Was the US justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki

WilliamSchulz

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

I actually have mixed opinions about this, in that although countless citizen lives were lost, there was a purpose behind the bombings, which was the surrender of Japan. I believe that the first bombing was unjustified and although the Japanese knew about this beforehand, they could not have predicted the massive destruction that the bomb could have done. However, the second one was justified, because when Japan released a statement concerning the bombings, they stated that they would fight until the last man fell, but at the expense of citizen lives. Now, that is not to say that I condone the suffering of thousands of innocents who had no part to do in the war, a clear violation of the just war theory, I think that the US should have first dropped the bomb in a low key area far away from individuals to show Japan the power of the bombs, and then drop it on a military fort should they still refuse.

If an action is wrong, it's the perpetrators who should be blamed.

Your logic seems to not only condone otherwise immoral behaviour but seems like it actively encourages war crimes - as after the first crime you just keep on blaming the victim for not surrendering to protect their civilians now that they've seen you're willing to kill them..

The fact of the matter is, dropping bombs is not immoral, even in a wartime situation. The action can be considered just or unjust, but not immoral, as nothing that they did was illegal or against moral code. You could argue that citizen deaths makes up for this, but use my TV example, America wanted a quick way to end the war with as few lives as possible, so inaction prompted further action until action was met. 

Dropping bombs can very easily be immoral and illegal. Militaries are required to comply with international military law, the most basic principle of which are distinction (e.g. between civilian and soldier) and proportionality (actions against legitimate military targets should not cause undue harm to the civilian population). You can easily commit war crimes with guns and knives, elt along bombs - it all depends on how you use them and why.

You have already effectively conceded that in the first instance the act was immoral due to the massive harm to civilians it caused: "Obviously, there was a lot of innocent people that were killed, and very few people were actually members of the military or political by nature"

Nothing about that changes with the second bomb. The onus is on the USA not to commit war crimes, not on the Japanese to surrender as soon as war crimes are committed against them. Your backwards logic incentives war crimes if anything as it puts the blame on the victim rather than the perpetrator.

The reason the second bomb is different is because Japan knew the full extent at that point of what the bomb could do and they should have realized that their war cause was being undermined. If the Japanese government truly wanted to protect their citizens, they would have surrendered, but since they did not, America was left with no other choice. Now, I do not think that this applies to every wartime situation, but in an instance where 77,000 people's lives are on the line, I do think that the government should have taken some form of responsibility. 

Ampersand

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

Ampersand said:

WilliamSchulz said:

I actually have mixed opinions about this, in that although countless citizen lives were lost, there was a purpose behind the bombings, which was the surrender of Japan. I believe that the first bombing was unjustified and although the Japanese knew about this beforehand, they could not have predicted the massive destruction that the bomb could have done. However, the second one was justified, because when Japan released a statement concerning the bombings, they stated that they would fight until the last man fell, but at the expense of citizen lives. Now, that is not to say that I condone the suffering of thousands of innocents who had no part to do in the war, a clear violation of the just war theory, I think that the US should have first dropped the bomb in a low key area far away from individuals to show Japan the power of the bombs, and then drop it on a military fort should they still refuse.

If an action is wrong, it's the perpetrators who should be blamed.

Your logic seems to not only condone otherwise immoral behaviour but seems like it actively encourages war crimes - as after the first crime you just keep on blaming the victim for not surrendering to protect their civilians now that they've seen you're willing to kill them..

The fact of the matter is, dropping bombs is not immoral, even in a wartime situation. The action can be considered just or unjust, but not immoral, as nothing that they did was illegal or against moral code. You could argue that citizen deaths makes up for this, but use my TV example, America wanted a quick way to end the war with as few lives as possible, so inaction prompted further action until action was met. 

Dropping bombs can very easily be immoral and illegal. Militaries are required to comply with international military law, the most basic principle of which are distinction (e.g. between civilian and soldier) and proportionality (actions against legitimate military targets should not cause undue harm to the civilian population). You can easily commit war crimes with guns and knives, elt along bombs - it all depends on how you use them and why.

You have already effectively conceded that in the first instance the act was immoral due to the massive harm to civilians it caused: "Obviously, there was a lot of innocent people that were killed, and very few people were actually members of the military or political by nature"

Nothing about that changes with the second bomb. The onus is on the USA not to commit war crimes, not on the Japanese to surrender as soon as war crimes are committed against them. Your backwards logic incentives war crimes if anything as it puts the blame on the victim rather than the perpetrator.

The reason the second bomb is different is because Japan knew the full extent at that point of what the bomb could do and they should have realized that their war cause was being undermined. If the Japanese government truly wanted to protect their citizens, they would have surrendered, but since they did not, America was left with no other choice. Now, I do not think that this applies to every wartime situation, but in an instance where 77,000 people's lives are on the line, I do think that the government should have taken some form of responsibility. 

You seem to have abandoned your previous argument about immorality and illegality, instead just falling back on "because I say so".

I already explained earlier in the thread how the USA did have other choices, using military and political experts to back up my position.

You seem to have conceded that the bombings were war crimes as you've offered no defence of the previous point about their illieglity. Logically that makes you a war crime apologist as you type and explain how these war crimes were justifiable.

BaconToes

Is war ever justified?
Is the killing of innocents ever justified? 
No.