12 Sep 20
1 edit
@shavixmir saidWouldn't blockades have resulted in the suffering and starvation of civilians? That would arguably be a war crime (amazing that nuking Japan wasn't).
They were being crushed by the Soviet forces and probably wouldn’t have lasted much longer.
However, a complete blockade of their islands would have trashed them completely as well.
So that, with their armies destroyed on the Chinese mainland, would have finished them off and forced them to capitulate.
And it would have denied them the “tragedy of being nuked; see how sad we are” card.
I'm not bringing that point up just to argue but to point out that there is no humane way to engage in war. It's easy to point out what shouldn't be done in a war; but what violence should actually be used in war is much less popular to discuss.
Obviously, "let's never go to war" isn't always realistic.
12 Sep 20
@vivify saidNo. Japan could capitulate and stop the blackade to feed their civilians.
Wouldn't blockades have resulted in the suffering and starvation of civilians? That would arguably be a war crime (amazing that nuking Japan wasn't).
I'm not bringing that point up just to argue but to point out that there is no humane way to engage in war. It's easy to point out what shouldn't be done in a war; but what violence should actually be used in war is much less popular to discuss.
Obviously, "let's never go to war" isn't always realistic.
They could also redistribute the resources they had to feed the population rather than the emperor and his army.
The nuking didn’t get them to choose how to handle their civilian population. We chose for them and murdered women and children.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
12 Sep 20
@shavixmir saidyou completely gloss over the fact that japan was developing an a-bomb, or had developed one already. after being attacked, why do you feel the US should do anything other than preserve themselves.
They were being crushed by the Soviet forces and probably wouldn’t have lasted much longer.
However, a complete blockade of their islands would have trashed them completely as well.
So that, with their armies destroyed on the Chinese mainland, would have finished them off and forced them to capitulate.
And it would have denied them the “tragedy of being nuked; see how sad we are” card.
The US should protect its own firstly.
You make hindsight comments like this...
"They were being crushed by the Soviet forces and probably wouldn’t have lasted much longer."
how long is "much longer"...long enough to deploy a a-bomb? Japan had already shown their intentions when they attacked unprovoked.
12 Sep 20
@vivify saidIn the abstract, if one's country is attacked then using reasonable force to prevent further attacks is in order. What I mean by reasonable is that the counterattack should not be disproportionate to the insult, and that one takes actions which are necessary to ensure one's own security. So carpet bombing cities in response to a minor breach of airspace might be considered disproportionate.
If a country is attacked, what force is justified against the aggressor?
U.S. use of atomic weapons on Japan in WWII is often seen as unjustified. What would have been a better alternative? Enter a war through conventional methods that could drag for years and result in more American deaths? What would have been a better alternative to the A-Bomb?
Let's say N. Korea a ...[text shortened]... t of "justified" force change depending on the size of the aggressor compared to nation retaliating?
In the context of the Second World War military necessity seems to have involved forcing the complete surrender of the various Axis powers. The US were justified in ensuring that Japan either would or could not repeat the Pearl Harbour attacks, and the Allies as a whole in ensuring that Japan could not invade their territories.
There's two steps to attempting to justify the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first is that unconditional surrender was necessary to ensure the security of Japan's neighbours. This depends on what conditional surrender would look like. Would the Japanese be required to disarm, would there be war crime tribunals, would the government be replaced? I think it's possible to make a convincing case that nothing short of complete surrender would be acceptable.
This brings us on to the second issue. Whether the atomic bombings were necessary for this. Compared with a conventional firestorm attack on Tokyo, Operation Meetinghouse, a pretty similar number of people were killed. Estimates vary but around 90,000 died during that attack. Somewhere between 70,000 and 126,000 died as a result of the Hiroshima bombing. So it is entirely plausible that more people would be killed in a conventional invasion, if the bombing of cities to prevent military production was included in the strategy. However, it is not obvious that attacks which so blatantly violate the principle of distinction were entirely necessary to militarily defeat Japan.
An option might have been a permanent Naval blockade to prevent the Japanese from ever being able to project force. I think it would require a quite detailed analysis to see if that was possible.
Regarding Japan's potential development of the bomb. Where are they going to get the fissile material once they've been restricted to their home islands?
12 Sep 20
2 edits
@shavixmir saidGiven the Japanese code of honor where dying was preferable to surrender, mass starvation or sickness from a blockade preventing food, medicine etc., that's exactly what would happen.
No. Japan could capitulate and stop the blackade to feed their civilians.
But at least the the responsibility for that suffering, as you mentioned, is in the hands of the country that only needs to surrender to end it.
So kudos for coming up with a better alternative to what the U.S. did.
12 Sep 20
@mott-the-hoople saidI doubt Japan was anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon.
you completely gloss over the fact that japan was developing an a-bomb, or had developed one already. after being attacked, why do you feel the US should do anything other than preserve themselves.
The US should protect its own firstly.
You make hindsight comments like this...
"They were being crushed by the Soviet forces and probably wouldn’t have lasted much lo ...[text shortened]... g enough to deploy a a-bomb? Japan had already shown their intentions when they attacked unprovoked.
Do you agree that heroes don’t murder children and that bad guys do?
And that’s this exact issue. To be good means you don’t fry little children.
You think of alternative methods to achieve your goals. It’s what makes you stand up straight and look yourself in the mirror and be proud.
12 Sep 20
2 edits
@deepthought saidThat's a great point. We tend to think of it as the U.S. vs Japan rather than the Allied Forces vs. the Axis powers. In that sense, ending a conflict with one arm of the Axis Powers as quickly as possible before taking on the rest, adds some weight to the decision.
In the context of the Second World War military necessity seems to have involved forcing the complete surrender of the various Axis powers.
12 Sep 20
@vivify saidJapan was the rest. Italy and Germany had already been defeated.
That's a great point. We tend to think of it as the U.S. vs Japan rather than the Allied Forces vs. the Axis powers. In that sense, ending a conflict with one arm of the Axis Powers as quickly as possible before taking on the rest, adds some weight to the decision.
12 Sep 20
@shavixmir saidYeah, you're right.
Japan was the rest. Italy and Germany had already been defeated.
- Joined
- 05 Nov 06
- Moves
- 147487
12 Sep 20
@shavixmir said"I doubt Japan was anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon."
I doubt Japan was anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon.
Do you agree that heroes don’t murder children and that bad guys do?
And that’s this exact issue. To be good means you don’t fry little children.
You think of alternative methods to achieve your goals. It’s what makes you stand up straight and look yourself in the mirror and be proud.
That has to be the case for you to have a point. But there was no intelligence suggesting this, if so please provide it.
"Wilcox makes a case that Japan successfully detonated an atomic device close to what was then called Konan, Korea, on or about August 12, 1945, which is to say six days after Hiroshima was bombed on August 6, killing over 90,000 civilians, and three days after the Nagasaki bomb that killed at least 40,000 people on August 9. Japan’s decision to accept unconditional surrender on August 15, according to Wilcox, came after its own test and, perhaps, the realization that it was too late to respond in kind."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-world-war-ii-what-if-japan-got-the-atomic-bomb-first
12 Sep 20
@mott-the-hoople said1. Japans nuclear programme Has nothing to do with my argument.
"I doubt Japan was anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon."
That has to be the case for you to have a point. But there was no intelligence suggesting this, if so please provide it.
"Wilcox makes a case that Japan successfully detonated an atomic device close to what was then called Konan, Korea, on or about August 12, 1945, which is to say six days after Hiro ...[text shortened]... d in kind."
https://www.thedailybeast.com/in-world-war-ii-what-if-japan-got-the-atomic-bomb-first
It stands perfectly well, even if they had moon ships firing sonic death rays... good people don’t kill kids.
2. Just from wiki alone:
“...ace Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb. The book also included what Wilcox stated was new evidence from intelligence material which indicated the Japanese might have had an atomic program at Hungnam.[24] These specific reports were dismissed in a review of the book by Department of Energy employee Roger M. Anders which was published in the journal Military Affairs,[25] an article written by two historians of science in the journal Isis[26] and another article in the journal Intelligence and National Security.[27]”
12 Sep 20
@Teinosuke If a conditional surrender was shameful, then an unconditional surrender was even more so.
Let us not forget, the US did agree to a condition, that Hirohito remained the emperor of Japan.
12 Sep 20
@shavixmir - They were being crushed by the Soviet forces and probably wouldn’t have lasted much longer.
A good friend of mine from Russia discussed WWII with me. He said, very angrily, when we discussed Japan, (words to this effect) -
"It's a good thing for Japan that the US beat them because if we (USSR) got their first, we would destroy them completely".
12 Sep 20
@shavixmir saidHow about the USAF and RAF carpet bombing of Dresden?
I doubt Japan was anywhere near developing a nuclear weapon.
Do you agree that heroes don’t murder children and that bad guys do?
And that’s this exact issue. To be good means you don’t fry little children.
You think of alternative methods to achieve your goals. It’s what makes you stand up straight and look yourself in the mirror and be proud.
Same thing. Just as bad.