Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?

If you are a twitter user there has been a small exchange between a skeptic and a historian over the decision to use the nuclear bombs. Worth a peek and it cites books on both sides of the argument. Via: https://twitter.com/wc_quinn/status/1458891500344029189

 

'Deserve' is a term wholly in the realm of moral. Not military, nor even legal. Was it justified militarily and was it legal are different question to was it 'deserved' morally.

We all have our own opinions on moral matters, and most of those opinions are so fixed that 'honest' discussion is hard to find.

As time passes, society changes and thus thinking in society changes. Here, there, and everywhere. What was acceptable yesterday is considered repulsive tomorrow.

If we quantify or measure 'deserve' by today's moral standards, the answer will probably be different to that of 1945 or 2095. 75 years is a long, long time when it comes to societal change. Which date, and which answer, is thus definitive?

 

Mark a very well educated and thoughtful piece from yourself.

My more bull in a china shop approach

How easy it is for the modern person to state how terrible it all was poor japs etc



They need to look at the time not now or even in the future
The japs were an obsessive culture who had already militarily wiped out hundreds of thousands of people.
Was there a chance of them surrendering.
By the looks of it no

Did they deserve it at the time
yes with knobs on

Yes I know people like me always make it deserved by showing a photo as per below.
But these were real people too

 

My mother lost one brother in Normandy, uncle John was training to invade Japan and my Grandfather on my Dads side would of gone to , would they of came back who knows glad they didn’t.They had no time for the Japanese, John worked in factory that run the Rising Sun next to the Union Jack when a delegation of Japs where coming to visit , he made them take it down or they would have the workforce out on strike the old guys felt so strong about it and get him on aboutHonda at Vickers Supermarine

 

My father was home on leave after returning from Europe and was getting ready to leave for the west coast and then Japan when he heard about the bomb on the radio at my grandmother's house.

 

I consider the defence of the use of the atomic bombs by referencing the treatment of PoWs to be most unhelpful if not, in itself, morally repugnant.

Old testament eye-for-an-eye retribution was not considered acceptable in British society in 1945 any more then it is now. Tens of thousands of civilians did not 'deserve' to die because troops defeated on the battlefield were mistreated in captivity. The two are quite separate.

Personally, I believe that the use of the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was legitimate politically, militarily, legally and morally.

The 'retribution' argument only serves to delegitimize the action and provide the naysayers with ammunition to sustain their argument.

 

I think we all agree to disagree and thank you for your very balanced view

I am sure you knew ex POWS from WW2 along with many of us and some of us go with the stories and lives changed

I come from a base level it is as simple as that
It was of the time

 

>SNIP<

Absolutely and without question. The loss of life that would have occurred in a conventional attack was far outweighed by the use of the devices.

 

Your opinion is no less valued than mine or the next poster in line.

I believe that the two bombs were dropped for the right reason(s). Retribution had no part in the thinking at the time.

I believe arguing the 'retribution' line only serves to convince others that the bombs were / may have been dropped for the wrong reason and thus gives succor to the naysayers.

But if you feel tens of thousands of civilians from the general population 'deserved' to die as retribution for untold mistreatment of captives, so be it.

I hope, for the sake of future generations, that any future enemy of Britain doesn't decide to indescriminately punish the civil general population for the crimes of others.

 

Mark
I did not say deserved to die
I am simply saying of the time it was the right thing to do ending a fanatical regime.Also ending more allied lives lost invading Japan possibly including my father
As happened all over world at that time many civilians were killed.




.

 

Clive,

You do not have to defend yourself. I am not saying you are wrong to have the opinion you do. Nor am I trying to change your mind. The 'retribution' opinion is, as you rightly pointed out, quite commonplace.

My point was to highlight that 'retribution' is a 'wrong' justification for a 'right' decision. And thus, when used, only serves to aid the otherside of the argument.

If you do/did not believe that the killing of tens of thousand of the general population by the two bombs had no connection to the mistreatment of PoWs, and that you are against the notion that it was 'deserved' because of that mistreatment, then perhaps it would have been better not to post pictures of suffering PoWs accompanied by your words, "Did they deserve it at the time yes with knobs on. Yes I know people like me always make it deserved by showing a photo as per below."

It is a very unfortunate and misleading combination of words and images if that is not what you really meant.

 

Thank you Mark
A well balanced view
Perhaps i need to engage my very small brain before commenting

 

I don't know if the US cares or not I know China and North Korea and South Korea definitely want an atomic bomb to blow up all of Japan

 

我有件事要问你隔壁的邻居。你一直在说美国原子弹发生了什么。你有没有想过你在亚洲、我的祖国中国以及邻国朝鲜、新加坡、马尼拉做了什么？原子弹下没有冤魂的说法是真的。你们日本人屠杀亚洲平民战俘，就像纳粹屠杀犹太人一样。这不是很可怜吗？假装自己是原子弹的受害者，不是很不现实吗？


See Did the Japanese deserve the Atomic Bomb?

 

Please translate to English

 

ok just sorry

 

I have something to ask your next door neighbor. You keep talking about what happened to the US atomic bomb. Have you ever wondered what you are doing in Asia, my home country China and neighboring North Korea, Singapore, Manila? It is true that there are no souls under the atomic bomb. You Japanese slaughtered Asian civilian prisoners of war just like the Nazis slaughtered the Jews. Isn't that pitiful? Isn't it unrealistic to pretend to be a victim of an atomic bomb?

 

In Our Time - Elizabeth Anscombe - BBC Sounds

In 1956 Oxford University awarded an honorary degree to the former US president Harry S. Truman for his role in ending the Second World War. One philosopher, Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 – 2001), objected strongly.
She argued that although dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have ended the fighting, it amounted to the murder of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It was therefore an irredeemably immoral act. And there was something fundamentally wrong with a moral philosophy that didn’t see that.
This was the starting point for a body of work that changed the terms in which philosophers discussed moral and ethical questions in the second half of the twentieth century.
A leading student of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, Anscombe combined his insights with rejuvenated interpretations of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas that made these ancient figures speak to modern issues and concerns. Anscombe was also instrumental in making action, and the question of what it means to intend to do something, a leading area of philosophical work.
With
Rachael Wiseman, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Liverpool
Constantine Sandis, Visiting Professor of Philosophy at the University of Hertfordshire, and Director of Lex Academic
Roger Teichmann, Lecturer in Philosophy at St Hilda’s College, University of Oxford

 

Absolutely

 

"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. The atomic bomb was a new, powerful weapon. It was going to be used against a still-fighting enemy as soon as reasonably possible. Period.

Any argument based on "but nuclear weapons" is looking at the question from the perspective of Cold War hindsight.

The Soviets entered the war less than 48 hours before Nagasaki and nobody knew August Storm was going to roll the Japanese so quickly.

Cold hard calculus: considering all the POWs and civilians suffering from the war, you don't even need to avert an invasion to save lives. Someone writing on Downfall (I forget which book) estimated that if the bombs shortened the war by only a few weeks it saved lives.

There was no reason to give Japan special treatment and not require Unconditional Surrender. The whole point of Unconditional Surrender, a demand the Allies agreed upon in 1942, is to avert a WW1 ending and aftermath. This isn't an armistice. This isn't a negotiation. You are acknowledging that you are completely beaten and at the mercy of the victors. If anything, the Japanese still got off lightly. Haven't the Japanese refused to acknowledge and apologize for some of their WW2 atrocities?

The Emperor saved himself by personally forcing his country to surrender. He should have committed suicide later to atone for his role in the war.