"Dumb and Dumber"- Are Americans hostile to knowledge?

[MishaK]

Do you really want to go tell all these Iraqis who're obviously patriotic and want to join the army and police to fight the killers, and die in the process, that their patriotism is phoney because the borders were drawn by some Englishman?

I don't think that is why they are joining the army/police. That's a little too simplistic.

Maybe, maybe not. But at the very least it paints the US brass as far less callous than you'd have us believe.

Nuance is lost on you. I never called the "US brass ... callous". I said the decision to nuke Hiroshima and especially Nagasaki was morally wrong. Since I (not you) was the one who pointed out that certain members of the brass disagreed with the view that nuking was necessary, it is clearly I (not you) who is differentiating between those who made a morally correct evaluation and those who didn't.

Was Sherman's march through the Confederate south in any way a portrait of military etiquette you just described?

WTF does that have to do with anything? The fact that others have committed war crimes at other times in other wars does not excuse the one we are presently discussing.

Yes, the two Japanese cities took it on the chin more than any civilian population in history but to say civilian populations get all the respect they deserve from attacking armies is wishful thinking. No matter WHERE you throw the dart in history.

You are once again confused. I never said that the civilian populations in fact always do "get all the respect they deserve" (whatever that formulation is supposed to mean). I said that proper conduct of warfare exempts persons who are hors de combat and focusses on fighting actual combatants. There is a difference between fighting that ends up hurting some civilians in the process because they were caught between the lines, vs. the deliberate targeting of civilian targets with no military significance. The latter is what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Besides, "rules of combat" are forever subject to situational improv. Nothing is set in stone. No matter for the defender nor the attacker (much more below...).

No, they are not. Any self-respecting army has a manual, a code of conduct of what is proper and what isn't. You can be court-marshalled for not following it.

Yes, you've played this card many times and yes I do honestly understand your angle. But in 1945 weapons were not near as accurate as they are now. Especially aerial bombing. That was my angle. So a course of aerial attacks (scattered firebombing) lasting several months or perhaps even years would've been much more costly in lives. Do the math.

donwyn, there are two things that you still fail to get here. One is that there is serious disagreement that the invasion necessarily would have cost more civilian lives. Secondly, "doing the math" is what is immoral here. You cannot a priori take a group of civilians who are not proper targets for combat and condemn them to death by deciding that they are to be sacrificed in order to save some other combatants and civilians. They simply aren't a fair target. Nobody was holding a gun to Truman's head and forcing him to drop these nukes on these two particular civilian population centers. There simply wasn't the immediate necessity that you claim.

Military and civilian councils alike often disagree on a course of action but ONE must ultimately be chosen. So one was chosen...

Yes, but it was the morally wrong choice.

No army in its right mind just arbitrarily proclaims civilian lives should be swapped for military lives. No matter how many hoards of civilians are killed off. There's still an opposing army to consider. You'd be wasting a ton of manpower and material on basically sheep while the opposing army is left completely unchecked and on the prowl.

You live in a fantasyland of purely rational actors who also never make mistakes that they are later unwilling to admit. People don't work that way and the military certainly doesn't. All wars, and WWII particularly, abound with truly idiotic targeting choices of things an people that had no military objective whatsoever (cue again Dresden; another nice one was the bombing of Belgrade by allied bombers for no apparent reason after Yugoslavia had been occupied by the Nazis). More examples: From a cost-benefit analysis point of view the V-1 and V-2 were a glorious waste of money that accomplished little to nothing militarily but tied up resources that could have been used for more tanks and fighters. Stalingrad? Yeah, that was really rational.

As I said earlier on in this thread, if the Japanese were on the verge of cracking (and it seemed so) the knockout blow had to be delivered. And decisively. Else the war could've dragged on for who knows how much longer. The toll from a protracted war would've without question been much greater than had the US put a quick end to the war. Civilian instillations had already been the targets of intense bombing in order to disrupt the civilian infrastructure - which of course has a ripple effect on everything else (military and beyond...). Not to mention military production and manufacture is manned by civilians in civilian surroundings. So civilians were already targets - in both the European and Japanese theaters.

I highlighted the bits that are based on totally flawed logic. Either you aren't reading (and processing) what I have been writing for the past few pages, or you feel so emotionally threatened by the idea that the US of A could have committed one of the worst war crimes in history that you're tossing logic out of the window (it might be that you believe in the appropriateness of collective guilt, I don't know). Rebuttal in brief:

A. It is not accurate that the toll from a "protracted war" would have "without question" caused more fatalities. You use "could've" and "would've" way too much to allow yourself the use of "without question". As mentioned several times now, several of the most successful military leaders of WWII disagreed on that assessment and thought that Japan could not keep the war effort up much longer one way or another. Also note that Hirohito expressly mentioned the Russian entry into the Pacific theater as a reason for surrendering and did not mention the nukes. Also: regarding "more fatalities", there is a difference in kind between killing a few thousand soldiers outright in battle versus poisoning an area for years to come with the resulting fatalities due to cancer and birth defects, which raised the death toll over the following decades. You can't even compare the two.

B. You are still confused about civilians and targeting. The fact that other civilian centers (Dresden, Tokyo etc.) had been targeted before (which is also a war crime, technically) doesn't excuse the one we are discussing. If you are accused of murder in a court of law, it won't help your defense one bit to point out that there are other murderers around. Munitions factories are proper targets for warfare. Civilians who get in the way take that risk by working there expressely for the war effort. Civilian housing units are not proper targets. The fact that some of those civilians there might potentially be working directly for the war effort doesn't change that. And you're wrong about civilian infrastructure. The infrastructure that was targeted (railways, ports, bridges etc.) were of the nature that are essential in the military resupply effort. That is why purely civilian infrastructure, e.g. irrigation systems, hydroelectric dams, are especially listed in war crimes statutes as in appropriate targets, the deliberate targeting of which is considered a war crime as such. (BTW, those are some interesting underpublicized war crimes as well: in WWII the British had a dedicated bomber squadron - the Dambusters - that specialized in destroying dams in Germany that would then flood the valley below killing thousands of civilians and rendering cropland unuseable. In Korea, the US did the same with some dams in the North.)

And to build on what I mentioned above: in past wars it was impossible to get 'behind the lines' to such a degree to even touch a nation's war production - nor its civilian (and thus military) infrastructure. This is a clear indication of a change in the "rules of war". For the first time in WWII targets (military and eventually civilian) NOT on the front lines were easily accessible. So the 'rules' got a bit of tweaking...for better or worse.

AT THE TIME it all seemed perfectly logical. The two bombs became a natural extension of this new philosophy. Ultimately it proved more devastating than perhaps was warranted. But war has a way of  making the soundest of decisions - on paper - look awfully bad after the fact. And morally sound decision-makers can get caught up in the lurch.

Once again, this is utterly wrong. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing whatsoever to do with getting "behind the lines" and disrupting war production. It had everything to do with stopping the Soviets in their tracks. A civilian Japanese population was sacrified to prevent a strategic situation from worsening. The bomb is ridiculous overkill for destroying a factory. It invariably takes the town with it.

You don't wait in war!!!! It's that simple!!! If you have the means to deliver the punch, you punch. The US had two bombs and they went with their choice to use them.

This is the donwyn school of impatient warfare I suppose, where you first fire off all your ammo at once and you only start asking questions once you've fired your last bullet. Brilliant! The point that escapes you is that your argument that the bomb was needed as a devastating demonstration of American power to get the Japanese to surrender is undercut by the fact that they didn't understand what hit them until much later. The fact that the second bomb was dropped as deliberations about surrender were proceeding and that the second bomb's effects weren't understood by the time of surrender negates completely the claim that the second bomb was necessary. Once again, this was a demonstration first and foremost to the Soviets.

The Christmas time "Battle of the Bulge" (in Europe) is testament to the disastrous effects of pausing. The allied machine in northern Europe required a short period of time to collect itself and shore up its overextended lines. There was sound tactical reasoning for this pause - you simply can't outrace your supply lines - but aerial bombardments in the heartland of Germany were cut back as well. Germany seized on this opportunity to ramp up its manufacturing output and by the time of the Christmas time counter-offensive it was a (relatively) well supplied army again. Not to mention there was a morale boost amongst the German soldiers...and, so, they were off an running. (The battle might have cost eastern Europe its chance at western liberation as it severely slowed the western allied advance).

Did I ever say pausing is the answer to all questions in war? Have fun with your straw men. Meanwhile, intelligent military leaders have the acumen to make correct decisions appropriate for each tactical situation. Thus Nimitz, McArthur and Eisenhower, e.g., who had won many successful battles in WWII determined that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was militarily unnecessary.

So no successful student of warfare even considers 'pause' unless conditions absolutely warrant it. The US had the, err..."luxury" () of the two bombs and used them.

The US at that point also had the "luxury" of total air and naval supremacy, thus there was militarily absolutely no urgency whatsoever to finish off the Japanese immediately without waiting another day or two for them to figure out what hit them in Hiroshima.

This exact scenario had been considered by the US brass and rejected. "Witnesses" to such an event would have proved far less convincing than an actual attack. "Self-evident" to a witness is not necessarily self-evident to someone receiving a story second-hand. That's a given...

You seem to think the above paragrah is logical and coherent? You are once again ignoring the fact that none of the Japanese leadership actually saw the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. They were getting all that info "second hand" as well. Which is why for quite a while initially they thought a munitions depot in Hiroshima had blown up. Information was very slow to come out of there. The precise problem was that there weren't witnesses (who you think are somehow less reliable than having no witnesses at all - trial lawyers would be curious to hear your ideas about that one). So the shock effect of the nukes for the Japanese leadership never actually materialized in the way that you claim a demonstration bombing wouldn't have.

[Gustav]

http://www.researchchannel.org/asx/uw_danz_takaki_250k.asx

open with Window Media Player

[BorisG]

New York, N.Y.: Prof. Takaki,

What kind of research did you do for your most recent book? What was the most shocking thing you learned from your research? Thanks!

Ronald Takaki: My most recent book, "Double Victory: A Multicultural History of World War II," led me to understand that our military leaders believed there was no military necessity to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. This included General Eisenhower and General MacArthur, as well as our Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson.


From Washington Post's 2001 Live Online

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/zforum/01/authors_takaki0515.htm

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Nuance is lost on you. I never called the "US brass ... callous".

No, you just called the ones who voted yes criminals! I find zero 'nuance' in that charge!

WTF does that have to do with anything? The fact that others have committed war crimes at other times in other wars does not excuse the one we are presently discussing.

Exactly! Armies with "the war manual" tattooed on their collective foreheads can and do occasionally go awry. As Sherman exemplified, what might look good at the time might only in hindsight be deemed unsavory.

You are once again confused. I never said that the civilian populations in fact always do "get all the respect they deserve" (whatever that formulation is supposed to mean). I said that proper conduct of warfare exempts persons who are hors de combat and focusses on fighting actual combatants. There is a difference between fighting that ends up hurting some civilians in the process because they were caught between the lines, vs. the deliberate targeting of civilian targets with no military significance. The latter is what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

"No military significance"? Not in the minds of some of the top brass.

No, they are not. Any self-respecting army has a manual, a code of conduct of what is proper and what isn't. You can be court-marshalled for not following it.

See above...

donwyn, there are two things that you still fail to get here. One is that there is serious disagreement that the invasion necessarily would have cost more civilian lives. Secondly, "doing the math" is what is immoral here. You cannot a priori take a group of civilians who are not proper targets for combat and condemn them to death by deciding that they are to be sacrificed in order to save some other combatants and civilians. They simply aren't a fair target. Nobody was holding a gun to Truman's head and forcing him to drop these nukes on these two particular civilian population centers. There simply wasn't the immediate necessity that you claim.

No, I'm sorry. Entirely false no matter how you slice it. Listen up: the Japanese had just enacted policy to inscript everyone between the ages of thirteen and sixty into a People's Volunteer Corps. Which meant a new army. A sure sign that they intended to defend their homeland down to the very last teenager.

If that's not clear evidence hoards of casualties were forthcoming I don't know what is...

Look it up.

Yes, but it was the morally wrong choice.

You throw this around far too easily...

You live in a fantasyland of purely rational actors who also never make mistakes that they are later unwilling to admit.

On the contrary...I'm attempting to shed light on the irrationality of war and how its decision-makers can get mixed up in it all. It's all spelled out in my previous posts (and in my Sherman analogy) but as I said your tunnel vision is inhibiting your ability to understand me.

People don't work that way and the military certainly doesn't. All wars, and WWII particularly, abound with truly idiotic targeting choices of things an people that had no military objective whatsoever (cue again Dresden; another nice one was the bombing of Belgrade by allied bombers for no apparent reason after Yugoslavia had been occupied by the Nazis).

Now you're coming around to MY way of thinking. I have great regard for "the war manual" but it's an inherent complication of war that the manual gets tweaked from time to time as circumstances present themselves. And not always for the better. As I said, a wartime decision might look good on paper but after the fact can leave the decision maker(s) pretty red-faced.

I highlighted the bits that are based on totally flawed logic. Either you aren't reading (and processing) what I have been writing for the past few pages, or you feel so emotionally threatened by the idea that the US of A could have committed one of the worst war crimes in history that you're tossing logic out of the window (it might be that you believe in the appropriateness of collective guilt, I don't know). Rebuttal in brief:

A. It is not accurate that the toll from a "protracted war" would have "without question" caused more fatalities. You use "could've" and "would've" way too much to allow yourself the use of "without question". As mentioned several times now, several of the most successful military leaders of WWII disagreed on that assessment and thought that Japan could not keep the war effort up much longer one way or another.

Of course, it was also the assessment of "several of the most successful military leaders of WWII" that the decision to drop the bombs was the right one.

Fact: Truman and American military planners had feared something like a million US casualties stemming from a ground invasion. Hardly the twiddling numbers you posit.

Look it up.

Also: regarding "more fatalities", there is a difference in kind between killing a few thousand soldiers outright in battle versus poisoning an area for years to come with the resulting fatalities due to cancer and birth defects, which raised the death toll over the following decades. You can't even compare the two.

"A few thousand soldiers"? Where does that assessment come from? See my related remarks above. Truman et al disagreed with you...

Once again, this is utterly wrong. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing whatsoever to do with getting "behind the lines" and disrupting war production. It had everything to do with stopping the Soviets in their tracks. A civilian Japanese population was sacrified to prevent a strategic situation from worsening. The bomb is ridiculous overkill for destroying a factory. It invariably takes the town with it.

Again, wrong on all counts. Look up your facts before you unfairly accuse US planners.

The facts as they are laid down are: Russia, at the behest of Roosevelt (at Yalta), had already made an accord with the US to enter the war against Japan. Territorial concessions had to be granted to Russia but the alliance had been been drawn up and agreed upon.

So let's put that bizarre conspiracy notion to bed once and for all.

Again, look it up.

This is the donwyn school of impatient warfare I suppose...

Perhaps, but at least the facts are on my side.

Anyway, it's not my mission to change your mind about all this, O Mensch. Only to show that 'fog of war' decisions cannot automatically be equated with criminality.

In closing, I offer a quote of mine from way back on this thread:

And I have to say, from our present-day perspective it's much easier to pick decisions like this apart. But from the perspective of a worn-out, war-weary nation (world!), a well-defined end to such a barbaric conflict must've seemed perfectly sensible...

[MishaK]

No, you just called the ones who voted yes criminals! I find zero 'nuance' in that charge!

Yes. That is nuanced. I am holding indivuals accountable, not the whole nation as you insinuated previously.

Exactly! Armies with "the war manual" tattooed on their collective foreheads can and do occasionally go awry. As Sherman exemplified, what might look good at the time might only in hindsight be deemed unsavory.

OK, now read that sentence again, carefully. You'll note that even you used the word "awry". So we agree that there is a propwer way of doing things and an improper one. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the improper one.

"No military significance"? Not in the minds of some of the top brass.

Well, what was the significance? And if there was significance to those particular two targets, explain why the objective couldn't have been accomplished by other means.

No, I'm sorry. Entirely false no matter how you slice it. Listen up: the Japanese had just enacted policy to inscript everyone between the ages of thirteen and sixty into a People's Volunteer Corps. Which meant a new army. A sure sign that they intended to defend their homeland down to the very last teenager.

If that's not clear evidence hoards of casualties were forthcoming I don't know what is...

I am not going to argue with an emotionally insecure closed brick wall anymore on this. The most successful generals and admirals of WWII disagreed on the military necessity. I'll go with their judgment over your uninformed, emotional groping for straws to keep your lofty ideas about US morality intact. PS, I looked it up:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower (Memoirs)

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

""Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." US Strategic Bombing Survey

You throw this around far too easily...

Very much unlike the fact that in all your argumentation you completely avoid the issue of morality. Your entire set of arguments amount at best to an excuse. Not once do you say that dropping the bomb was morally right, nor do you ever explain the moral tenets underlying your thinking. Your argument amounts to: "sorry dear citizens of H & N, you happened to be the easiest targets and we just had to do it, we had no choice." That is an amoral argument. You seek to represent the US as an actor that did not have freedom of choice and acted out of necessity, thus making moral considerations secondary. Conveninently, by doing so you completely disregard the fact that A) there was in fact a choice made, other options were indeed available and there was in fact no immediate necessity to end the war just then, as evidenced by the many dissenting voices, and B) you completely avoid making any statements about the use of nuclear weapons altogether. Your argumentation at best exempts H & N from moral consideration but doesn't lay out how a government should act in war time when faced with the option of using nukes.

On the contrary...I'm attempting to shed light on the irrationality of war and how its decision-makers can get mixed up in it all. It's all spelled out in my previous posts (and in my Sherman analogy) but as I said your tunnel vision is inhibiting your ability to understand me.

Now you're coming around to MY way of thinking. I have great regard for "the war manual" but it's an inherent complication of war that the manual gets tweaked from time to time as circumstances present themselves. And not always for the better. As I said, a wartime decision might look good on paper but after the fact can leave the decision maker(s) pretty red-faced.

No, see, here is the problem with your thinking. You're essentially saying, war is hell and all rules go out the window in war and such is life, you can't hold people morally accountable for that. I am saying there are rules, even in war, and whether or not we observe them even in such extreme circumstances is what really separates the morally upstanding actor from the one who easily succumbs to the temptation of making an immoral choice for the sake of expediency. The general immorality of war does not excuse the immoral choices of individuals. It's weird. On the one hand you seem to agree that war is irrational and very messy and bad. But some emotional barrier holds you back from identifying the individuals who are responsible for some of those immoral acts that make war so irrational, messy and bad. That right there is the barrier between us in this argument.

Of course, it was also the assessment of "several of the most successful military leaders of WWII" that the decision to drop the bombs was the right one.

No, not really. Truman and Leslie Groves don't really qualify for that. Few among the group that were pushing for this were responsible for winning significant battles in the war.

Fact: Truman and American military planners had feared something like a million US casualties stemming from a ground invasion. Hardly the twiddling numbers you posit.

What "twiddling numbers" did I posit? Are you sure you're arguing with me? The million is pure fiction. I'd like you cite a source for that one.

"A few thousand soldiers"? Where does that assessment come from? See my related remarks above. Truman et al disagreed with you...

That was an abstraction of the choice made. No assessment that I have seen (leaving aside exaggerations by politicians, the highest of which that I know is 500,000) posited that more US soldiers would be killed by invasion than the number of Japanese civilians that were actually killed by the bomb. The largest number I have seen from military planners was up to 200,000 which was nearly the number of US personnel killed in all of WWII by that point, which is just an absurd number as against an exhausted enemy. Even that is less than a conservative estimate of the total number of civilians killed in H & N plus aftereffects. My point is that a larger number of civilians was traded to save a smaller number of military personnel, i.e. a large numbers of noncombatant persons who are not proper targets for warfare were slaughtered to save a smaller number of combatants. That is an immoral choice.

Again, wrong on all counts. Look up your facts before you unfairly accuse US planners.

The facts as they are laid down are: Russia, at the behest of Roosevelt (at Yalta), had already made an accord with the US to enter the war against Japan. Territorial concessions had to be granted to Russia but the alliance had been been drawn up and agreed upon.

So let's put that bizarre conspiracy notion to bed once and for all.

Again, look it up.

There is no conspiracy here and it is in fact very well documented. Truman disagreed with FDR over inviting the Russians into the Pacific theater and the Russian entry into the Pacific Theater was the driving factor in the timing and decision to drop the bombs on Japan. Consider that the US military was in fact planning more bombs to be dropped on Japan, but had only two ready. Now, why do you go out of your way to rush this thing if there is no urgency in the military situation with Japan, since you have total air and naval supremacy and the Japanese can't harm you where you are at the moment? If the Russians have nothing to do with it, please explain the timing.

Perhaps, but at least the facts are on my side.

You are so emotional about this that you don't even recognize your selective amnesia. You pick one example and by mistaken induction create a rule from an unrepresentative sample.

Anyway, it's not my mission to change your mind about all this, O Mensch. Only to show that 'fog of war' decisions cannot automatically be equated with criminality.

Elements of a crime: act + mens rea (state of mind) + absence of mitigating factors that affect state of mind. Act = attack of civilian targets. Mens rea = deliberate, conscious decisions by certain military leaders to drop the bomb. Absence of mitigating factors = no gun was being held to their head, nobody forced them to make that choice, they weren't involuntarily intoxicated, insane or minors incapable of comprehending the effects of their actions. The mere fact that others, looking at the same facts, made different conclusions and dissented proves that there was no "fog of war" that should have prevented a better decision from being made. If indeed everyone had made the same choice based on some mistaken set of data that couldn't have been proven wrong with a modicum of diligence prior to the act, only then could you make a "fog of war" argument that could possibly excuse the decisionmakers because supposedly they couldn't have known better. The fact that others did in fact know better and told them so negates and disqualifies that entire line of reasoning. Your argument is exactly the same Hillary makes about her decision to vote for the Iraq war: we had flawed intelligence and couldn't have known better. Except it's wrong, because millions of people all over the globe did in fact know better and told her so quite vocally.

In closing, I offer a quote of mine from way back on this thread:

And I have to say, from our present-day perspective it's much easier to pick decisions like this apart. But from the perspective of a worn-out, war-weary nation (world!), a well-defined end to such a barbaric conflict must've seemed perfectly sensible...

My friend, you're once again missing the point. It is indeed irrelevant what we think from our perspective today. The point is the contrast between those contemproraries who, looking at the same facts, i.e. from the same exact historic perspective, made morally correct choices, while others made immoral choices, wrongly condemning a civilian population to a fiery death and decades of poisoning.

[head-case]

The mere fact that others, looking at the same facts, made different conclusions and dissented proves that there was no "fog of war" that should have prevented a better decision from being made. If indeed everyone had made the same choice based on some mistaken set of data that couldn't have been proven wrong with a modicum of diligence prior to the act, only then could you make a "fog of war" argument that could possibly excuse the decisionmakers because supposedly they couldn't have known better. The fact that others did in fact know better and told them so negates and disqualifies that entire line of reasoning.

This is the sort of stupid invalid reasoning which makes this entire thread a waste of time.  The fact that different people made different judgments in the same situation supports the "fog of war" idea.  If there was no reliable information at all then peoples conclusions would be random and some of them would reach the "right" conclusion even though it was without basis.  (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)  This doesn't prove that the people who reached the "wrong" conclusion should have known better. 

[MishaK]

This is the sort of stupid invalid reasoning which makes this entire thread a waste of time.  The fact that different people made different judgments in the same situation supports the "fog of war" idea.  If there was no reliable information at all then peoples conclusions would be random and some of them would reach the "right" conclusion even though it was without basis.  (Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.)  This doesn't prove that the people who reached the "wrong" conclusion should have known better. 

OK, head-case, let's think about this one. If this was a "fog of war" situation, shouldn't the other people at least have conceded the potential validity of the opposite view, given uncertainty of information? The point is they didn't. Because the information wasn't unclear. The difference between Eisenhower, Nimitz et al. on the one side and Truman, Groves et al. on the other, is that the two were pursuing different strategies. Eisenhower/Nimitz were thinking only about ending the war with Japan. Whereas Truman/Groves were thinking of stopping the Russians in their tracks and impressing upon them the new extent of America's military might (which is also why Truman mentioned the existence of the bomb to Stalin at Potsdam).

Your sort of contorted logic is precisely what all bad leaders use to justify their errors. From Truman to Hillary it's the same story: we couldn't have known better. Except that others did and told you so, but you didn't listen!

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Yes. That is nuanced. I am holding indivuals accountable, not the whole nation as you insinuated previously.

I didn't insinuate anything of the sort. I merely reacted to your referencing of the bomb usage as a war crime.

OK, now read that sentence again, carefully. You'll note that even you used the word "awry". So we agree that there is a propwer way of doing things and an improper one. Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the improper one.

I agree with the first part. That's what I've been trying to get you to understand. But there are different levels of impropriety. Criminal ones, and less severe ones - like friendly fire and cowardice under fire, for instance. Reprehensible acts in war conditions but hardly immoral. But both borne out of reactions to pressure-cooker situations.   

I am not going to argue with an emotionally insecure closed brick wall anymore on this.

I know how you feel...

The most successful generals and admirals of WWII disagreed on the military necessity.

This is gross hyperbole. "Most successful"? You're leaving out "The Boss": Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Marshall. Here's what he had to say about the bomb:

"The bomb stopped the war; therefore it was justifiable. I think it was very wise to use it."

I could end it there with a 'nuff said...but let's have a look at what else George Marshall accomplished in his lifetime:

"During the war he was Chief of Staff of the Army, a key strategist in Allied plans on all fronts, and an important adviser to Roosevelt and Truman on the Manhattan Project. After his retirement from the Army, he became Secretary of State in 1947. He won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for the Marshall Plan, which helped to revive the economies of Western Europe."

Brimming with credentials, was Marshall, and widely respected by his peers (like Eisenhower). Not to mention much admired as one of the greatest military minds the US ever produced. And, of course, an all-around nice guy. Hardly the moral miscreant you seem bent on tagging he and his ilk.

I'll go with their judgment over your uninformed, emotional groping for straws to keep your lofty ideas about US morality intact. PS, I looked it up:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower (Memoirs)

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

""Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." US Strategic Bombing Survey

You forgot this quote:

"You have asked us to comment on the initial use of the new weapon. This use, in our opinion, should be such as to promote a satisfactory adjustment of our international relations. At the same time, we recognize our obligation to our nation to use the weapons to help save American lives in the Japanese war.

We can propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use."  J. R. Oppenheimer, June 16, 1945

I'll add this one for good measure:

"At no time, from 1941 to 1945 did I ever hear it suggested by the President, or any other responsible member of the government, that atomic energy should not be used in the war." Henry Stimson, Secretary of War (1940-1945)

So groping? Hmm...err...nah....

Very much unlike the fact that in all your argumentation you completely avoid the issue of morality. Your entire set of arguments amount at best to an excuse. Not once do you say that dropping the bomb was morally right, nor do you ever explain the moral tenets underlying your thinking.

Of course it was morally right...for those who voted to use it. And they certainly weren't pea-brains unable to see right from wrong.

As for what I would've chosen, I simply can't say. I wasn't there.

Under the pressure-cooker one might say the irrationality of war got to them and the wrong decision was made. But hardly immoral.

Your argument amounts to: "sorry dear citizens of H & N, you happened to be the easiest targets and we just had to do it, we had no choice."

This is a gross misrepresentation of my side of the argument...I mean, WHAT??!!!???!!! Talk about emotionally insecure closed brick wall..........

That is an amoral argument. You seek to represent the US as an actor that did not have freedom of choice and acted out of necessity, thus making moral considerations secondary. Conveninently, by doing so you completely disregard the fact that A) there was in fact a choice made, other options were indeed available and there was in fact no immediate necessity to end the war just then, as evidenced by the many dissenting voices, and B) you completely avoid making any statements about the use of nuclear weapons altogether.

It would be an immoral argument if that was what I actually meant. But it's not. So let's give you the strawman of the post award, here...

Your argumentation at best exempts H & N from moral consideration but doesn't lay out how a government should act in war time when faced with the option of using nukes.

Well, that was obviously a one-off as at no other time had nukes been used in war. So from their perspective as first-time users of such a weapon they had no precedent with which to go by. Can't hold that against them. As I said, the the devastation had been woefully underestimated. By half - or even one-tenth - I've read. 

So knowing what we know now I'd say it's best to keep nuclear weapons in sleep mode.

Also, I think the absence of any subsequent usage speaks for itself...

No, see, here is the problem with your thinking. You're essentially saying, war is hell and all rules go out the window in war and such is life, you can't hold people morally accountable for that. I am saying there are rules, even in war, and whether or not we observe them even in such extreme circumstances is what really separates the morally upstanding actor from the one who easily succumbs to the temptation of making an immoral choice for the sake of expediency. The general immorality of war does not excuse the immoral choices of individuals. It's weird. On the one hand you seem to agree that war is irrational and very messy and bad. But some emotional barrier holds you back from identifying the individuals who are responsible for some of those immoral acts that make war so irrational, messy and bad. That right there is the barrier between us in this argument.

Again, painting this decision as an "immoral indiscretion" is false.

You're trying to paint the decision to use the bomb as a heartless act of inhumanity. It wasn't. War played a part...

What "twiddling numbers" did I posit? Are you sure you're arguing with me? The million is pure fiction. I'd like you cite a source for that one.

A spot Google finds the one million estimate fairly easily. Although Google wasn't my source. If you Google for yourself and are unsatisfied with what you find let me know and I'll attempt a .jpg of my source for you.

That was an abstraction of the choice made. No assessment that I have seen (leaving aside exaggerations by politicians, the highest of which that I know is 500,000) posited that more US soldiers would be killed by invasion than the number of Japanese civilians that were actually killed by the bomb. The largest number I have seen from military planners was up to 200,000 which was nearly the number of US personnel killed in all of WWII by that point, which is just an absurd number as against an exhausted enemy. Even that is less than a conservative estimate of the total number of civilians killed in H & N plus aftereffects. My point is that a larger number of civilians was traded to save a smaller number of military personnel, i.e. a large numbers of noncombatant persons who are not proper targets for warfare were slaughtered to save a smaller number of combatants. That is an immoral choice.

It wasn't an exhausted ground army (as opposed to air and sea). Estimates I've read claim upwards of two million men still battle-ready. So, again, a very real threat.

There is no conspiracy here and it is in fact very well documented. Truman disagreed with FDR over inviting the Russians into the Pacific theater and the Russian entry into the Pacific Theater was the driving factor in the timing and decision to drop the bombs on Japan. Consider that the US military was in fact planning more bombs to be dropped on Japan, but had only two ready. Now, why do you go out of your way to rush this thing if there is no urgency in the military situation with Japan, since you have total air and naval supremacy and the Japanese can't harm you where you are at the moment? If the Russians have nothing to do with it, please explain the timing.

The Russian factor was not the "driving factor". Please provide documentation that it, in fact, was THE driving factor. That no other considerations held near as much weight. And I mean first-hand accounts from the actual decision-makers themselves at that exact moment in time leading up to the bombs usage. Not any subsequent hearsay.

I certainly don't read anything of the sort in the Oppenheimer quote above.

You are so emotional about this that you don't even recognize your selective amnesia. You pick one example and by mistaken induction create a rule from an unrepresentative sample.

Elements of a crime: act + mens rea (state of mind) + absence of mitigating factors that affect state of mind. Act = attack of civilian targets. Mens rea = deliberate, conscious decisions by certain military leaders to drop the bomb. Absence of mitigating factors = no gun was being held to their head, nobody forced them to make that choice, they weren't involuntarily intoxicated, insane or minors incapable of comprehending the effects of their actions. The mere fact that others, looking at the same facts, made different conclusions and dissented proves that there was no "fog of war" that should have prevented a better decision from being made. If indeed everyone had made the same choice based on some mistaken set of data that couldn't have been proven wrong with a modicum of diligence prior to the act, only then could you make a "fog of war" argument that could possibly excuse the decisionmakers because supposedly they couldn't have known better. The fact that others did in fact know better and told them so negates and disqualifies that entire line of reasoning. Your argument is exactly the same Hillary makes about her decision to vote for the Iraq war: we had flawed intelligence and couldn't have known better. Except it's wrong, because millions of people all over the globe did in fact know better and told her so quite vocally.

I would go along with this except for the (perhaps bitter) fact that conscientiously aware folks are capable of coming to conclusions not in league with other conscientiously aware folks. Even with the same data in front of them. You did see my Marshall and Oppenheimer quotes above, yes? So it's natural for there to be disagreement in the ranks. This is an inherently human characteristic. It's dogged us throughout time!! Nothing new about that.

You're simply on one side of the debate claiming 'others' just don't get it.

My friend, you're once again missing the point. It is indeed irrelevant what we think from our perspective today. The point is the contrast between those contemproraries who, looking at the same facts, i.e. from the same exact historic perspective, made morally correct choices, while others made immoral choices, wrongly condemning a civilian population to a fiery death and decades of poisoning.

I'm not sure why you keep using the same argument over and over. Please see above.

My answer to this is: it's dependent on whether or not one thinks the usage of the bomb was an immoral act.

You (and others) do. I (and others) don't.

[paulb]

Mench knows alot about war history, but he seems to hang on to this persistent blind spot as to the hows/whys it was necessary  the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
You know as a  american you can go to either city and feel no animosity from the locals. They do not hold anything against the US.
So why are you carrying on this way?
If the islamics want to push their agenda, eventually they also may run into issues with someone along the way.
may not be the US, may not be in our lifetimes.
but one day......thats if they keep trying to push their agenda. This is a  basic psychological law.

[head-case]

OK, head-case, let's think about this one. If this was a "fog of war" situation, shouldn't the other people at least have conceded the potential validity of the opposite view, given uncertainty of information? The point is they didn't. Because the information wasn't unclear. The difference between Eisenhower, Nimitz et al. on the one side and Truman, Groves et al. on the other, is that the two were pursuing different strategies. Eisenhower/Nimitz were thinking only about ending the war with Japan. Whereas Truman/Groves were thinking of stopping the Russians in their tracks and impressing upon them the new extent of America's military might (which is also why Truman mentioned the existence of the bomb to Stalin at Potsdam).

You portray Eisenhower as being staunchly opposed to the attack, which is misleading.  The material I have come across simply says that Eisenhower thought that Japan could be induced to surrender if better terms were offered, including a promise to maintain the Emperor.  In fact Japan refused less generous but humane terms offered in the Potsdam declaration, which promised that "We do not intend that the Japanese shall be enslaved as a race or destroyed as a nation...Freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought, as well as respect for the fundamental human rights shall be established" and threatened that "the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."  If that one additional article had been included in Potsdam declaration Eisenhower's expressed reservation would have negated.

You also brush over the fact that Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Arthur Compton and Ernest Lawrence (all but Oppenheimer Nobel Prize winners) all unequivocally recommended immediate military use of the weapon.

Responsibility for the horror Japan suffered rests at the feet of its militaristic leaders, who refused an offer of cessation of hostilities, presumably to resist virtually to the last man, as they did at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.  I don't see that the level of destruction would be less if the US had pursued conventional aerial bombardment and eventual invasion.  (Your claims that the effects of the nuclear weapons are unspeakably worse are than those of conventional warfare are contradicted by the fact that today Hiroshima and Nagasaki are prosperous cities with populations much larger than they were before the attacks.)

[paulb]

I didn't know where i should post this ona   current topic, so i figured this *Dumb/even dumbER* topuc was just the spot for this latest from the *White* House.

Bush Speaks:
http://neworleans.cox.net/cci/newsnational/national?_mode=view&_state=maximized&view=article&id=D8V3EM1O1&_action=validatearticle

Read my comments on Bush I made today over at the Obama topic, *Bush is a  zombie* , I made that post PRIOR to reading these headlines. Not bad eh? 

[c#minor]

i would love to get in on this debate but there is no way in hell i am reading all of this

[paulb]

i would love to get in on this debate but there is no way in hell i am reading all of this

oh , you are not required to read any of this topic.
just post us a story from your local newspaper or something you know about how your community is governed.
What everyone is trying to do is outdo the other on stories that show  dumbER than the other guy. The *dumbest of the dumbest*

[Tapio Dimitriyevich Shostakovich]

What I can tell is: If someone comes into a meeting as the only foreigner amongst 20 other people and starts speaking in his language straightforwardly; if someone starts speaking in his language on the phone without any excuse or respect: it's most likely an american. No respect. Seen that often enough. Like the germans in the netherlands At least people should try to give their best, it's a matter of respect. I'm the last not to show understanding if americans don't speak a foreign language.

[paulb]

What I can tell is: If someone comes into a meeting as the only foreigner amongst 20 other people and starts speaking in his language straightforwardly; if someone starts speaking in his language on the phone without any excuse or respect: it's most likely an american. No respect. Seen that often enough. Like the germans in the netherlands At least people should try to give their best, it's a matter of respect. I'm the last not to show understanding if americans don't speak a foreign language.

Both french and spanish should be required starting in 4th or 5th grades, going all the way through high school.
I agree.
But when you consider the facts, most americans have only a  3rd-5th grade education,(public HS grads in the US, equal about a  5th grader status in japan or europe's finer HS's) its too much to consider adding a  foreign language.
Thats not going to happen.
I know alittle spanish due to a  good HS professor. I always regret(hind sight) not studying french as well.
But i had problems in HS.

[bwv 1080]

Its is very rude of foreigners not to speak English.  It is much more efficient for everyone else to learn English.  After all, there are hundreds of foreign languages - who could keep track of them all?. Every foreigner just has to learn one additional language - English - to spare us the inconvienence of learning thousands of weird dialects. 

[paulb]

Its is very rude of foreigners not to speak English.  It is much more efficient for everyone else to learn English.  After all, there are hundreds of foreign languages - who could keep track of them all?. Every foreigner just has to learn one additional language - English - to spare us the inconvienence of learning thousands of weird dialects. 

most forigners do speak some to excellent  english, + some even  speak 3 languages.
most americans do not know a  foreign language. many of the poor just barely get by with their level of englsih.
You can go to poor places in africa and they may speak some french along with their native tongue + alittle english.

I see nothing rude about foreigners not speaking english.
I see its rude that americans go to paris and do not speak one word of french.

america is cut off from the rest of the world, like a  island slowly sinking into the sea.

[greg]

What I can tell is: If someone comes into a meeting as the only foreigner amongst 20 other people and starts speaking in his language straightforwardly; if someone starts speaking in his language on the phone without any excuse or respect: it's most likely an american. No respect. Seen that often enough. Like the germans in the netherlands At least people should try to give their best, it's a matter of respect. I'm the last not to show understanding if americans don't speak a foreign language.

Both french and spanish should be required starting in 4th or 5th grades, going all the way through high school.

I agree 100% with this one, and really hate the fact that it isn't like this.
Though people who already know Spanish well enough (what, 1/4 of the kids at my old schools) shouldn't be forced to take the class, then it's just pointless (and some of them actually did take Spanish class at school!  )  So they should just take French. And the rest could decide between either, or both. (And then there should be smaller classes for whatever other languages for everyone as an elective).
America is so isolated that you never need to know any other language besides English- and are never exposed to anything else. The only time a second language is really useful is when you're at work and get some Mexican who can't speak English too well (yet). Or maybe you want to talk to a friend in their language. But overall, not needed in daily life.

Its is very rude of foreigners not to speak English.  It is much more efficient for everyone else to learn English.  After all, there are hundreds of foreign languages - who could keep track of them all?. Every foreigner just has to learn one additional language - English - to spare us the inconvienence of learning thousands of weird dialects. 

yeah, luckily they usually do. There has to be a language that people all around the globe learn, instead of random ones, and it's not gonna be Esperanto 

[greg]

many of the poor just barely get by with their level of englsih.

Paul, i think you should edit this post  0:)






( )

[paulb]

Paul, i think you should edit this post  0:)






( )

yes but i got all my other spelling correct, and my ideas are pretty insightful.
Don't you think I should get a  B on spelling, but an A on content.

"the USA is like unto an island slowly sinking into the sea"