Was the use of atomic bombs to end WWII ethical?

It is easier to control the countries then it is to actually control the oil. And trust me, the Muslims knew that Hitler was not to be trusted, because they were Semitic people as well, and they would have known that they would have been next on his list to go into the camps. Explosives on the wells, pipelines and refineries would have slowed that supply to a trickle.

And do not forget that a lot of those oil fields were being developed by the United States (specifically ARAMCO). So trying to take over the oil fields would have brought the US into the war, and Hitler knew that. Plus at that time the US was actually one of the largest exporters of oil in the world. Many say that the US cutting off the oil supply to Japan was one of the major factors for Japan attacking the US.

 

If you remember the Nazi's really screwed up by not seizing the Oil Fields in the South Western part of the Soviet Union as Hitler used the several divisions that were supposed to help other German troops secure those Oil Fields to reinforce the German Divisions that were taking a beating on the Eastern Front.

Without securing those Oil Fields Nazi Tank divisions ran out of fuel and thousands of German Tanks had to be left with empty gas tanks as the Russians counter attacked.

AboveAlpha

 

Agreed as far as you went, but let's not forget Operation Sea Lion kicked off August 1940 but Operation Barbarossa didn't begin until almost a year later in June 1941. Without Lend-Lease to both, Germany could have captured Britain, but have been too busy consolidating their new territories to bother with the Soviets a year later.

As I recall, the main reason isolationist US supported Britain so strongly is because military leaders realized it was an unsinkable aircraft carrier and the doorway to Europe. If it was lost, it would be virtually impossible to mount an offensive against the Germans from the West.

 

I don't think he would have seized them, even if he had tried. For one, the Soviets would have trashed everything before they pulled out, leaving behind unusable oil fields (think Kuwait 1991). Secondly, that would have left almost 200,000 Soviet troops sitting right astride the German supply lines. So not only would they have not gotten useable oilfields, the force risked total destruction from the severing of supply lines and being hopelessly cut off.

Stalingrad had to happen, because of of the most basic of military doctrines is that you do not leave a fortified force where it can threaten your forces. This is why Japan had to attack the US in 1941, they could not take Indonesia and other territories they wanted while leaving the Philippines in "enemy hands".

 

Telling lies isn't ethical but if your wife asks if her new dress makes her look fat and you think it does I think telling a lie becomes necessary.

 

Sorry, but not necessary to lie. Cowardice or, more likely, the lack of intelligence to convey a response without hurting her feelings such as "It's okay, but I love how you look in that other dress".

If something is necessary it's required or cannot be avoided. If it's necessary, ethics don't play into it. If there are alternatives, then I'd readily agree ethics plays a part.

In this case, given the number of causalities projected with an invasion or a prolonged war with a blockade as one suggested (if it could even be done), I think it would be unethical to let the war continue when there was a means to hasten its end.

 

Do you have a wife? Because most of them will twist this to " oh so you don't like my taste in dresses now" It's been my experience that a lie IS "necessary" in this case and many others just like it.

I will agree here that in the purest definition of the word this is true. However in practical application it is not always the case. Sometimes it is "necessary" that I take the trash out but I don't. Sometimes it is "necessary that I go to the ER to get stitched up but I don't. Sometimes it is necessary to pay the electric bill but I forget. So I'm pretty sure that not all things that are necessary "cannot be avoided" as you can see here they can.

There are two ways to look at this and the above is one way. Here's another way to look at it. Killing children is unethical (I'm hoping for your sake you agree with me on this). When we dropped the bomb children were in fact killed. Although I agree with the idea that it was necessary for the reason you stated above, I still contend that killing children is wrong or unethical. I believe there has even been coined a phrase that accurately describes this phenomenon.

" It was a necessary evil "

Hope this clears it up for you.

 

The difference between a hen-pecked husband and a warrior. You can be loving, honest and strong for your wife or any other loved one without compromising your honor.

By "warrior" I don't mean a soldier, a battlefield warrior, but a person who lives by a code of honor and sticks with it. You can be compassionate and caring without compromising your honor.

If you think your wife is fat, then maybe you need to rethink your love of your wife, not the dress she is wearing.

 

Uh.. OK.

 

I think a lot about how the U.S. was SCREAMING to the Europeans to ease up on the forced War Reparations of WWI that were causing starvation and economic ruin in Germany.

The United States tried...unsuccessfully...to convince the European powers that if they kept up forcing Germany to pay such heavy reparations that it would drive Germany to the breaking point...which it did...and a new Nationalistic Leadership would emerge in Germany again...which it did with Hitler and the Nazi's.

The American's took part in many meetings of the European Victor Nations pleading with them to ease up and the U.S. was told...POSH POSH! You are too young and inexperienced a country to be telling US how to handle Germany!

Well....we all know how that turned out.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Most Muslim's sided with the Nazi's even those that knew the eventual outcome.

AboveAlpha

 

This has been a point of much debate.

I personally have no idea what Hitler was thinking in invading the Soviet Union as it is too large a territory and the ONLY manner which Hitler could have achieved at the very least a partial victory was to attack in the early spring with overwhelming force....seize the southern oil fields and stop at Moscow as any further would stretch Nazi supply lines too far.

But....IF...the Nazi's did not have to deal with American and British Forces in North Africa and IF the Nazi's could have dedicated at the very least 4 more divisions in the attack on the Soviets....they very well could have achieved this.

AboveAlpha

 

Gentlemen,let's imagine that near one of the Byelorussian (Polish,Serb) villages were found two dead German soldiers. These two killed had in Germany fathers and mothers, wives. Perhaps, even children orphaned now.

Aren't those two human beens,too?

Naturally, the commanders had somehow to protect the rest of the German soldiers from the same fate.Because two are only two,but who can ensure that such killings will not continue in the future? So just in order to protect German soldiers, a Sturmfuhrer in the same village drove into the barn a hundred or two hundred peasants and fired them.Not on its own initiative, of course,but quate legitimate, according the order of his commanders.

Look,gentlemen,this Sturmfuhrer and his commanders were guided by humane considerations,just like Truman - killing civilians they wanted to save their soldiers.

More of it, this Sturmfuhrer throwing a torch on the roof of the barn, did not want harm to anyone.Quate contrary,he saved the residents of neighboring villages who could die during large-scale military actions, if the terrorist raids continued .And in that case could have died not a hundred or two hundred,but thousands.

One more example.

Isn't it an extremely cruelty when you have to force your soldiers to attack enemies hiding in trenches? How many of them would die under a hostile fire!Must the commander of the soldiers somehow take care of their safety?

Therefore, it is logical to put civilians in front the attacking troops .And it is desirable, the elderly, women and children. Absolutely ideal situation would be if women would have children on their hand,better infants.

Those who do not like this variant do not understand the man thing.And the main thing is a fact that the lives of soldiers attacking behind the backs of civilians would be saved.And thus would be saved the lives of many other civilians because the victory in this battle will bring the ultimate victory. And the finish of the war will finish the inevitable civilian casualties.

Ponder, what is more important - two or three hundred of thousand of civilians or a thousand or two thousand of soldiers of your army.

I suspect that the smart people who justify the U.S. atomic bombing probably will hesitate to accept aloud the legitimacy of such kind of examples.

That's why in order not to put them in an awkward position, I said all this on their behalf.

Don't thank me,I just wanted to make a good deed for them.

 

WWII was all out warfare but even still...there were certain rules and one of these rules was you did not use civilians as human shields or purposely execute either civilians or prisoners of war.

Now the Nazi's were known to execute any prisoners who made themselves a pain by constantly breaking out of a Stalag...and the Japanese...well....they were well known for all sorts of war crimes.

As far as the U.S. dropping Nukes...both cities were legitimate military targets as the Japanese War Industry had factories intermixed with the civilian population.

AboveAlpha

 

In Nagasaki there was a camp with American POWs.Today you kill private Rayan - tomorrow you make a movie "Saving private Rayan".Facts are not important,mythes are important.Those who make mythes write history.

Of course,I'm not so naive,I don't think I have convinced nuclear enthusiasts.I am fully aware that their arguments base on the sincere belief that everything that the United States have ever done is a great blessing for everybody .And such a conviction can not be disturb by arguments.

It's a religion.

So the psalms of beneficence of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be sung regularly and enthusiastically. As long as there exists a religion, so long there exist psalms.Naturally.

 

I don't think you will find anyone singing songs about dropping nuclear weapons.

I had relatives who fought in the Pacific and my Uncle was in the Bataan Death March.

Now...if you could find a still living American WWII Combat Veteran and ask them if they thought we did the right thing dropping the two Nukes they would SCREAM....YES!!!

The Japanese would not have surrendered and an invasion of Japan would have cost MILLIONS of lives.

Of that fact there is ZERO doubt.

AboveAlpha

 

If you have an edge that will allow you to win quickly and end the killing is it ethical to use it?

Of course, it's unethical not to use it.

At that point Truman knew that no retaliation was likely, that the war would likely end quickly, and that by ending the war quickly, Japan would not have to be jointly occupied by the US and the USSR.

All in all, even in hindsight, dropping the bombs drastically reduced human suffering.

 

Yeah....there was ZERO chance that the U.S. was going to allow very many if any Russian troops in Japan.

AboveAlpha

 

That's what I'm writing about : it's a crime when Nazi kill civilians for saving lives of their sildiers , it's OK when Americans do the same thing.Actually it is a religious view out of logic.

 

But Hitler could not attack Russia in the early spring. In fact, nobody can attack Russia in the early spring for one very real reason:

Rasputitsa

This roughly translates to "Mud Season" or "Quagmire Season", and has basically defeated every invader in the last 200 years. General Mud has destroyed as many armies as General Winter has. Any attempt by Hitler to move in "Early Spring" would simply have seen the army trapped on the border, unable to move inland because of the impassable terrain.

 

There was an agreement between the US and the USSR, that the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan in August 1945, and the Soviet Union did declare war on Japan in August 1945.
Because the war ended in August 1945, the US could assume the main role in occupying Japan, if the war dragged on for another year or two, with large battles between Soviet and Japanese forces, then the Soviet Union would expect a role in the occupation of Japan, and you might have had a North Japan and a South Japan and all the crap that goes with that.

 

As I stated...there is a difference between bombing a legitimate military target as even though those two cities had civilian populations both cities had huge Japanese Weapons specific manufacturing bases....and just killing civilians outright that could have been taken prisoners.

AboveAlpha

 

Russia really had spent it's ability to launch any major campaigns upon Germany.

Any force that Russia could muster would take quite a bit of time to be sent all the way to this region never mind supplied as the Eastern Soviet Union was quite a distance from the action in the west.

AboveAlpha

 

Germany had surrendered, the Soviet forces which were huge could be moved east and there were Soviet forces that attacked Japanese forces in Manchuria as soon as war was declared, if the war had gone on for another couple of years, Soviets would have engaged Japanese forces in major battles, the y would have provided forces for the invasion of Japan and would have rightly insisted on a joint occupation of Japan.

 

Yes, because after that and having the nuclear capability kept us out of any further major wars with powers that could hurt us ever. The fact is using the bombs insured the relative safety of the United States and our rivals. We came close to nuclear war only once and we didn't since then its been only proxy wars.

 

The US saw the problems with the Treaty of Versailles and voiced those problems by refusing to ratify the Treaty. The reparations aspect was only part of it. The primary objection seemed to be the formation of the League of Nations and the subsequent requirement that signatories come to the aid of any other members who were attacked. Isolationist America would never sign any such agreement.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/45d.asp