Nuking Japan

Over on the Liberty & Power group blog I just posted a brief comment on this poll, titled Sense of Death Objectivists.

Post 1

Monday, November 3, 2003 - 8:22pm

Mr. Long in his blog writes that "the poll is currently running 2 to 1 in favour of mass murder of civilian targets."

I think that this comment is a grave evasion of context.

At the very least, within the context of area bombing and the firebombings of World War 2, using the nuclear bombs against Japan probably saved Japanese lives because while the firebombings were killing more civilians than the nuclear bombs did, the nuclear bombs proved decisive in their moral impact and actually brought about Japanese surrender. The US would have continued their air campaign against the cities of Japan in the absence of using nuclear weapons as a prelude to eventual invasion. Whether or not strategic bombing was right is a more complicated issue, but the goal was never to cause mass murder as such but to save the lives of allied soldiers and shorten the war.

John Keegan made an interesting comment on this issue yesterday on CSPAN. He said that you have to look at which civilians you are trying to save. At the time, the Japanese were committing mass-murder and devastation themselves in China, (in the ongoing "Rice Raids" I think it was called) and while the nukes killed thousands of Japanese civilians, the earlier ending of the war saved thousands of Chinese civilians. Not to mention the many thousands of Korean women sex slaves whose hell was shortened, and the thousands of Americans who were dying and being tortured in Japanese POW camps.

But the strongest argument for using the nuclear weapons comes from Okinawa. The island of Okinawa is less than 80 miles long, on which the US deployed a quarter of a million troops in the Tenth Army supported by 1300 ships including 18 battleships and 40 aircraft carriers. Out of 120,000 Japanese soldiers defending the island, 110,000 died refusing to surrender. Many of the few who did surrender, only "surrendered" because they were too wounded to commit suicide and were overrun. Of the 450,000 Japanese civilians, 70,000 to 160,000 died, a huge portion of which committed suicide jumping off of cliffs rather than suffer capture by Americans. The US suffered 72,000 casualties (12,000 dead) after almost three months of intense fighting. One would have to be insane to want to see this played out in a much larger version on the main island of Japan. You have the famous 1 million casualties estimate for American soldiers, but that would probably be nothing next to the Japanese casualties in such an invasion.

You could argue about whether unconditional surrender was a legitimate goal to seek, but within that context, (and we were firmly committed to seeking unconditional surrender along with Britain and USSR), I think there can hardly be a question of whether using the nuclear bombs was justified.

Post 2

Monday, November 3, 2003 - 8:38pm

Hey Jeff. Might it have been more wise to detonate a first atomic bomb off the coast of Tokyo, and only drop the second on a more strategic area if the Japanese didn't surrender? The Japanese were obviously willing to eventually surrender--because they did--so maybe if we'd sent them a message saying "Don't look out over Tokyo Bay, because you'll go blind" and then demonstrated the power of our technology, they'd rethink any thoughts of continued struggle. If not, we always had the second bomb.

Thanks
J

Post 3

Monday, November 3, 2003 - 9:00pm

Assuming the context of individual rights, not of collectivist utilitarianism, person A doesn't have the right to kill innocent person B in order to prevent person C from killing innocent persons D and E. This principle holds all the more strongly, I think, when person A and person C are the same person.

Post 4

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 12:36am

How about when person's J support a government that initiates force against person's A, C, K, N, & Au, and keep initiating force even when some of their victims fight back and are winning and all logic says that person's J should stop using force against their victims, but nothing will make them stop while their victims step up and step up their efforts to stop the madness until finally their victims step up their measures enough and end things -- and then person's W accuse the victims of J of committing atrocities?

Roderick, I understand and appreciate that you raise the danger of falling into utilitarian analysis when speaking of morality. But when you have a choice to make, and no matter what you choose people are going to die, you have to make a choice based on some standard. So: Nuke Japan and thousands of Japanese civilians die in Hiroshima and Nagasaki or don't nuke Japan and thousands more Chinese die, millions of Japanese civilians die (some the same, some different), millions of Japanese soldiers, airmen, sailors, and militia die, and potentially suffer 1 million American casualties? No Truman did not have the moral right in some sense to condemn the populace of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to nuclear annihilation, but he was in an immoral situation to begin with created by the aggression of the Empire of Japan and their refusal to surrender and die to the last man on every foothold. The vast majority of the Japanese civilians supported their government. They were not in rebellion when the bombs dropped. And why should the victims of Japan be sacrificed in order to save supporters of the aggression? I think "hurt the aggressors rather than cause additional pain to the victims" is a good standard of judgment for such immoral situations.

Jeremy, I'm not sure if a demonstration would have been better. Maybe -- it was considered at the time -- but I don't have any particular reason to second-guess. Understand that the damage caused by the firebombing was enormous. The centers of the 100 largest cities in Japan were burned to the ground. The Japanese navy was annihilated. Their air force was wiped out. They didn't have the raw materials or food coming in to support the war. Why hadn't they surrendered already? And we only had two nukes at the time and didn't know what kind of success rate they would have. If the first one was a dud, then what? Also, the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima! We had to drop a second bomb to prove that we had more than one. Why would they surrender if we dropped a demonstration bomb? They would want a second demonstration to prove we had more than one!

Post 5

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 3:07am

Jeff, it's been documented http://www.historians.org/archive/hiroshima/190645.html that the Japanese government had been sending out feelers for peace ~at least~ a month before the bombs were dropped. The only true obstacle to Japan's unconditional surrender was the vagueness in the language of the Potsdam Proclamation. The main worry of the Japanese people and military was that "unconditional surrender" meant "the Imperial Line gets smashed too".

Granted, the Japanese had no moral grounds on which to make demands for favorable surrender terms or clarity in language, but which is more damaging: Allowing the Japanese to retain the Imperial throne? (which we did anyways) Or dropping two very devastating weapons on Japanese cities, killing not just those fueling the fires of Japanese aggression and continuance of the war but also the doves--who had been suing for peace through the Soviets for some time. Yes, we'd been--justifiably-- killing normal, hard-working, peace-loving Japanese citizens all through the war by bombing urban and industrial areas, but isn't dropping an atomic weapon or two on Japan sort of using a sledgehammer on an already charred and rotted piece of wood?

It's been postulated that if the Allies had more specifically stated, "You can keep your Emperor and form your own government--on our terms alone," (again, which we let them do anyways), the Japanese citizenry and military brass would have accepted terms of surrender long before the Soviets had declared war on Japan and advanced into the Pacific--thus creating quite a shit-storm for years to come. (e.g. Korean peninsula and Manchuria)

I should say I take no real issue with dropping bombs on secondary or even tertiary military targets; oft-times the infrastructure of a nation must be destroyed to incapacitate its military. Dropping conventional munitions--or even small yield nuclear weapons, if they'd existed--on Japan was justifiable all through the war, up until the Allies knew--through intercepted and decoded Japanese transmissions and being informed by Russia--that Japan was seeking peace. And the terms Japan required--that they keep the Imperial Line, among a few others that would have cost America nothing--were met anyways after their "unconditional" surrender.

As you say, Japan was beaten. And they knew it. So why didn't they surrender?
1. Japanese pride, for many of the military leaders.
2. Because Truman did not specifically state--as he was advised to do by Grew http://www.doug-long.com/grew.htm --what he meant by "unconditional surrender".

I stand by what I posted before. Let's say Truman still ignored advice to state clearly what the Potsdam Proclamation meant by "unconditional surrender." So no other option seems viable--to him--other than displaying our willingness to inflict massive damage on the whole of Japan, instantly and without warning--which is altogether the best way to fight a war. (Bombing raid sirens don't work too well with atomic weapons.)

You write, "...If the first one was a dud, then what?..."

Then we drop another, and another, until one goes off, however long it takes. In a month or two, even without invasion by the Allies, Japan's war efforts would have come crashing to the ground anyways. Especially if we'd continued with conventional bombing.

And, "...Why would they surrender if we dropped a demonstration bomb? They would want a second demonstration to prove we had more than one!..."

If we threaten them with ~visible~, astonishing, unstoppable destruction and all they do is scoff, they have sealed their own fate. We demonstrate the second bomb right over Hiroshima.

Thanks!
J

Post 6

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 6:03am

�Assuming the context of individual rights� � that�s the assumption that should be questioned. Is war a context of individual rights?

Are virtues cultivated for the purpose of furthering an on-going process of living � making one fit to live and prosper in a ethical-friendly environment of a civilized society? Or are virtues deontological � purposeless and holding in every context?

Does war require a different ethics � an �ethics of emergency� where dire concerns require a social calculus that is the antithesis of normal ethics � that is ethics according to the norms appropriate to flourishing individuals living a life appropriate to human achievement and self-actualization?

Does this describe the issue and contexts correctly?

Post 7

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 7:40am

Jeremy:
"The Japanese were obviously willing to eventually surrender--because they did--so maybe if we'd sent them a message saying "Don't lookout over Tokyo Bay, because you'll go blind"

That would have been really smart (not!). They'd have had the whole Japanese air force waiting for Enola Gay.

Also, "obviously willing to eventually surrender--because they did". That is a wonderful piece of logic ... it was obvious because, in hindsight, they did. According to your reasoning anything that happens would have been obvious.

Post 8

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 1:40pm

Jeremy, feelers are not the same as "I surrender." They were trying to negotiate terms, which was not on the table. I can't say for sure if dropping a demo would have been better or not. There are lots of uncertainties involved and it's hard to say. But what I will say is that it's absolutely ridiculous to assert that every voter here who said they support the bombing is in favor of mass-murder. Which brings me to,

Rick, I absolutely agree with you that it was an emergency situation. Virtues are principles formulated for the context of peaceful everyday living. To try to uphold some virtue in a context totally outside of where it was formulated seems to me to be rationalization. When you're in an emergency, you do what you have to do. You still hold your life as your standard but most of the principles like honesty, NIOF, etc. may no longer apply.

Post 9

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 3:03pm

One further point on this. A fact that is not often highlighted is that the time lapse between the dropping of the first and second bombs was three days. Not an hour or a day, but *three days*. In light of this fact it seems to me very difficult to argue that Japanese surrender was 'inevitable' and that the bombings were therefore unnecessary.

How could this be, when the Japanese government chose *not* to surrender, even three whole days on from the nuclear bombing of one of its major cities, Hiroshima? It took *two* nuclear attacks to force a surrender.

Post 10

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 3:16pm

Rick writes:

Jeremy:
"The Japanese were obviously willing to eventually surrender--because they did--so maybe if we'd sent them a message saying "Don't lookout over Tokyo Bay, because you'll go blind"

That would have been really smart (not!). They'd have had the whole Japanese air force waiting for Enola Gay.

This was a generic statement of warning. I'm not an idiot. :)

Jeff, I never said anyone was a mass murderer, or that they supported mass murder. Like you say, it was an emergency situation--war. An incorrect decision in war is not necessarily immoral. For instance, a commander can make a decision in battle that will cost the lives of his men. His actions and commands directly caused the unnecessary death of others--his men--and would in a civilian light qualify as murder. But do to the emergency qualifications of war, he could never be charged with a crime if the deaths were not intentional, no matter how glaringly obvious the mistake was--in hindsight or otherwise. I'm contesting the right or wrongness of a military decision made by the commander-in-chief. Not the moral rectitude of anyone here.

J

Post 11

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 4:00pm

Jonathan, you're completely right in your assessment of the time lapse between Hiroshima (AUG 6th, 1945) and Nagasaki (AUG 9th, 1945). They should have surrendered. So in the light of already dropping one atomic weapon, dropping a second was the next logical step, for Truman.

In fact, even after both bombs were dropped, Japan still would not surrender without a guarantee of the continuance of their Imperial system, which was given to them in veiled terms before accepting (on AUG 14th, 1945) "unconditional surrender." (Unconditional surrender, with conditions :) ) Couldn't Truman have given them this before attacking with atomics? What prevented him from doing so?

Post 12

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 7:07pm

Rick, just wanted to compliment you on your post. I was considering an article on just that topic (Ethics of Emergencies), but you stole my thunder. Bravo.

I'll make one point though. In an emergency situation, Objectivist ethics still has to give us some guidance. But it's important to remember that life is the standard of that moral system, as opposed to the non-initiation of force. It's life that needs to be held as the absolute, and NIOF as the conclusion in most contexts. Libertarians get that backwards occasionally.

Jeremy, I don't think the comment about mass murder wasn't directed at you, but Roderick Long, who's original post mentioned it.

Post 13

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 7:49pm

Perhaps the mass murder comment wasn't directed at me, Joe, but I felt a certain distinction was called for. On the one hand, we have Mr. Long stating that voting in favor of nuking Japan is tantamount to advocation of mass murder. Which is wrong. On the other, Jeff sees the bombings as a necessity. Which is also wrong. A synthesis of the two would be: Although dropping atomic weapons on Japan can be considered a tactical and political mistake, the perpetrators of it, or those who support it, can't be consigned to the realm of Hitler and Stalin. It was a military decision, and as such falls under the category of "Emergency Ethics". It has nothing to do with concentration camps or war crimes.

~Unless~ the decision to use atomic weapons was influenced by Truman's politics or personal affrontery. If he dropped the weapons in an effort to display American might and technology, the attack was immoral. If he used them because he saw them as the only way to end the war, then he was just another mistaken military commander (1) because Japan had been "showing surrender" at its highest levels of diplomacy and (2) he chose to ignore advise from prominent advisors on Japan.

Atomic attacks were not necessary to end the war, from the evidence I have read through. But the term "mass murder" doesn't enter into the equation.

Post 14

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 9:26pm

Apologies for a typographical error. It was Sam that addressed me earlier, not Rick .

Post 15

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 9:33pm

Apologies for a typographical error. It was Sam that addressed me earlier, not Rick .

Post 16

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 9:35pm

Grrr....

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 9:44pm

Jeremy, "mass murder" was definitely in reference to the first post of this thread.

Also, diplomats often try to waste time at the bargaining table or "show surrender", buying time for other purposes. From ancient times to the Vietnam War, talk is notoriously cheap.

But I think we pretty much agree philosophically, that this is mostly an issue of facts and making a hard decision, not a gross breach of morality.

Post 18

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - 5:57am

Thanks, Jeff and Joe.

Jeff described the WWII situation perfectly (second post in this thread). We have to keep that context in mind.

There is no evidence that the Japanese sincerely sought peace. The flimsy theories about �feelers� don�t prove much since there are many motives for such actions. For example, they may have wanted to see if we were weary and wanted to quit. Indeed, in war there can even be false surrenders let alone false �feelers�. One needs far more to show the intentions of the Imperial Japanese, which should have been obtained during the occupation � and wasn�t.

Let me put forth another thesis for critique. Were the A-bombs a bluff? The fact that the Japanese were willing to fight and die in combat was legendary. I�ve read that we were killing as many civilians by conventional weapons every two days as we killed by one A-bomb. The A-bomb showed a capacity to kill that was unimagined by the Japanese warlords. Or did it? From what I remember, it would have taken on the order of 6 months to create another two bombs. We really didn�t have a new capacity to deploy in combat on a continual basis. Dropping those two bombs were a bluff � giving the impression that we could fight in a new way. If this is true, we have to ask: was dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki instead of Tokyo a risk we should not have taken? If this bluff didn�t work, many Americans would have died in the continued war (most likely my father). Was this reckless?

Post 19

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - 7:50am