Was it Wrong to Drop the Atom Bomb on Japan?

[supersoldier71]

How is the killing of helpless civilians moral? Especially since it was no longer necessary to end the war (per the quotes I shared)? Many of these were Christians.Ever since the Meiji Restoration missionaries form all denominations were allowed to proselyte in Japan. When we were there we saw a number of churches that had a long lineage.

But, in order to justify our killing of these people, we need to not think of that but reduce these humans to "cancer cells" as Hank refers to them, or lump them all simplistically as robbers and murderers as Rev does.

Because the POTUS is morally obligated to regard the lives of Americans more highly than essentially, everyone else.

Historically, and the links you shared have a strong revisionist bent, there was no way President Truman would have reasonably concluded that the invasion of the Japanese Mainland would've been anything but a bloodbath. And that's assuming the forces then-deployed to the ETO could be strategically shifted halfway 'round the world which is no mean feat for the US military now, and we have strategic lift assets that no one on earth had in August of 1945.

If you are not a pacifist, that is, if you allow that it is not inherently immoral to fight, then it follows that the most moral, or at least, the least morally objectionable option, is to end the fight as quickly and economically as possible.

Now there is room for argument regarding the actual targets: there were targets of more obvious military value that were not attacked.

However, every other course of action is purely conjecture, and would have necessarily resulted in the loss of more American lives, which much, without question, be the primary concern of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

 

[asterisktom]

Because the POTUS is morally obligated to regard the lives of Americans more highly than essentially, everyone else.

Historically, and the links you shared have a strong revisionist bent, there was no way President Truman would have reasonably concluded that the invasion of the Japanese Mainland would've been anything but a bloodbath. And that's assuming the forces then-deployed to the ETO could be strategically shifted halfway 'round the world which is no mean feat for the US military now, and we have strategic lift assets that no one on earth had in August of 1945.

If you are not a pacifist, that is, if you allow that it is not inherently immoral to fight, then it follows that the most moral, or at least, the least morally objectionable option, is to end the fight as quickly and economically as possible.

Now there is room for argument regarding the actual targets: there were targets of more obvious military value that were not attacked.

However, every other course of action is purely conjecture, and would have necessarily resulted in the loss of more American lives, which much, without question, be the primary concern of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

Inferring that I am revisionist or pacifist aside (and no, not necessarily either,except in the true sense that all Christians should be peacemakers) you do make some good points. There were better targets. That was one of my points. More importantly, it was no longer necessary to bomb them at all. My quotes to that effect do not make me a revisionist. I taught history for ten years in two Christian schools. I started out with the "America-can-do-wrong" A Beka texts. But each year, as I studied on my own (just as i did in my theology) I began to see other sides of the traditional narrative I had earlier assumed. Eventually I lost my job because of this. (A blessing in disguise).

The issue here is not just the position of the POTUS but all Americans. To say (as many here have said) that the bombing was necessary to save AMERICAN lives is to overlook the foundation of Christ's "Love thy neighbor". We end up saying, like the Pharisees did, "Who is my neighbor"?

It is the wrong question, begging for the wrong answer.

 

[HankD]

Hirohito threw in with Hitler. It may have been a reluctant alliance but an alliance nonetheless.

Thereby he put his stamp of approval (and his people as well) upon the death of 20 million lives (6 million Jews) many of which were innocent people just looking to have friends, family, etc.

Hirohito and the Japanese people (including the innocents per the Hirohito alliance) did reap what had been sown by the evil Axis powers who drew first blood and continued on in mass murder and genocide terrorizing the entire world.

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

 

[supersoldier71]

Inferring that I am revisionist or pacifist aside (and no, not necessarily either,except in the true sense that all Christians should be peacemakers) you do make some good points. There were better targets. That was one of my points. More importantly, it was no longer necessary to bomb them at all. My quotes to that effect do not make me a revisionist. I taught history for ten years in two Christian schools. I started out with the "America-can-do-wrong" A Beka texts. But each year, as I studied on my own (just as i did in my theology) I began to see other sides of the traditional narrative I had earlier assumed. Eventually I lost my job because of this. (A blessing in disguise).

The issue here is not just the position of the POTUS but all Americans. To say (as many here have said) that the bombing was necessary to save AMERICAN lives is to overlook the foundation of Christ's "Love thy neighbor". We end up saying, like the Pharisees did, "Who is my neighbor"?

It is the wrong question, begging for the wrong answer.

I did not imply that you were a pacifist, to the contrary; I did imply that a non-pacifist would agree that after the war has started, the least objectionable course of action is to conclude it as soon as possible. If, as was the case in WWII, one party attacked the other, then it becomes imperative that the side that was attacked win as quickly as possible. It then follows that actions taken in furtherance of winning quickly and economically, are the most desired.

President Truman would have--and did--reasonably conclude that any other course of action would've cost more American lives. The course of action he chose cost about two dozen, also image-bearers of God. Any other course of action would have cost more than that. As the President of the United States, his first responsibility is to steward the well-being of the nation.

Christ's imperative to love is a commandment as well as an invaluable gift from a loving God no doubt, but God has also chosen to grant nations the authority to wield the sword.

When God's sword cleaves, it is with His godly precision. Us? Not so much, no matter how hard we try.

And just so we're clear: I find it horrific in the most literal sense that the world was so fallen. And I stated previously that as we mourn for aborted babies, we should mourn for the dead who had nothing to do with the fight.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Much is made about the civilian deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, consider the civilian suicide deaths at Saipan and Okinawa. Also, it was known that the Japanese Army was training "civilians" to resist the invasion forces. Not to mention the Imperial Japanese Forces had proved themselves willing to die to the last man.
Then, there is the matter of Japanese geography. It's not like the open countryside of Europe. So, the advantages of modern armored warfare would have been minimized. Japan's rice paddies make the Normandy hedgerows look like a sandbox.

 

[Rob_BW]

Living in the nuclear age, with recent history being devoted to proxy wars, it seems we've forgotten the lessons that Grant taught us 150+ years ago.

Once you find yourself in war, the only choice is to finish it. Ending the war as quickly as possible is generally the most humane option. And to do that, you not only destroy the opposing enemy combatants, you eradicate his ability to make war.

 

[HankD]

Or you totally demoralize th

Living in the nuclear age, with recent history being devoted to proxy wars, it seems we've forgotten the lessons that Grant taught us 150+ years ago.

Once you find yourself in war, the only choice is to finish it. Ending the war as quickly as possible is generally the most humane option. And to do that, you not only destroy the opposing enemy combatants, you eradicate his ability to make war.

One way is to totally demoralize the citizenry - ala two atomic bombs which at the time was called bringing HELL on earth.

 

[Revmitchell]

Japan bombed pearl harbor ans started a war with us un provoked. Questioning the dropping of the bomb is just odd. What is wrong with people.

 

[Alcott]

Was it Wrong to Drop the Atom Bomb on Japan?

No; it popped, didn't it?

 

[Salty]

Was watching World War II in the Pacific - on the American Heroes Channel (formerly the Military channel)
The narrative state two main points:
1) American officials estimated there would be a minimum of 250,000 GI deaths - that was unacceptable
2) The Japanese wanted us to invade, because they believed the battle would be so bloody that the Americans
would soon give up. As stated before in a previous post - on Saipan - thousands of civilians committed suicide once the Americans took control.
Therefore, is there any reason all Japanese, military and civilians would not fight to the death on their homeland?

 

[Use of Time]

It is and was a black eye for this country. Full stop.

 

[Alcott]

It is and was a black eye for this country. Full stop.

A black eye for this country? I thought it was for Japan. And we ended what they started, didn't we?

 

[Use of Time]

A black eye for this country? I thought it was for Japan. And we ended what they started, didn't we?

Why stop there then? How bout Vietnam? The jungle is dangerous so we’ll just drop another mega bomb. Iraq is a quagmire so let’s just use a nuke instead. It’s a slippery slope and before long maybe someone else decides to use one. War is supposed to be between Soldiers.

 

[Salty]

... War is supposed to be between Soldiers.

A real soldier does NOT want war. We will be prepared - in fact we want to be so prepared so hopefully we will not be challenged.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Except that's not how the Imperial Japanese planned on fighting the invasion force. The plans basically were for every subject of the emperor to give their life for him.

War is supposed to be between Soldiers.

 

[Use of Time]

Except that's not how the Imperial Japanese planned on fighting the invasion force. The plans basically were for every subject of the emperor to give their life for him.

The plans of governments has long clashed with the reality of its populace.

 

[Use of Time]

A real soldier does NOT want war. We will be prepared - in fact we want to be so prepared so hopefully we will not be challenged.

For sure.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

However, with the examples of Saipan and Okinawa fresh in the minds of the Americans, they could not discount the plans as mere wishful thinking on the part of the Japanese high command. And as I noted in my previous post, the geography of the Japanese home islands mitigates against armored warfare.

The plans of governments has long clashed with the reality of its populace.

 

[thatbrian]

War is supposed to be between Soldiers.

Tell that to Muslims.

 

[Use of Time]

Tell that to Muslims.

I have. During deployment.