You know you could justify some pretty terrible things under the "as much evil as is neccicary" thing....

Going by what was historically available or in the pipeline.

The United States expected to have another atom bomb ready for use in the third week of August 1945, with three more in September and a further three in October. Most likely target for a third bomb would have been Sapporo in Hokkaido.

I'm glad 'how much' a question that never got an answer in this war anyway.

Very true. Maybe a better answer would be "just enough to achieve the objective" which might be considered as splitting hairs but not really as a far worse thing would be "not enough".

I'm gone for one week and you revive this thread? What the hell is going on here?

I don't know Biggles but it is enlightening conversation to say the least!


I'm very surprised that no one has brought up the incendiary bombing of cities. Just as devastating as using the A-bomb. I suspect that this action would convince the Japanese to surrender. No response as to surrendering. Truman moves on to the A bomb?:hmm:

What is done is done and you can not change history. :yep:

Buy this bloke a drink.....:yep:

Has anyone ever though about the civilian losses that Japan suffered due to the A-bombs AFTER the war? AFAIK, it was still killing in the 80-90's. Use of as terrible weapon as those two bombs, that still kill 40-50 years after the war has ended cannot be justified. Not with Pearl Harbor, not with shortening the war. Civilian casualties are the byproduct of war, always been and always will be. But targeting deliberately to 2 civilian cities is just plain WRONG, no matter which side you are or what you're enemy has done. Sorry, but I just cant see how it can be justified. :-?

But yeh, like our very own motormouth STEED said, it's done and cant be changed. I would like to say that luckily we've learned something from those days, but I cant as that would be an lie. Military targets still seem to have priority no matter the civilian casualties. :roll:

There is never justification for targeting civilian cities but with the shoe on the other foot, if it was possible (and was attempted), the west coast of the US would have been attacked. Indescriminate balloons with bombs in the jet stream headed to the US. Submarines off the coast shelling. One aircraft launched from a submarine that bombed the west coast of the US. There would have been more if it was geographically possible. Let's look at the Aleutians. Attempts to take the spit of land were made. This would be a stepping stone to the US. Sadly, military targets were often but in the city with the civilian population. Not until precision guided missiles did this tactic not work anymore. Altough the guided missiles are not 100% fail-safe but that is a whole other thread.

I believe Truman knew what the outcome would be if the bomb was used. The world would be changed forever....and it has been.

Well yes. :nope: However, do you think only the victims of the a-bombs were affected after the war? I know one fellow whose father was in the Filipino resistance and suffered health problems the rest of his life from being a forced labourer as a POW. Doubtless anyone a victim of Unit 731 or medical experiments at Auschwitz who survived had a lower life expectancy ... as did German soldiers who say survived the POW camps in Siberia. I don't doubt many civilians who were burned by conventional bombs or suffered malnutrition died later on or lived shorter lives. Another friend whose grandfather was an aircrewman on a Ju-52 (not sure what though they did transport fuel to North Africa :o , and would fly out over the Baltic with a gear to blow up Allied magnetic mines) suffered from what we call now "post-trumatic stress disorder" and would only recall the war when he drank a bit occasionally, apparently would tremble as well. :-?

When brought into perspective....

Battle of Iwo Jima
KIA
Navy 934
Marine 4907
--------------------------------------------

Iraq current deaths as of 2003 - Dec 26th 2007 = 3900 killed 28,661 wounded...Civillians and contractors X 10 at least this amount....DOD stats.

A single battles losses on Iwo Jima is almost inconcievable to me as a person living today...I thank God for the decision made to end that war as soon as possible.War sucks period. :(

If it's war you don't like, then the fastest way to end a war is to lose it.

...O...K.:hmm:

He took it from a famous quote....I don't know who said it first though....

It was Orwell to begin with :)

You sure?
Doesn't sound like him.
I thaught it was Oscar Wilde....*goes to check*

*Edit* Neither, it was Mark Twain.
*Edit2* Perhaps it was Orwell, I'm finding it hard to track down. Conflicting sources.
*Edit3* Looks like Orwell did make such a quote, but I find it hard to belive that the quote started with him.

I always considered it to be mad and illusive to try judging acts, decisons and events of war with moral standards from peace time. war and peace are not just two different conditions. They are two totally different things. Using standards of the one to judge the other does not make any sense. Habits and standards of peace may influence the decsion to end this state and eventually go to war. but once war is there, all universe collapses, and all world turns upside down.

The question "how many nukes would have been acceptable" therefore makes not the smallest sense. the only logical question is "what to do to end the war as soon and as cheap for our side as possible"? And considering that this was not a minor engagement born of isunderstanding, but a war on a global scale, between two kinds of ideologies that claim power ovr all world, this question needs to be asked even sharper, sicne just ending the war in a draw was not acceptable anymnore in this context: "How to win the war as fast and as cheap as possible?"

the answer is the same like in every war: "By inflicting as much destruction, death, suffering on the enemy as is needed to make him giving up or to turn him impotent to continue the war."

Don't judge war by standards of peace, and do not judge peace by standards of war - both are two totally different worlds, literally. the only link between them is the chance that one could learn lessons and prevent mistakes that had been done once to be done again - regarding both peace and war. But history teaches me that this learning process often does not take place, or leads to hysteric avoidance of reality.

If you are not willing to fight, then don't start to fight, personally, or a war, it does not matter. If you start to fight, be prepared to stop at nothing needed to win - even if it means your own destruction. - I am aware that if you are in a bad mood, you will feel invited to misunderstand me. But it is good advise. It teaches you the value of peace - and why not accepting to easily trigger a war - or accept the threat of war by an opponent intimidating you.

Do you not think what you are saying, skybird, fails to take into account the long western tradition of Just War? That tradition includes jus in bello as well as jus ad bellum, which is to say that the Just in the means of fighting war are also to be taken into account as well as the Just in the reasons for going to war.

It is not the case, in our history nor at present, that anything goes once the shooting starts.

However, in the second world war, the willingness of all combatant nations to direct their killing at non-combatants was something moreorless unique to that conflict. Certainly in terms of western war, i think only the 30 years war featured anything like it.

There is no thing like "just war". Justice is a concept for peace. As I said, I do not see reason in mixing standards of peace with standards of war, and vice versa.

Look at the face of a soldier lying dead on the ground with his face blown away from a bullet, and then try to argue concerning "justice". It does not matter what uniform he wears.

justice only plays a role in reasoning over the question wether one wishes to go to war, or not. Once the decision for war has been installed, justive stops to exist. There even is no injustice. There simply is war. War means the gates to hell have opened. So be careful wether or not you wish to vote for war - you've been warned.

Think of it as entering a differerent world, another planet, with a foreign race of aliens, whose language, culture and thinking you do not understand, and whose acts appear to you to be insane.

I frankly believe that there are only wars of choice and wars of need. WWII was a war of need. Iraq was a war of choice. What a "just" war should be I even cannot imagine. To me, "jujst wars" is just an eyxcuse to nice-talk war in general and make it easier to be accepted by the crowds, and make it easier for soldiers to do the killing.


http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/1898/pdvd001xt4.png

Morality is universal and unchanging.
What is moral one day, does not become immoral the next.
A politician can not change what it right and wrong by declaring war.