Nuking Japan

I’ve read those quotes before. Is it propaganda? Who knows why members of the Japanese establishment said or took such actions? One needs a much fuller analysis – not selected quotes. Why should we halt our attack on Japan and allow it to regroup? Truman was right not have taken chances with Japan and allow it to resume business as usual. The Japanese way of life, i.e. culture, was demonstrated in China, Pearl Harbor, Korea, the Philippines, etc. You suggest Truman should have compromised? Haven’t we learned how appeasement and weakness only encourages the militaristic fascists?

In every battle, of nations and individuals, there is always a question of the exact moment when you know the enemy is defeated. It often isn’t certain until one looks back. We, those of us fighting for liberty against fascists, deserve the benefit of the doubt. The fascists deserve full moral blame for bringing war to the world and making our actions necessary regardless of our re-evaluations with the benefit of hindsight.

No one who fights for liberty wants to neither deploy men and women needlessly nor harm anyone if it can be avoid without risk to our cause. However, we deserve the benefit of the doubt – if there was a doubt. There are far more Allied soldiers who died because of mistakes by our military leaders that warranted moral hand-wringing - long before we consider enemy casualties that could have been avoided with smarter decision making.

Context-keeping requires understanding a battle (or action in a battle) with regards to the whole. It also requires that we assess risks given the context at the time. We took a chance that Japan might not stop (perhaps for months) if the two A-bombs destroyed only secondary cities. I don't know enough to know if that risk was wise or reckless.

Post 21

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - 9:48am

Rick, I don't get agitated very often but I can't help but ask if you noticed what I posted earlier. If not, I'll reiterate.

"Truman was right not have taken chances with Japan and allow it to resume business as usual. The Japanese way of life, i.e. culture, was demonstrated in China, Pearl Harbor, Korea, the Philippines, etc. You suggest Truman should have compromised?"

Compromised? What the hell is so difficult about saying, "Sure, keep your figurehead Emperor...we don't care. Just don't ever try to fight us again."? If such words were a total compromise on morality, and required some apologist view of fascism to be spoken, then we should have just made Japan a satellite of America and gotten it over with. But they ~were~ spoken, and they ~weren't~ that difficult after dropping two atomic weapons, were they? Either way, atomic bombs or no, Japan would have surrendered.

"The fascists deserve full moral blame for bringing war to the world and making our actions necessary regardless of our re-evaluations with the benefit of hindsight."

I don't think I ever said, "Come on now, guys. They didn't mean it."

In fact, I said on one occasion: "...Yes, we'd been--justifiably-- killing normal, hard-working, peace-loving Japanese citizens all through the war by bombing urban and industrial areas..." and "...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..."

Until you discover the other side is 1) incapable of further sustained military action 2) presents signs of surrender.

This wasn't on some grassy, isolated field of battle, were the United States had a split second to make a key decision and thus end the war. Japan had been wasting away for months. Yes, don't give up the fight, don't lose momentum, but certainly, ~don't drop atomic weapons on the other guy just because you're a little pissed off.~ Negotiation wasn't even on the table. Here's what a "negotiation" would have sounded like:
Japan: "Can we keep our Emperor, and our culture?"
Allies: "Sure, just don't fuck with us again, or you get the Big One."
Japan: "Deal. War's over."
Allies: "Great. We'll be moved in by Tuesday."
Japan: "Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto."

And wouldn't ya know it, all this was said after the atomic bombs were dropped (except for that last past). Perhaps a little more timely offering by Truman would have...? But no. Propaganda--even stuff that comes from NSA intercepts of Japanese transmissions--can't be relied upon. They had to know we'd cracked their code.

"There are far more Allied soldiers who died because of mistakes by our military leaders that warranted moral hand-wringing - long before we consider enemy casualties that could have been avoided with smarter decision making."

I left active duty in the Army five months ago. Do the math and consider whether I have friends still in, and whether I wring my hands more over their deaths or Iraqis.

I consider this done, fin, complete, fleshed-out and fully discussed.:)

Thanks for the hearty debate, Rick, Jeff, Sam, and Roderick.

J

Post 22

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - 10:23am

You reduce Japanese culture to the mere tradition of having an Emperor – I don’t (as I indicated). Thus, I don’t see this (having an Emperor) as the only issue the Japanese were fighting for and holding out for.

You suggest negotiation backed up by threats. We were killing as many people every two days equivalent to one A-bomb. Threats of killing are not going to work if killing doesn’t.

Jeremy, you’re making assertions that I don’t see supported by the record. Now, neither you nor I can reiterate the whole record without writing a book. Thus, neither can answer the other. We can only summarize our positions (and yes it is frustrating). We’ll have to agree to disagree.

Thanks,
Rick

Post 23

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - 3:46pm

Yeah Rick. Agreed.

Wednesday, November 5, 2003 - 5:56pm

I get sick hearing about the so called
"MASS MURDER of INNOCENT CIVILIANS"
if the country is the initiator of the violence
and the citizens are not actively fighting their countries gov. then they are fair game.

Post 25

Friday, November 7, 2003 - 3:32am

How do we go about assessing whether or not the bombings were worth the cost? My speculation is that most people do a mental calculation wherein some number of innocent deaths is an acceptable cost to pay, while some other number becomes "too many." if we knew, let’s say, that millions of people would die in the bombing most people would oppose it. A hundred thousand, though? That’s more reasonable. If only a a few tens of thousands were to die, by all means, send in the B52's. A few, (or a few thousand), innocent deaths is just an unfortunate but necessary by-product of war. It may save some lives elsewhere!

Such thinking is, for lack of a better word, evil.

It’s easy to support the murders of several thousand people many thousands of miles away who you will never be forced to look in the eye. It is quite another thing to envision just one innocent death, and make it your own parent, spouse, or child. Let’s be honest: we can’t know the cost. We can’t even begin to conceive of the cost.

How dare we even ask the question of whether it is worth it when we are forced to bear little of the cost ourselves? We ought to feel deeply ashamed.

Socialists not Objectivists talk of 'the greater good'

Post 26

Friday, November 7, 2003 - 2:03pm

This is really one of the most interesting discussion threads I've seen in awhile.

Nothing gives anyone the moral right to make decisions for other people (unless they give you that right), or to make decisions which take away another's ability to make their own decisions in life. Taking someone's life is the ultimate act of robbing them of ANY potential for decision--you're taking away their very conciousness and existence qua concious being. Or as Clint Eastwood said in the excellent "Unforgiven" --"It's a hell of a thing to kill a man. You take away all he's got and all he'll ever have."

Of course, your moral duty to refrain from imposing upon others ends where your existence begins. ALL of Jeff's excellent observations about an invasion of mainland Japan are spot on. And particular kudos to the fellow who noted that the first and second atomic bomb were dropped a few days apart. So much for 'they surrendered--so it was obvious they wanted to surrender.'

And as always, Joe cut right to the chase with his observation that a MORALITY for living is a morality FOR LIVING. Without life in the equation, these issues are meaningless.

I would just like to add that it makes me queasy that it is ~so~ fashionable to second guess our historical defenders of liberty to make them appear to be craven, war mongerers, when in fact, their actions were on behalf of civilization, taken to spare lives.

Post 27

Friday, November 7, 2003 - 2:59pm

"It’s easy to support the murders of several thousand people many thousands of miles away who you will never be forced to look in the eye. It is quite another thing to envision just one innocent death, and make it your own parent, spouse, or child. Let’s be honest: we can’t know the cost. We can’t even begin to conceive of the cost.

How dare we even ask the question of whether it is worth it when we are forced to bear little of the cost ourselves? We ought to feel deeply ashamed."

Where should I start? A being of volitional concious will always choose--we can't help but. Man's means of survival is his mind, so he will choose to think, or choose not to, to his detriment. In WWII, the US had a choice--between the death of freedom, its citizens, and its allies' citizens --OR-- to act to thwart and kill the enemy aggressors that startred the mess in the fioorst place. Remember Pearl Harbor? How much regard for life did they have then? Couldn't they have just shot a few guns in the air to let us know they meant business? What about the slaughter of millions of innocent Jews and Slavs in Europe? It is all too easy to sit back in the armchair enjoyed by all Monday morning quarterbacks and criticize the decisions of history. In the comfort provided by those historical defenders of freedom and civilization, I might add.

How dare we decide to value our lives over the lives our our enemies? How dare we use our rational capacities to compare values and decide which are greater and which lesser? How dare we? How could we possibly NOT dare to do these things, and fly in the face of our means of survival? And what motivation could you possibly have for casting the entire question into an immoral light?
What kind of philosophy do you follow if you favor the lives of those who would kill you over those who provide you succor? Tell you what, if you are ever mugged, beaten or killed, if you fight back and harm one hair on the head of your attacker, then you are a hypocrite. Because you do not value the health, safety and life of your attacker.

Post 28

Friday, November 7, 2003 - 5:54pm

Nobody seems to quite understand the depth of the strength of the "samuri" code - MANY in the Japanese Military - after TWO Atomic Bombs - and mind you, we didn't have any more, and it was not easy to make them so fast, still wanted to fight on! There was a military coup attempt, that were it not for some bad luck, would have captured the Emporer and prevented the surrender. Also, it has come to light they had thousands of jet and rocket fighters, hidden in caves, ready to hit our fleet in swarms of kamikazee attacks. I cannot say for certain what would have happened, but I know that they were utterly ruthless and willing to die, and we really had no choice but to drop the atomic weapons - I will grant you that negotiations, and the "unconditional surrendur" ultimatum, were possibly botched, but never doubt that their surrender was not a foregone conclusion. Just because it did happen does not mean it was inevitable, nor that the people here in power could know. Tell me - when you see all those people commit suicide rather than surrender, what do you think was likely? You sit back decades later, living in freedom, and it seems impossible that they could be so irrational, but they were. It is amazing and a testament to the morality of the USA, given all that, that we even hesitated a moment. Very few others would have even given it a second thought.

Post 29

Sunday, November 9, 2003 - 1:37am

The collectivist mindset is active on this site. Lots of nationalist talk of WE and THEY. Were children and babies in Nagasaki really anyones enemy?
Remember Pearl Harbour! Was a direct result of US aggression and blockade of Japan. FDR was told that such actions would lead to war, which of course he wanted.
There is a huge difference in the use of defensive force to repel an attacker and targeting innocent civilians as they lie in their beds. If I am mugged by my neighbour, I don't have the moral right to murder his entire family!

And since when was FDR ever a defender of liberty?
Atlas goes on:" In WWII, the US had a choice--between the death of freedom, its citizens, and its allies' citizens --OR-- to act to thwart and kill the enemy aggressors that started the mess in the fioorst place". Rubbish. They actually could have stayed well out of 'that mess' and saved countless American lives. American liberty was never at stake, accept by the US govt who took away liberty when they introduced the draft.

Why does this site attract so many appologists for the state and so many who get off on war and death.

Post 30

Sunday, November 9, 2003 - 7:53pm

Oh where, oh where did the Terrorists learn to Wage War on Civilians? Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki or from the “Great Centralizer” himself, better known as the “Great Emancipator”, our very own President Abraham Lincoln.

Abraham Lincoln's "train of abuses" far exceeded those that provoked our Founding Fathers to declare independence from Britain.

In conducting a War on the South, Lincoln encouraged his generals to violate international law, the U.S. Military Code and the moral prohibition against waging war on civilians. Lincoln urged his generals to conduct TOTAL war against the Southern civilian population, to slaughter them with bombardments, to burn their homes, barns and towns, to use rape as a weapon of war, to destroy foodstuffs, and to leave women, children and the elderly in the cold of winter without shelter or a scrap of food.

In order to carry out President Lincoln's wishes, a new kind of soldier was needed. Gen. Sherman filled his regiments with big city criminals and foreigners fresh from the jails of Europe. The war against the Southern civilian population was fought with the immigrant soldier.

Lincoln broke with long-established rules of warfare by intentionally waging war on unarmed civilians-- establishing the precedent for the extermination of the Plains Indians beginning just a few months after Lee's surrender…

Oh where, oh where did the Truman’s of this world learn to Wage War on Civilians? In order to carry out Truman’s wishes, a new kind of fighting machine was needed. The war against the Japanese civilian population was fought with Atomic bombs.

Oh where, oh where did the Terrorists learn to Wage War on Civilians?

Who would have imagined that our Statue of Liberty’s 156 TONS of copper and steel is but a fraction of the amount of Uranium 238 left in the back yard of Iraq, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Korea…Puerto Rico, Okinawa…courtesy of OUR freedom shredding politicians…

As did Lincoln so do his heirs practice irrational and anarchic freedom. Bomb’s away…and who cares if Uranium 238 gets into the air, water, soil, lungs, bones, kidney’s, sperm and chromosomes of those so fortunate to be liberated and liberating.

We are a very long way from the vision of our Founding Fathers.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20020320.shtml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo8.html

Post 31

Sunday, November 9, 2003 - 8:17pm

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 3:09am

Well said Anthony. I know we are out-numbered by the warmongers on this site but truth is a great ally.

Post 33

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 5:33am

There you go again, No 6, - giving us the old Rothbardian/Raimondo propaganda: we are the aggressors, not Japan; we are the warmongers, not Japan. Ever wonder why you paleos are an embarrassment to the libertarian movement?

Post 34

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 8:50am

No.6 and Anthony sound a lot like Chomsky. Mouthing the appropriate sentiments--"Well yes, of course 911 was an act of evil"--usually followed with a "but", then a rant on how it's all ACTUALLY America's fault. Get your priorities straight, fellas.

Post 35

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 8:29pm

"Remember Pearl Harbour! Was a direct result of US aggression and blockade of Japan. FDR was told that such actions would lead to war, which of course he wanted."

If you actually READ Atlas Shrugged - one of the perfectly legitimate things to do is stop trading (or working for) with murderers and plunderers, lest you forget the millions of Chinese they had been slaughtering, we had no obligation to sell goods to keep the Japanese War machine fueled!

Also, Ayn Rand repeatedly stated herself that a Nation has an obligation to defend its people and that civilans are NOT innocent - because they are members of that aggressive Nation.

Now, often it is a better course NOT to hurt civilians if at all possible, but not always. Also, Hiroshima was a smaller city (not Tokyo) and contributed to the Japanese War effort through industrial production of military equipment - which, yes was used to kill people.

I don't see how I would need to list all the crimes of Germany and Japan - the Bataan Death March, Millions of Chinese killed by Plague and just plain old bayonets (and no, they didnt start the war, they were trying to avoid war), Human experiments. They were a Nation of absolute psychopathic mindset. We owed their civilians Nothing, Zero. They reaped everything they got, and even today - unlike most Germans - they try to deny their crimes.

I am amazed anyone is even having this discussion - these folks cannot be Objectivists.

Post 36

Monday, November 10, 2003 - 10:39pm

To those who have active minds and an interest in the truth: Professor Thomas DiLorenzo writes in his book “The Real Lincoln” that had the South won the war, there is no doubt that Lincoln and his generals -- Grant, Sherman and Sheridan -- would have been hung as war criminals under the Geneva Convention of 1863. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20020320.shtml

“…Sherman himself admitted after the war that he was taught at West Point that he could be hanged for the things he did. But in war the victors always write the history and are never punished for war crimes, no matter how heinous. Only the defeated suffer that fate. That is why very few Americans are aware of the fact that the unspeakable atrocities of war committed against civilians, from the firebombing of Dresden, the rape of Nanking, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to the World Trade Center bombings, had their origins in Lincoln’s war. This is yet another reason why Americans will continue their fascination with the War for Southern Independence.” http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo8.html

Post 37

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 1:11pm

"I am amazed anyone is even having this discussion - these folks cannot be Objectivists."

Said after making gross, collectivist generalizations about whole populations. Go figure.

Post 38

Tuesday, November 11, 2003 - 10:13pm

civilans are NOT innocent - because they are members of that aggressive Nation! So said Ayn Rand. Mmmm
So said Osama also.

This is collectivist rubbish. Most civilians are totally disenfranchised. How could a child for example be anything other than innocent?

And again the language above is so collectivist. Here is a great example: "They were a Nation of absolute psychopathic mindset. We owed their civilians Nothing, Zero. They reaped everything they got, and even today - unlike most Germans - they try to deny their crimes".
This thinking is grotesque nationalism and is responsible for the ongoing mass murder on this planet.

To Kurt, Salim, Rick et al. Your blind nationalism and disregard for individual rights makes me Puke!

Post 39

Thursday, November 13, 2003 - 11:42pm