WW2, The United States, and Nukes

[Smoke]

Was the United States justified in using nuclear weapons on Japan in WW2? It put an early end to the war. I've heard estimates that 100,000 American lives where saved. What's your opinion? I think we all can agree it was horrific, but did the end justify the means?

Jesus taught that we should treat others as we would like to be treated and that we should turn the other cheek when attacked. One of the reasons I'm no longer a Christian is that Christians don't accept the teachings of Jesus.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Maybe bush was too much of a peace-nick after all when considering his tactics in Iraq....in retrospect, wouldn't it have been better to nuke them, too?

Great idea. If a nuc has been dropped in Afghanistan where Osama is located, then Osama would have been evaporated, and we would have no more threat from AlQaeda.:biglaugh:

May be it is not too late to do that yet. Afterall in this thread, so many Americans think that Nagasaki and Hiroshima civilian death save many Americans and others, how about doing the nuc on those countries such as the three axis of evil, and bring peace to the world?

 

[greatcalgarian]

econd World War (1937-45) 50 million
Haywood: Atlas of World History (1997): 50M
Keegan, J., The Second World War (1989): 50M
Messenger, The Chronological Atlas of World War Two (1989): 50M
The Times Concise Atlas of World History (1988): 50M
J.M. Roberts, Twentieth Century (1999): >50M
Brzezinski:
Military: 19M
Civilians, "actual byproduct of hostilities": 20M
Civilians, Sino-Japanese War: 15M
Hitler's murders: 17M
TOTAL: 71M
Rummel:
European War Dead (1939-45): 28,736,000
Sino-Japanese War Dead (1937-45): 7,140,000
War-related Democides
Hitler: 20,946,000
Stalin: 13,053,000
Japanese: 5,964,000
Chinese Nationalist: 5,907,000
Allied Bombing: 796,000
Croatian: 655,000
Tito: 600,000
Romanian domestic democide: 484,000
Chinese Communist: 250,000
Hungarian democide in Yugoslavia: 78,000
[TOTAL: 48,733,000]
[TOTAL (1937-45): 84,609,000]

If you look at the figure, Nagasaki and Hiroshima is relatively small. If we have the death figure of US, you will find that, again that is negligible compared to Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So if the war drag on for another year, what do you think will add on to the above figures?

The only reason I can think of is Americans think American human lifes are more precious than the human life of the rest of the world. This is reflected in the US world policy after world war II. US would spend $$$ to have war happening all over the world other than the soil of US to avoid war happening to US. 9/11 could have changed all that fallacy and thinking, by having the first time since the Pearl Habour that American soil was attacked. It remained to be seen whether American current policy of fighting terrorism will keep US soil free from being attack.

 

[jeffrey]

So, if some people break into my house, kill a couple of my kids, threaten to kill more, take my house and possessions, do I not fight back because their lives are as precious as my family's? Or send my kids to fight them with knives, because that's all they have is knives, instead of using my gun to kill them? I think not.

 

[Smoke]

So, if some people break into my house, kill a couple of my kids, threaten to kill more, take my house and possessions, do I not fight back because their lives are as precious as my family's? Or send my kids to fight them with knives, because that's all they have is knives, instead of using my gun to kill them? I think not.

That's a breathtakingly bad analogy for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[jeffrey]

That's a breathtakingly bad analogy for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I think it's a pretty good one myself. But of course, you don't offer a solution, just sarcasm.

 

[Smoke]

I think it's a pretty good one myself. But of course, you don't offer a solution, just sarcasm.

I didn't offer a solution or sarcasm. Do you honestly think the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of armed brigands threatening to murder your children?

 

[jeffrey]

On a much smaller scale. Japan attacked us, would have occupied and taken over our country. They were not that far removed from doing that. If they would have had nukes, they would have used them on us. From what I understand, on the other side of the war, Hitler was only 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon himself. No telling how close Japan was.

 

[Smoke]

On a much smaller scale. Japan attacked us, would have occupied and taken over our country. They were not that far removed from doing that. If they would have had nukes, they would have used them on us. From what I understand, on the other side of the war, Hitler was only 6 months away from having a nuclear weapon himself. No telling how close Japan was.

Do you believe that in August 1945 there was an imminent danger of the United States being conquered and occupied by Japan?

Historical questions aside, let's look at the moral implications. You seem to be maintaining that it's morally acceptable for the United States to slaughter large numbers of civilians in other countries because of (1) actions those countries' governments have taken, (2) the threat of those countries' military might, and (3) fears of what those countries' governments might do in the future. How does that moral judgment transfer to other situations?

a) Would you agree that it was morally acceptable for the Bush Administration to invade Iraq (resulting in civilian loss of life) because of actions the Iraqi government had taken in the past, because of fears that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, and/or because of fears of what the Iraqi government might do in the future? Why or why not?

b) Would you agree that it would be morally acceptable for the Bush Administration to invade Iran and North Korea (resulting in civilian loss of life) for the same reasons? Why or why not?

c) Would you agree that the Clinton administration was morally justified in invading Yugoslavia (resulting in civilian loss of life) because of fears that the Yugoslav government was perpetrating genocide against ethnic Albanians? Why or why not?

d) Would you agree that, in view of U.S. aid to Britain in World War II and the U.S. military presence in the Pacific, the Japanese were morally justified in their attack on Pearl Harbor? Why or why not?

e) Would you agree that if Japan had developed nuclear weapons first, it would have been morally acceptable for them to bomb Denver, Boston, and Atlanta to prevent further Japanese deaths and the conquest and occupation of their country? Why or why not?

f) Would you agree that in view of the facts that the United States has weapons of mass destruction and has used them in the past, that the United States has scant regard for human rights and a record of supporting corrupt and oppressive governments in the past and present, and that the United States has been meddling in the Middle East to malign effect for decades, a group of Arabs would be morally justified in attacking Washington, D.C. and New York City? Why or why not?

g) When you believe it's morally acceptable to slaughter other human beings to achieve your goals -- whatever those goals may be -- where do you draw the line?

h) Is it ever morally acceptable to view another human being not as your brother or sister, or as a person created in the image of God, but as an object that may legitimately be destroyed to achieve a strategic objective?

i) Do the teachings of Jesus have any practical application in the real world?

 

[jeffrey]

Briefly, I don't believe we should have ever invaded Iraq. I think we should mind our own business, which we were doing until Japan woke up the sleepy little town of Pearl Harbor. Reverse it. Lets say we did not drop the bomb. It ended up costing America 100,000 more lives, and Japan 200,000 more lives. Would you be happy then? And yes, we have a right to defend ourselves.

 

[jeffrey]

And I'm still waiting to hear what you think America should have done

 

[Smoke]

And I'm still waiting to hear what you think America should have done

This is the first time you've asked me, and I note that you haven't answered my questions.

However, you are seeing the matter in terms of two nations with incompatible objectives, and I'm seeing it in terms of people killing other people. I don't believe that killing people is in accordance with the teachings of Jesus. Do you?

 

[Thorin the Skald]

I feel we did what needed to be done to end the war. With the Germans as well. And, look at what we have done to help both countries recover since then. That alone speaks for itself. We did not go in and just set up shop and rule their country.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I feel we did what needed to be done to end the war. With the Germans as well. And, look at what we have done to help both countries recover since then. That alone speaks for itself. We did not go in and just set up shop and rule their country.

War can be ended in many way. The question is whether dropping A-bomb onto Hiroshima and Nagasaki is the only solution, or is the best alternative at that time.

Most people feel that utilization of A bomb was a good decision immediately after the WWII. When more facts were learned, and the horror of the outcome of the A-bomb was learned, we are hearing more and more people changing their stand. However, there are still a group still persisted dropping A-bomb was justified.

A lot of people suffered by Japan expansionism and militarism. Even today, many Japanese are still retaining their military superiority complex and race superiority complex (the A-bomb did not change that). However, I think that is still not justified to impose suffering to those innocent civilian in the two cities, many may not be supportive of the government.

The basic question is: if the bombs were not dropped, and conventional war was to continue, how many death will it take before Japan finally surrendered? Will the number be less than that of the two cities? Perhaps much less, perhaps Japan to Alliance ratio will be 2:1. And within Alliance death, perhaps American will only be 5 or 10%. Obviously those who supported the dropping of the bomb is more concern about this small number of Americans rather than the other death?