an air burst but a sub-sea detonation) Tokyo harbour the destruction of the remaining naval units plus the resulting Tsunami would have been a sufficient demonstration of effective power of the weaponry.

The second weapon would (if required) still be available to strike at a more damaging (from a collateral pov) target.

Amen-Moses

Amen-Moses

Clinton sent 160+ cruise missiles against Afghanistan targets alone!

Amen-Moses

enigma555

The Japanese were not planning on surrendering.

They were training their women and children in hand to hand to repel the US invasion, for pete's sake.

When word was sent to the war cabinet that Hiroshima had been bombed, they didn't bat an eye.

War is ugly. WWII was uglier than most. The bombs ended the war. The bombs were justified.

We cannot use 21st century morality to judge the actions of mid 20th century leaders. We weren't there.

Jolimont

For every historian that pushes your view there are dozens that say Japan was about to surrender. But I suspect that won't cause you to reconsider. Do you always look for the historical perspective that makes you feel warm and fuzzy about your country or are you interested in other views?

Nowhere357

Then I suppose there is no point in considering the ethics and morality of the inquisitioners, for example. We weren't there.

nermal

Sorry to interject here, but it doesn't matter a whit if Japan was or was not about to surrender. It only matters what the War Department knew.
The fighting in Micronesia demonstrated a warrior fanatacism on the part of the Japanese--they showed an unwillingness to surrender even when their cause was clearly lost.
Couple that with the desparate efforts of the Kamikazee fighter pilots and any reasonable person would have reason to doubt Japan's eminent surrender.
The bottom line is the War Department was faced with several unpalatable options, and they chose the option which would cost the fewest American Servicemen's lives, and have a probable outcome of victory. This was their mission; it was their obligation to the servicemen the Japanese were killing, and their obligation to the Americans at home suffering the economic and social consequences of a war they never asked for.

Ed

Nowhere357

I don't disagree with your post, nermal.

I have a question. If we HAD started the war, would that change your opinion? Would it then be "wrong" to have dropped the bombs?

Does the morality of mass human destruction change, if we feel justified in our anger?

Vorkosigan

Ah, that most delightful combination of high minded moral indignation and ignorance. Jolimont, do me a favor and bring me the evidence that says Japan was "about to" surrender. Government decisions, etc. Not generalized crap about how awful a state Japan was in.

And next time you attempt to clamber up to the moral high ground, you damn well better bring some serious hikin' boots.

Vorkosigan