Was the atomic bombing of Japan ethical

Terrorism is cool when it's the winning party doing it.

Other than that I agree with Aprillas post on page 1 that Major Toms bleakest estimations are prolly not true. Atomic bombs themselves aren't unethical, but at least with the bigger ones it's kind of hard limit the damage to hostiles.

It's only a war crime if the opposing side gets a shot at putting you to trial.

More seriously, no, the estimates for Downfall were bloated, but even realistically it was going to be absurd. It would have been vaguely similar to the island campaign but blown up to a much larger scale and with a much less logical or sane opponent.

Also, I don't comprehend why anyone would think anything less than unconditional surrender is acceptable. Not getting unconditional surrender is what caused WWII, via WWI.

But Japan had the draft during WWII, right? If civilians are being forced to join the military against their will, doesn't the ethical distinction between civilians and hostile soldiers kinda evaporate?

edited 18th Dec '11 9:52:08 AM by RavenWilder

Even if we were to accept that reasoning draft doesn't apply to everyone. And another counterpoint: does that make anyone allowed to enlist in places without draft an Acceptable Target?

The question really isn't the motivations or identity of the persons involved, it's whether or not they're armed and hostile. Draftees are still carrying weapons and will still shoot at you.

And Raven Wilder was giving a justification to off civilians because they have the potential to become armed hostiles.

The Rules of War didn't really apply till 1946 because of this and the fire bombing of Dresden.

Like... I am sorry... But I dont see how vaporizing 700 000 people and leaving many other millions either blind, deaf, horribly burned, orphaned, or irradiated something I am sure needs no explanation as to why is a horrible thing... could be considered ethical.

Specially considering the nature of Pearl Harbour and of the war itself.

edited 18th Dec '11 1:03:06 PM by Baff

It's not ethical. It's just more logical a response than Operation Downfall.

Yes. You win the thread.

^^I'm agreed there. I'd really, really hate to be the person handed the decision of "so...do we do this horrible, horrible thing, or should we go for that horrible, horrible thing instead?"

...but I've been saying that the whole thread... o_o

@Qeise: Everyone in Japan was involved in the war. No exceptions. That's what total war is.

@Baff: Dropping the nukes was the option that was going to kill the fewest people, actually. How would invading the home islands, while facing a fully armed, completely hostile population being pressed into service by the Japanese military (it was mentioned earlier by someone that if the civilians didn't fight when they were told, the army would just shoot them anyways) result in fewer casualties, especially considering the fact that the Americans would, quite likely, not give any quarter, since the Japanese had a nasty habit of faking surrender? How would a blockade and continued bombardment (which was the Navy's alternative plan, and one which was scrapped in favor of an invasion) not kill more people than dropping the bombs, when the firebombing of Tokyo had already done more damage than either nuclear bomb? That's just the bombing part; what about the millions of Japanese who would be forced to die in slow starvation, over the months it would take to force an unconditional surrender? What about the people living in areas still occupied by the Japanese? Do you think it would have been worth it to subject them to continued plunder, rape, and murder by the soldiers still stuck out there? That's not even mentioning the fact that Downfall would have killed far more Japanese, over a much wider area than Hiroshima or Nagasaki, so the suffering that was a direct result of the atomic bombs is nothing compared to the sheer horror that would come about with an invasion of Japan.

edited 18th Dec '11 2:30:54 PM by tropetown

The fact that Japan had already offered a conditional surrender, and we went ahead and bombed them anyway prevents me from accepting that answer, really.

Actually, the US offered them more or less the same terms of surrender that they gave to Germany; the Japanese refused, they got bombed, and then they accepted them. Had they simply recognized that they had lost, and not tried to end the war on their terms (seriously, does anyone really think the Japanese military had the right to demand that they "save face", after all the horrible things they'd been doing?), the whole thing would have been avoided.

They wanted a conditional surrender earlier, yes, but the fact that they would rather force their civilians to die fighting the US than accept the terms of surrender (when there was really no way they could negotiate any differently) makes me lose all sympathy for them.

edited 18th Dec '11 2:38:46 PM by tropetown

By that logic, though, planes should never be used to attack infantry soldiers, since the attackees have no capacity to hurt the bombers.

And my understanding was always that killing civilians is frowned upon because, when someone enlists in the military, they're making the choice to put their lives at risk, while civilians have made no such choice. It's like the difference between performing surgery on someone who understands the procedure's risks and agrees to it, and performing surgery on an unwilling stranger you grab off the street.

However, if a country's military is filled with draftees, then by going to war with them you're killing people who didn't want to take part in the war, who would much rather not fight you. That makes war with such a country particularly despicable, but if you're waging war on them anyway, then I don't see why you should weigh civilians' lives and soldiers' lives differently on an ethical scale. In such a situation the people you kill will be blameless innocents no matter what, so if you're committed to the war, there's no point going halfway on it.

edited 18th Dec '11 9:55:55 PM by RavenWilder

& BANZAI! Shoot him, hes out to get you!◊

edited 19th Dec '11 12:34:03 AM by Qeise

...Okay, you've had your fun. Now drop that baby-shaped bale of hay already.

My point isn't that the babies are guilty; my point was that many of the armed soldiers are also innocent. And since I don't consider babies especially more valuable than anyone else, killing an innocent baby and killing an innocent soldier seem equally bad to me.

I at least would consider a baby signifigantly less of a threat.

@Raven,

You shoot them with planes so they never get to shoot at your guys at all.

Also, the Japanese did attack us. It's not as if we were in a war of aggression out there.

To me, the question is not about the nukes. Their use is fully in line with the ethical principles followed by all parties in WW 2, which considered civilian populations as much a target as military personnel or equipment.

A more interesting question is whether the concept of permissible actions in war generally accepted at that time was wrong.

Which is really a study of military and political doctrine at that time in general.

Doing otherwise is generally only saying that the guys responsible for the bigger death toll are more unethical, which sounds like a pointless measure in the end anyway. Generally winners have the bigger death toll on their hands; does this mean that winning a war is more unethical than losing one?

From what I know, whilst using nuclear bombs was just wrong in hindsight, at the time it would have been justified- nobody knew what the bomb was going to do but the alternative to killing a few thousand with nuclear weapons would have been to kill several million (on both sides) in a conventional invasion.

edited 19th Dec '11 3:58:28 AM by optimusjamie

@Baff

And I said it too.

Only because USAF is a man, sexist.

@kay,