Was the use of atomic bombs to end WWII ethical?

An old debate is whether or not the US was ethical to use atomic weapons to end WWII.

I think it was ethical; it saved lives since the number casualties on both sides for Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan, were projected to be astronomical.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/operation_downfall.htm

 

Ethical, no. Killing that many people is never ethical, however it is justifiable under law.

 

Ethical? Funny, had a professor in college go on a rant about how immoral America was for dropping the two bombs. I asked a simple question, where is the morality in war? War is never moral, sometimes necessary, specifically when attacked, but war is not moral in any way.

Ethical no, moral no, necessary, probably. Personally I have less problem with the two atomic bombs than the indiscriminate incendiary bombing of Tokyo over 30 nights. I think being incinerated instantly would suck way less than burning to death. Obviously radiation poisoning is bad after the bomb, but I think you could find just as much suffering in any city that was ravaged by war.

 

Even when defending oneself? The Japanese started the war with a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. WWII cost the US 416,800 American deaths in a little over 3.5 years of fighting. That's an average of over 311 Americans dying each day the war lasted. Each day. I find it highly unethical for any President to let the war go on when it could be ended more quickly.

 

I understand that were at war at the time but you don't kill innocent people to make a point. You have no claim to moral high ground when you purposefully do that to anyone.

 

So you think shooting someone because they break into your house is ethical? Or is it justifiable?

 

ezio auditore.

 

Non Sequitur.

But, since you asked the question, it depends. Just because they came through the window doesn't mean I'd shoot them. I'd yell "STOP! MOVE ONE MORE INCH MUTHAFUKA AND I'LL KILL YOU!" If they make an aggressive move, such as towards me or a family member, I'd shoot. If they ran, I'd call 911.

What does this have to do with Japan in WW2?

 

I also believe that war is neither moral nor ethical.

How can killing people and breaking things be moral/ethical? How can one apply the notion of "legality" to survival?

War is ugly, inhumane, brutal, and traumatic. We humans can conveniently suspended morality/ethics for the sake of politics/religion/resources.
I can't recall, has there ever been an instance where the victors were tried for war "crimes"?

Apart from the very few soldiers who were caught in the act of doing criminal things to civilians perhaps which just proves "legality" is subject to victory, likewise morality.

 

Okay you know what, you always desynchronize when Ezio killed to many innocent people because that wasn't really his thing. By the way, total props on you knowing him.

 

These arguments are really a little pointless. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were moments in time. Nothing more nothing less. A better question to ponder might be, how many future lives did the bombs save. It is very easy to believe in MAD doctrine when you have seen the melted ruins of Nagasaki, or the shadow people of Hiroshima. Then comprehend that these bombs were mere firecrackers compared to the multi megaton, multi war head delivery systems that existed 20 years later.

 

Your right about them being Firecrackers.

The fact is dropping these bombs had more of a psychological impact at that point since we killed many more people Firebombing Tokyo.

The thought that the Americans could destroy a single city with one bomb was not even enough to get the Japanese to surrender after 1 Nuke was dropped!

In the end dropping the nukes was a good thing as it probably saved several million lives.

AboveAlpha

 

We firebombed Dresden and killed just as many people there..........I don't here anyone complaining about that.

 

Since Japanese were genocidal bustards who have killed 15 million people in China alone...I don't care. As if nuclear bombs killed 15 million Japanese, I would discuss it on serious note. Japan got off easy, just like German pigs. Maybe it was for the better. Maybe we should have showed them what they really were on their own backyard.

 

Maybe you should get out more. As recently as last year, protests occurred at the ceremony for a new statue celebrating "Bomber Harris"

 

Sorry but there is nowhere near the consternation over the Dresden bombings or for that matter the Tokyo fire bombings as there was over the two atomic bombs. If its a bunch of smaller bombs and fires and smoke.......not a big deal. If its a couple of big bombs with super explosions......then its a huge deal.

 

This is the problem when having these debates with extreme pacifists. They have absolutely no perception of cause and effect, or consequences.

Following this logic, it was unethical for Vietnam to invade Cambodia to put an end to the Khmer Rouge, or for anybody to stop what was happening in former Yugoslavia or the invasion of Kuwait.

Myself, I tend to consider myself as a militant pacifist.

I believe strongly in peace. So much so that I will crack the skull of anybody that believes that the deaths of others is justified.

 

You think firebombing Tokyo or Dresden was simply to "make a point"?

With over 300 Americans dying each day in a war started by Japan, are you seriously recommending that President Truman not use a weapon which could end the war in days instead of months?

What do you think President Truman should have done instead of authorizing the use of our two atomic bombs?

 

Personally I would have liked to see the "gay bomb" developed a bit further than it was. That would have been hilarious.

 

Why would an invasion be necessary in the first place?

 

Both........ If the judicial system in your state/country says it is legal to do so. If the one breaking in has no ethical problem with doing so then you shouldn't feel any ethical dilema by shooting him.

 

The japanese army was practically intact in japan. Up until okinawa most of the japanese forces destroyed were air and naval forces. They were also trying to bring back troops from korea and manchuria.

The allies couldn't let japan keep those troop and command structure be, for the same reason we didn't leave the nazi in place. Only an unconditionnal surrender was acceptable for the allies.

 

Probably for the same reasons we retaliated against the Japanese for Pearl Harbor. What do you think we should have done? Sent them a strongly worded letter of protest?

 

Which is....

 

You don't let those who started the war in place with enough means to try again in a few years down the road.