Moral Equivalence - The Israel-Palestine Conflict

[Lallante]

(Thread created following request from lionking)

Moral Equivalence is best known as a derrogatory label applied, usually by conservative commentators, to the practice of taking as a presumption that two sides in a conflict are morally equivilent. The term saw great usage following WWII, during the cold war, and has now been used, again as a criticism, in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The critics of moral equivalence take the view that one side (The USA, Israel, etc) is fundamentally morally in the right - the values at stake in the conflict can be judged on absolute terms and proven superior. Thus, as one side in the conflict is good, the other is evil.

This anti-equivalence arguement is then used as justification for questionable actions taken by the 'good' party. For example, the fire-bombing of Dresden in WWII, the nuclear-destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the internment in poor conditions of Japanese-American civilians in the USA in the 1940s, the invasion of Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan), CIA support for the Contras in Nicaragua, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, Israeli assasinations of Palestinian leaders, the destruction of Palestinian towns with bulldozers, etc etc. In each case the presumption of moral superiority is necessary - if the sides were reversed, the action would be condemned as immoral.

I question whether we can be so sure of our moral superiority. I think when comparing two sides in a conflict, one must consider not only their actions, but the conditions that led to their actions. Furthermore, I think one must also consider the alternatives available to them.


I think it is entirely fair and reasonable to judge Israel by a higher (and by that I mean more stringent) standard than we judge Palestine, due to Israel having many advantages that Palestine does not - stable government, democracy, control over its military forces, huge quantities of aid and other forms of international support, a functioning and healthy economy, free trade with other countries and so on.

I think that Palestine should not be judged by the same standards as Israel, just as in most of the Western world's legal systems someone who has suffered abuse and neglect as a child and then lashes out is held to a lower standard (at least in sentencing) than someone who has had every advantage and yet still acted with violence.

I further pose the following questions:

1. Pick one of the events in which moral superiority was invoked, listed above (for example and perhaps most definitive, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Imagine the sides of the conflict were reversed (eg Japan nuked, say, Chicago and New Orleans and secured a US surrender). Do you think there is moral equivalence? If not, please go into detail as to why.

2. In the case of Israel-Palestine, is there moral equivalence? Can one really say one side is good and the other bad and use this to justify questionable actions by the good side? Please justify your answer.

3. Should Israel and Palestine be morally judged by different standards, for the reasons I've outlined above (or others)? Please justify your answer.


Thanks

[dtugg]

1. Pick one of the events in which moral superiority was invoked, listed above (for example and perhaps most definitive, the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Imagine the sides of the conflict were reversed (eg Japan nuked, say, Chicago and New Orleans and secured a US surrender). Do you think there is moral equivalence? If not, please go into detail as to why.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the US was morally superior to Japan in general regarding WW2 and was morally justified in nuking them to bring an end to the war. Japan was the one who was waging a war of conquest that had cost millions of lives and they were the ones who brought the US into the war.

If the roles were reversed and the US had started a war that killed millions of people and brought Japan into it, and it looked like US was willing to fight to the death rather than surrender, Japan would have absolutely been morally justified in nuking a couple American cities in an attempt to bring a quick end to the war.

[lionking]

That's my view as well. The fact that Japan did not surrender after the first nuke demonstrated their determination to fight to the last man. Even after the second, there was still resistance to surrender. The nukes saved lives.

[Lallante]

There is no doubt whatsoever that the US was morally superior to Japan in general regarding WW2 and was morally justified in nuking them to bring an end to the war. Japan was the one who was waging a war of conquest that had cost millions of lives and they were the ones who brought the US into the war.

If the roles were reversed and the US had started a war that killed millions of people and brought Japan into it, and it looked like US was willing to fight to the death rather than surrender, Japan would have absolutely been morally justified in nuking a couple American cities in an attempt to bring a quick end to the war.

While I would agree for the reasons you note (though primarily the millions killed rather than initiation) that the USA had moral superiority, I would also argue that this does not provide a sufficient moral justification for nuking two population centres simultaneously.

Simply put, I dont think moral superiority alone is enough of a justification for morally questionable actions, at least until all other options are exhausted.

[DC]

1.
it propably was an necesary evil.

but the first Nuke on a City was moraly seen totaly wrong in my eyes.
many many innocent civilians died.

2.
I can understand both sides somehow. Israelis wanting to come back to the region they once came from (Zion) but also i can understand those living in the area that cannot understand their land beeing given to someone else. there is no side in this conflict that is moraly superior.

3. a bit yes. Palestinians have not the tools and ways Israelis have to reach their goals.
their situation is extremly worse, while we cannot blame only Israel for this.

[lionking]

I would also argue that this does not provide a sufficient moral justification for nuking two population centres simultaneously.

Simply put, I dont think moral superiority alone is enough of a justification for morally questionable actions, at least until all other options are exhausted.

Well here's where you are wrong. The simpliest research would show that the nukes were not simultaneous.

[dtugg]

While I would agree for the reasons you note (though primarily the millions killed rather than initiation) that the USA had moral superiority, I would also argue that this does not provide a sufficient moral justification for nuking two population centres simultaneously.

Simply put, I dont think moral superiority alone is enough of a justification for morally questionable actions, at least until all other options are exhausted.

They didn't nuke two population centers simultaneously. Nagaski happened a few days later.

And if saving millions of lives in isn't enough of a moral justification to nuke a couple cites, than what is? What should the US have done instead?

ETA: I kind of read that wrong. I forgot to mention in my first post that it is estimated that an invasion of Japan would have costs millions of lives. I thought that's what you were referring to. Is avoiding an invasion that would have killed millions of people justification enough to nuke a couple cities?

[DC]

Invasion would propably saved millions of Civillians.

[lionking]

Invasion would propably saved millions of Civillians.
How? You have come up with something nobody else seems to realise.

[dtugg]

Invasion would propably saved millions of Civillians.

Did you mean to say "kill" instead of "save"?

[DC]

Did you mean to say "kill" instead of "save"?

usualy the US army is not killing civillians during invasion (with a few exceptions)

i ment save. it would no doubt have cost alot more US soldiers lives, but it would have saved alot civilians that now just got nuked.

[Skeptic]

It's the old difference between morality ad bello and morality in bellum. One can, of course, be 100% morally in the right in starting the war or perusing it, and morally in the wrong in the means one uses. Conversely, one can fight 100% according to the rules of war, and yet be fighting a war of conquest and aggression which in unjustifiable.

The problem is that the entire "means and ends" discussions that those who argue for moral equivalency takes place while looking solely in morality in bellum, ignoring the situation ad bello (I hope I remember my Latin!). This leads them to morally imbecile judgements, for the following reasons:

1). First, while in theory the ad bello and in bellum issues are logically distinct, but in practice, those -- like, for example, Stalinist Russia, Hamas, Al Quaeda, the Nazis, etc. -- whose cause was monstrously unjust, tend to also be those who completely ignore and dismiss any sort of attempt to follow any laws of war. Yet the ignoring of the badness of one side's goal and the goodness of the others' ignores this correlation and treats them as if both sides are equally likely to observe the laws of war.

2). Second, it is at least arguable -- pace what most academic philosophers think -- that it matters A LOT whether one's goal in the war is good (peace, survival) or evil (conquest, genocide) to the moral justification of the action one can take in a war. Someone who fights for a good cause, or fights a war of self-defense that cannot be avoided, is surely is allowed more latitude in the means he can use if he must, than someone whose goal is evil.

3). Third, it is armchair moralizing. This, in itself, is not necessarily bad in general, but in this particular subject, it boils down to armchair generalship, and the moral judgments resulting from it are as worthless as the military decisions they reach.

To illustrate (3) in more detail, let me give one example. When the laws of war speak of "proportionate force", they do NOT mean it in terms of killing soldiers or military installations. If there's a war, you are welcome to use as much force as you want against those targets. The term "proportionate force" applies only to how many CIVILIANS or civilian infrastructure it is justifiable to hurt and in what circumstances to achieve the goal of the war.

Now, suppose one enemy terrorist (adult male, to avoid the whole "women and children" issue) goes out on a terrorist mission. His target, we know, is one adult male civilian. To kill him on the way is clearly justified -- he's a legitimate military target. But suppose we can only stop him from killing the civilian by hitting him in the street when there are civilians of his side around. How many would you say can we kill which would be proportionate to our goal of preventing a suicide attack? 1? 2? 5? 100? Unlimited number? If I ask on this forum alone, we'd get answers that are all over the map -- and this is just about the simplest possible example where the "proportionality" issue arises at all.

Here, military expertise and knowledge of the situation becomes crucial to evaluating what is morally allowed, while armchair "what would have happened if..." becomes meaningless. Our best moral experts here are military men and perhaps military lawyers in particular, while the moral judgment of what is or is not "proportionate" of armchair-sitting civilians are worthless.

Take the ridiculous Goldstone, for example. His view was that Israel used "disproportionate force" in Gaza. Why? Because Israel should have first asked the UN to intervene, and then use "commando raids" to "pinpoint" the terrorist leaders. Really. Here, downright ignorance of the simplest military matters totally distorted the moral judgment. Every corporal in the IDF could tell you easily it's not nearly as easy as that to plan "commando raids" (Goldstone obviously saw far too many action movies), and that asking the UN is worthless. So the entire claim of "disproportionate force" he morally blamed Israel for was based on a childish, ridiculous misunderstanding of what is possible and not possible politically and militarily, and therefore on what "proportionate" could possibly mean in this situation.

For reasons (1), (2), and (3), I find such discussions pointless because it is usually precisely those least qualified to make moral judgments -- the armchair grand strategists -- who are most eager to do so. First, they completely ignore the enormous difference the goals of both sides is, and, second, condemn and besmirch their own side's soldiers based purely on armchair gut feelings of what was possible, what was not possible, what they imagine was possible, etc. I suspect that the real goal here is not so much interest in moral discussion, but merely the desire to see oneself as morally superior for condemning things other people do not.

[dtugg]

usualy the US army is not killing civillians during invasion (with a few exceptions)

i ment save. it would no doubt have cost alot more US soldiers lives, but it would have saved alot civilians that now just got nuked.

Well then you couldn't possibly be more wrong. First of all, not even a million Japanese civilians died during the whole war. Second, the Japanese were fanatically dedicated to the Emperor. They thought he was a God. They would have been out on the streets fighting US soldiers who would have probably killed millions of them.

[DC]

Well then you couldn't possibly be more wrong. First of all, not even a million Japanese civilians died during the whole war. Second, the Japanese were fanatically dedicated to the Emperor. They thought he was a God. They would have been out on the streets fighting US soldiers who would have probably killed millions of them.

from what i have read, they were not such a monolithic block they are portraied today.

[lionking]

from what i have read, they were not such a monolithic block they are portraied today.
Stop reading comic books then and try reading some history.

Do you have a source for this then?

[DC]

Stop reading comic books then and try reading some history.

Do you have a source for this then?

on ignore you go, comic books my ass.

[WildCat]

nuking two population centres simultaneously.
Do you actually know anything about WWII?

[dtugg]

from what i have read, they were not such a monolithic block they are portraied today.

Sure, the Japanese weren't fanatically dedicated to their God. :rolleyes:

Anyway, do you at least acknowledge that since less than a million Japanese civilians died during the whole war, that there is no way that an invasion could have saved millions of civilians?

[DC]

Sure, the Japanese weren't fanatically dedicated to their God. :rolleyes:

Anyway, do you at least acknowledge that since less than a million Japanese civilians died during the whole war, that there is no way that an invasion could have saved millions of civilians?

yes sure.

[WildCat]

Invasion would propably saved millions of Civillians.

usualy the US army is not killing civillians during invasion (with a few exceptions)

i ment save. it would no doubt have cost alot more US soldiers lives, but it would have saved alot civilians that now just got nuked.
Millions of civilians did not die in the nuclear attacks.

The nuclear attacks weren't even the deadliest bombing raids on Japan. The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in more civilian casualties.

In fact, the invasion of sparsely populated and rural Okinawa resulted in more civilian casualties. About half of all Okinawans died in the invasion of Okinawa. Now, scale that up to an invasion of the Japanese main islands and you're talking tens of millions of civilian deaths. Far more than died because of the nuclear attacks.

[DC]

Millions of civilians did not die in the nuclear attacks.

The nuclear attacks weren't even the deadliest bombing raids on Japan. The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in more civilian casualties.

In fact, the invasion of sparsely populated and rural Okinawa resulted in more civilian casualties. About half of all Okinawans died in the invasion of Okinawa. Now, scale that up to an invasion of the Japanese main islands and you're talking tens of millions of civilian deths. Far more than died because of the nuclear attacks.

source?
afaik more died do to the nukes.


Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki,[5] with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Japan lost over 100,000 troops, and the Allies suffered more than 50,000 casualties. Simultaneously, more than 100,000 civilians (12,000 in action) were killed, wounded, or committed suicide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa

[WildCat]

source?
afaik more died do to the nukes.
I'm not about to write you an essay on WWII. Educate yourself. Does your internet have Google?

[Darth Rotor]

2. In the case of Israel-Palestine, is there moral equivalence? Can one really say one side is good and the other bad and use this to justify questionable actions by the good side? Please justify your answer.

3. Should Israel and Palestine be morally judged by different standards, for the reasons I've outlined above (or others)? Please justify your answer.

You are comparing apples and running shoes. The two are not on equal footing, unlike for example Israel and Syria. Until that changes, the political game of Underdog versus Power will remain, just as the political game of Underdog versus Power was invoked when Israel's attempts to establish itself were underway. The rhetoric, honest and dishonest, is part of the political game.

To repeat my point, Palestine does not as yet exist as a nation state, nor does it have all of the burdens, options, nor discretion of a nation state. One thus cannot compare it on the same basis as Israel, which is a nation state with all of the limitations, discretion, and options that entails.

Put another way, why are you trying to compare a junior varsity baseball player in high school and a professional baseball player for the Kansas City Royals? For whatever reason -- lack of talent, bad coaching, missed opportunity, toughness of competition -- the Pals haven't made it yet to the big leagues.

Beyond that, none of it has anything to do with the nukes on Japan, and the decision that led up to it. Ending a war is often argued as a moral good, for example.

Beyond your demonstrated ignorance of some historical facts, your post is at best a non sequitur.

DR

[WildCat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa
I see you do have Google!

Do you now concede the point?

Hint: The civilian population of Okinawa pre-invasion was less than 300,000, of which nearly 150,000 died.

[DC]

I'm not about to write you an essay on WWII. Educate yourself. Does your internet have Google?

yes and that google thingy debunked your claim once again......

[WildCat]

yes and that google thingy debunked your claim once again......
:confused:

Try reading it again, with comprehension this time.

[DC]

:confused:

Try reading it again, with comprehension this time.

In fact, the invasion of sparsely populated and rural Okinawa resulted in more civilian casualties.

no it didnt.

[WildCat]

The first raid using low-flying B-29s carrying incendiary bombs (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Incendiary_device) to drop on Tokyo was on the night of 24–25 February 1945 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city.[citation needed (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 335 B-29s took off[1] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-Mar45Chronology-0) to raid on the night of 9–10 March, with 279 of them[1] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-Mar45Chronology-0) dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost.[1] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-Mar45Chronology-0) Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Firestorm), more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Hiroshima) or Nagasaki (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Nagasaki,_Nagasaki) atomic bombs.[2] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-1)[3] (http://forums.randi.org/#cite_note-2) The US Strategic Bombing Survey (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Strategic_Bombing_Survey_(Pacific_War)) later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department (http://forums.randi.org/wiki/Tokyo_Metropolitan_Police_Department) established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

No nukes involved.

[McHrozni]

While I would agree for the reasons you note (though primarily the millions killed rather than initiation) that the USA had moral superiority, I would also argue that this does not provide a sufficient moral justification for nuking two population centres simultaneously.

That didn't happen, they were bombed a few days apart. With 1945 technology, that was sufficient time to communicate a surrender.

Moreover, the only other options to forcing Japan to surrender were more costly in blood. As noted before, firebombing of Tokyo inflicted horrendous damage to the city and killed more people than the atomic bombs. Starvation and disease would take their toll under a blockade, and many would die on both sides in an invasion. In addition, Japanese troops were killing Chinese at the same time.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the least bad option.

McHrozni

[lionking]

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the least bad option.

McHrozni
Bingo.

[DC]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

No nukes involved.

Okinawa or Tokia, what is it now?

[a_unique_person]

That didn't happen, they were bombed a few days apart. With 1945 technology, that was sufficient time to communicate a surrender.

Moreover, the only other options to forcing Japan to surrender were more costly in blood. As noted before, firebombing of Tokyo inflicted horrendous damage to the city and killed more people than the atomic bombs. Starvation and disease would take their toll under a blockade, and many would die on both sides in an invasion. In addition, Japanese troops were killing Chinese at the same time.

Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the least bad option.

McHrozni

Did they have to bomb cities, and given the state of Japan at the time, a few days was not enough time. The die hards weren't going to be able to hold on in the face of inevitable defeat.

1) Demonstration bombing, then time for the leadership to absorb the results. That could have been a week or two.
2) Then a city.

Japan was defeated with no chance of a resurgence.

As for moral relativism, there seems to be a tendency to draw it out to mean, "Just as long as I can say I'm not as bad as the other guy, I'm OK".

[lionking]

1) Demonstration bombing, then time for the leadership to absorb the results. That could have been a week or two.


Sorry, where do you get that from? Nuking one city didn't get that response after a couple of days. Why would a week or two make a difference?

[a_unique_person]

Sorry, where do you get that from? Nuking one city didn't get that response after a couple of days. Why would a week or two make a difference?

Japan was a shambles with just a few die hards holding control of what was left of a government. There were plenty more who wanted the war to end. A demonstration may have worked. I am not saying it would have worked, but they were morally entitled to one to give those who wanted to end the war a chance.

[Lallante]

They didn't nuke two population centers simultaneously. Nagaski happened a few days later.

And if saving millions of lives in isn't enough of a moral justification to nuke a couple cites, than what is? What should the US have done instead?

ETA: I kind of read that wrong. I forgot to mention in my first post that it is estimated that an invasion of Japan would have costs millions of lives. I thought that's what you were referring to. Is avoiding an invasion that would have killed millions of people justification enough to nuke a couple cities?

Wouldn't continuance of the naval blockade have forced surrender due to starvation within 6 months or so?

[dtugg]

Wouldn't continuance of the naval blockade have forced surrender due to starvation within 6 months or so?

Perhaps. But are you actually saying that forcing a surrender through the starvation of millions of people is more morally justifiable than forcing a quick surrender by nuking two cities?

[Lallante]

Sorry, where do you get that from? Nuking one city didn't get that response after a couple of days. Why would a week or two make a difference?

Because a full half of the casualties were non-immediate, and in any case when 80,000 people die at once it would take a few weeks for the government to tally up the losses. Often the scale of death, particularly to an unprecedented incident like this, would be massively underestimated initially.


PS: Thanks to all those pointing out that H and N were not "simultanious" (a few days apart, it really does not change the arguement whatsoever) and then making ad-hom fallacy after fallacy about my knowledge of WWII, while ignoring the rest of what was posted. I appreciate your politeness and measured consideration of my posting.... This thread has at least reinforced my scepticism of the scepticism of this forum - cynicism and bitterness (and the ever prevelant internet-dweller pedantry) is perhaps more appropriate.

[Darth Rotor]

Wouldn't continuance of the naval blockade have forced surrender due to starvation within 6 months or so?
It may or may not have, but the political imperative was to End The War.

Also, blockades most frequently hit the small folks harder than the rich folks, so we have no idea how many people would have died before the Emperor and the rest of the leadership would have cried "Uncle."

See, for example, the recent embargoes and of Haiti and Iraq, and how effective they WERE NOT in bringing about a change/suitable outcome.

DR

[dtugg]

Because a full half of the casualties were non-immediate, and in any case when 80,000 people die at once it would take a few weeks for the government to tally up the losses. Often the scale of death, particularly to an unprecedented incident like this, would be massively underestimated initially.

How long does it take to look at the city see that most of it was destroyed? A few minutes?

[Lallante]

Perhaps. But are you actually saying that forcing a surrender through the starvation of millions of people is more morally justifiable than forcing a quick surrender by nuking two cities?

That would only occur if you are of the belief that a million people would starve to death before the remaining population pressurised the government enough to surrender. This seems unlikely as, as has been mentioned, Japan DID surrender after the 160,000 - 200,000 odd casualties of H & N.

Personally I dont understand the arguements against a demonstration nuclear bombing (on one of the surviving island naval bases) followed by a few weeks negotiation was not attempted. It wouldnt limit the USAs position and by that point very few (comparatively) US soldiers were dying to what was left (almost nothing) of Japan's navy.

[Lallante]

How long does it take to look at the city see that most of it was destroyed? A few minutes?

We are still arguing, vehemently, over how many people died in the Dresden bombing (estimates vary by a multiple of 5!). We still have only a rough idea how many died in Haiti. Do you honestly claim that a few days after an attack that was entirely without precedent, Japan would have an accurate picture of the consequences? Many of the deaths from H & N took weeks if not months to materialise.

[DC]

a city is also a "great" place to test your new bomb to see how much damage it does. thats why those cities were spared with conventional bombings, so an accurate assetment of the damage could be done.

[Darth Rotor]

That would only occur if you are of the belief that a million people would starve to death before the remaining population pressurised the government enough to surrender. This seems unlikely as, as has been mentioned, Japan DID surrender after the 160,000 - 200,000 odd casualties of H & N.

Personally I dont understand the arguements against a demonstration nuclear bombing (on one of the surviving island naval bases) followed by a few weeks negotiation was not attempted. It wouldnt limit the USAs position and by that point very few (comparatively) US soldiers were dying to what was left (almost nothing) of Japan's navy.
Yamamoto wept.

The point was not to fiddle fart around, we'd been killing one another for just under four years. The Japanese had shown themselves to be tenacious and competent fighters. Your salon version of deterrence might have worked before hostilities commenced. Might not have. But as hostilities were still ongoing, deterrence is a moot point.

The point was to end hostilities. To do that, you have to convince your opponent that further resistance is futile. With as tough a bunch as the Japanese, you don't convince them by indirect means.

To waste one of two up and ready bombs on a demonstration would have been silly. You will note, in hindsight, that the first one didn't end the war, as it hit Hiroshima and did that horrific thing atomic bombs do. I am led to believe, as Truman seems to have predicted, that a demonstration was a waste of a very limited asset.

DR

[The Painter]

Because a full half of the casualties were non-immediate, and in any case when 80,000 people die at once it would take a few weeks for the government to tally up the losses. Often the scale of death, particularly to an unprecedented incident like this, would be massively underestimated initially.


PS: Thanks to all those pointing out that H and N were not "simultanious" (a few days apart, it really does not change the arguement whatsoever) and then making ad-hom fallacy after fallacy about my knowledge of WWII, while ignoring the rest of what was posted. I appreciate your politeness and measured consideration of my posting.... This thread has at least reinforced my scepticism of the scepticism of this forum - cynicism and bitterness (and the ever prevelant internet-dweller pedantry) is perhaps more appropriate.

You do not get to call "time out" in the middle of a war.

[Skeptic]

Details, details! It is a MORAL IMPERATIVE to call a time out in the middle of a world war because...

...well, just because.

[Skeptic]

a city is also a "great" place to test your new bomb to see how much damage it does. thats why those cities were spared with conventional bombings, so an accurate assetment of the damage could be done.

The USAF naturally didn't know about the bomb, which was top secret, nor did Truman -- or anybody else -- even know if it would (a) actually work or whether he would (b) use it until April 1945 at the earliest. The US strategic bombing campaign had totally different reasons for deciding their targets.

But, apparently, the fact that the US did NOT bomb certain Japanese cities is now part of a nefarious weapon-testing plan.

[tyr_13]

The USAF naturally didn't know about the bomb, which was top secret, nor nor did Truman -- or anybody else -- even know if it would (a) actually work or whether he would (b) use it until April 1945 at the earliest. The US strategic bombing campaign had totally different reasons for deciding their targets.

But, apparently, the fact that the US did NOT bomb certain Japanese cities is now part of a nefarious weapon-testing plan.

You left out that (c) the USAF didn't exist until September of 1947.

[dtugg]

That would only occur if you are of the belief that a million people would starve to death before the remaining population pressurised the government enough to surrender. This seems unlikely as, as has been mentioned, Japan DID surrender after the 160,000 - 200,000 odd casualties of H & N.

The Japanese people weren't going to pressure the government to do anything. To them the Emperor was God.

And I don't think that the government even cared about civilian casualties so much as the fact that the US could lay waste to entire cities with one bomb. If a couple hundred thousand casualties alone was enough to force surrender, they would have done it after Curtis LeMay started bombing the crap out of them.


Personally I dont understand the arguements against a demonstration nuclear bombing (on one of the surviving island naval bases) followed by a few weeks negotiation was not attempted. It wouldnt limit the USAs position and by that point very few (comparatively) US soldiers were dying to what was left (almost nothing) of Japan's navy.

1) There were only two bombs in existence at the time and they correctly predicted that a demonstration would have been a waste of one.
2) They weren't even positive they would work.
3) If given time to think about it, Japan may have given an ultimatum like "you drop one of the bombs on a populated city, we'll kill every POW we have"
4) The Japanese were still killing Chinese.
5) Given what Japan had done, there was no reason to negotiate with them.
6) They were given fair warning.

[dtugg]

We are still arguing, vehemently, over how many people died in the Dresden bombing (estimates vary by a multiple of 5!). We still have only a rough idea how many died in Haiti. Do you honestly claim that a few days after an attack that was entirely without precedent, Japan would have an accurate picture of the consequences? Many of the deaths from H & N took weeks if not months to materialise.

I am quite sure that they were able to see very quickly that the city was destroyed. Sure they couldn't get a body count for a while, but any moron could figure out that it was high.

[Lallante]

Yamamoto wept.

The point was not to fiddle fart around, we'd been killing one another for just under four years. The Japanese had shown themselves to be tenacious and competent fighters. Your salon version of deterrence might have worked before hostilities commenced. Might not have. But as hostilities were still ongoing, deterrence is a moot point.

The point was to end hostilities. To do that, you have to convince your opponent that further resistance is futile. With as tough a bunch as the Japanese, you don't convince them by indirect means.

To waste one of two up and ready bombs on a demonstration would have been silly. You will note, in hindsight, that the first one didn't end the war, as it hit Hiroshima and did that horrific thing atomic bombs do. I am led to believe, as Truman seems to have predicted, that a demonstration was a waste of a very limited asset.

DR


The point is, my suggestion would not preclude later bombing of H & N, IF NEEDED. By the time of the dropping of the bomb, the USA had all but isolated Japan, had won the naval and aerial victory and really it was just a question of whether invasion would be necessary or not. There really was no urgent need for an instant knock-out.

[DC]

The USAF naturally didn't know about the bomb, which was top secret, nor nor did Truman -- or anybody else -- even know if it would (a) actually work or whether he would (b) use it until April 1945 at the earliest. The US strategic bombing campaign had totally different reasons for deciding their targets.

But, apparently, the fact that the US did NOT bomb certain Japanese cities is now part of a nefarious weapon-testing plan.

These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

[Thunder]

both Israel and the Palestinians have done very bad things.

the Palestinians have murdered hundreds of innocent civilians with suicide-attacks and rockets, and have attempted to kill many more.

the Israelis continue to build illegal settlements on occupied land, often times on confiscated private property, and have engaged in a inhumane and cruel embargo upon Gaza.

there is no good guy, in this conflict.

[Lallante]

The point is, my suggestion would not preclude later bombing of H & N, IF NEEDED. By the time of the dropping of the bomb, the USA had all but isolated Japan, had won the naval and aerial victory and really it was just a question of whether invasion would be necessary or not. There really was no urgent need for an instant knock-out.

Just to back up what I earlier said, this also seems to be the view taken by, among others:
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President)
Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials)
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe.

All of whom felt the Japanese were already beaten and continuation of the current blockade and conventional attacks would result in a surrender within 6 months. This also seems to be the majority opinion among historians.

The more I read about this the more I get the sense that the A-Bombs were more about demonstrating (and testing) the US's power than winning the war.

[tyr_13]

Just to back up what I earlier said, this also seems to be the view taken by, among others:
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President)
Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials)
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe.

All of whom felt the Japanese were already beaten and continuation of the current blockade and conventional attacks would result in a surrender within 6 months. This also seems to be the majority opinion among historians.

The more I read about this the more I get the sense that the A-Bombs were more about demonstrating (and testing) the US's power than winning the war.

They didn't surrender after the first bomb, and almost didn't after the second. Continued conventional warfare would have resulted in far, FAR great death tolls not only for the Japanese, but for the Chinese (there were still tens of thousands of Japanese troops in China if I remember correctly). The events that actually did happen prove that a test would in all likelihood not have resulted in surrender before far greater damage than the bombs caused had taken place.

If saving the lives of millions of people isn't the moral choice, then what was?

[Lallante]

They didn't surrender after the first bomb, and almost didn't after the second. Continued conventional warfare would have resulted in far, FAR great death tolls not only for the Japanese, but for the Chinese (there were still tens of thousands of Japanese troops in China if I remember correctly). The events that actually did happen prove that a test would in all likelihood not have resulted in surrender before far greater damage than the bombs caused had taken place.

If saving the lives of millions of people isn't the moral choice, then what was?

The second bomb was 3 days after the first bomb. The vast majority of the Japanese population was not even yet fully aware of what had happened, let alone that it had been a Nuclear attack by the US.

In any case, please tell me a satisfactory justification for not waiting a week or two before dropping the second bomb - very few countries leadership Beaurocracy moves fast enough to surrender in a matter of a couple of days (following confirmation of the events in Hiroshima), and Japans was much much worse than most.

Japan had just began to suffer a series of crushing defeats to the USSR in Manchuria. The fighting between the Japanese and Chinese had died down. There is quite a bit of evidence that the losses to the USSR (news of which reached the Japanese high command around the same time as the a-bombs), was also pretty important in their decision to surrender.

The majority of historians, at least from the small amount of research I've done this afternoon, would strongly question whether millions of lives were saved by the bombs (false dichotomy between atom bombs and ground invasion).

[dtugg]

Yeah, the Japanese were most definitely beaten well before the atomic bombings. As in they had no chance whatsoever of winning the war. But they refused to give up because they were crazy. Maybe six months of a blockade and daily B-29 bombings would have changed their minds. But that most certainly would have cost far more lives than the atomic bombings did.


(there were still tens of thousands of Japanese troops in China if I remember correctly).

I think it was actually around a million.

[tyr_13]

The second bomb was 3 days after the first bomb. The vast majority of the Japanese population was not even yet fully aware of what had happened, let alone that it had been a Nuclear attack by the US.

In any case, please tell me a satisfactory justification for not waiting a week or two before dropping the second bomb - very few countries leadership Beaurocracy moves fast enough to surrender in a matter of a couple of days (following confirmation of the events in Hiroshima), and Japans was much much worse than most.

Except that it wasn't too soon for the Japanese government to have already rejected the idea of surrender. There is little evidence to support the idea that they would have changed their minds a week later. The evidence to counter your idea is they very nearly didn't surrender after the second one.



And you show a fundamental ignorance of Japanese culture of the time to think that the citizens not knowing what happened made a difference one way or the other. It was simply not their choice to make. They would do what their god told them, not because they were all mindless fanatics, but because their superiors would make them anyway. Even when the Emperor surrendered, many high ranking Japanese refused to believe it and rebelled.


Japan had just began to suffer a series of crushing defeats to the USSR in Manchuria. The fighting between the Japanese and Chinese had died down. There is quite a bit of evidence that the losses to the USSR (news of which reached the Japanese high command around the same time as the a-bombs), was also pretty important in their decision to surrender.

The majority of historians, at least from the small amount of research I've done this afternoon, would strongly question whether millions of lives were saved by the bombs (false dichotomy between atom bombs and ground invasion).

It isn't a false dichotomy between atomic bombs and ground invasion as blockade would have meant the deaths of millions as well. Please cite these people you believe represents the 'majority of historians'.

[dtugg]

The second bomb was 3 days after the first bomb. The vast majority of the Japanese population was not even yet fully aware of what had happened, let alone that it had been a Nuclear attack by the US.

Who cares what the Japanese population thought? They weren't the ones who needed to surrender. The Japanese government was aware that Hiroshima was destroyed soon after it happened.

In any case, please tell me a satisfactory justification for not waiting a week or two before dropping the second bomb -

To convince them we had a bunch of the things (even though it wasn't true). And to end the war ASAP. It worked.

very few countries leadership Beaurocracy moves fast enough to surrender in a matter of a couple of days (following confirmation of the events in Hiroshima), and Japans was much much worse than most.

They didn't have to actually surrender in a couple of days. All they had to do was inform the US they had intentions of doing so and Nagasaki probably wouldn't have happened. But they didn't do that because they had no intentions of surrendering, at least not in the (very fair) terms offered by the US.

Japan had just began to suffer a series of crushing defeats to the USSR in Manchuria. The fighting between the Japanese and Chinese had died down. There is quite a bit of evidence that the losses to the USSR (news of which reached the Japanese high command around the same time as the a-bombs), was also pretty important in their decision to surrender.

The majority of historians, at least from the small amount of research I've done this afternoon, would strongly question whether millions of lives were saved by the bombs (false dichotomy between atom bombs and ground invasion).

Since your other option is a blockade which would have starved a whole bunch of people, there is no false dichotomy.

[Giz]

Whatever FDR or Truman chose, bad things would happen. It was all a matter of making the least bad choice.


Dropping the bomb:

Bad:
Circa 200,000 dead.

Good:
Japan surrenders
Allied POWs survive ( a lot of people thought that an invasion of Japan proper would see the Allied POWs in Japanese custody killed).


Not dropping the bomb and invading:

Bad:
At least 200,000 non-japanese civilians (mainly Chinese) are dying every month in Japanese occupied areas - prolonging the war means adding more of them to the death toll).
An invasion was predicted to cause HUGE casualties. Both to the US/Allies and also (especially) to the Japanese. (For example, it was recognized that the planned destruction of transportation infrastructure - so that the Japanese could not reinforce/resupply against the invasion beachhead - would likely also cause massive starvation by preventing the ditribution of the rice harvest).

Good:
Japan would probably surrender. (But almost certainly there would have been many more non-japanese dead, and vastly more japanese dead than if the bombs were dropped) (hardly humane).



Not dropping the bomb and blockading:

Bad:
At least 200,000 non-japanese civilians (mainly Chinese) are dying every month in Japanese occupied areas - prolonging the war means adding more of them to the death toll).
Many Japanese and non-japanese civilians throughout asia die from the prolonging of the war. Warfare continues in China/SE Asia.
Probably the Russians invade (which could well trigger the USA going in as well). At that point you have all the bad stuff from a invasion noted above PLUS the possibility of some/all of Japan being split off into a communist zone (like East Germany), with implications for future global economic growth and an additional flashpoint to make the Cold War more hazardous.

Good:
Japan might surrender. (But I'd bet my last dollar on the situation being worse than if the bombs were dropped)

[Darth Rotor]

Just to back up what I earlier said, this also seems to be the view taken by, among others:
[QUOTE]Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
General of the Army Douglas MacArthur
Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President)
Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials)
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe.
They weren't the President, whose political needs were

To End The War.

Now.

He believed that he could, and did. The buck stopped there.

DR

[Pardalis]

Invasion would propably saved millions of Civillians.

*snicker*

[Giz]

*snicker*

There are non so blind as those who will not see


(edit to add: I agree with Pardalis)

[Brainster]

I think it is entirely fair and reasonable to judge Israel by a higher (and by that I mean more stringent) standard than we judge Palestine, due to Israel having many advantages that Palestine does not - stable government, democracy, control over its military forces, huge quantities of aid and other forms of international support, a functioning and healthy economy, free trade with other countries and so on.

I think that Palestine should not be judged by the same standards as Israel, just as in most of the Western world's legal systems someone who has suffered abuse and neglect as a child and then lashes out is held to a lower standard (at least in sentencing) than someone who has had every advantage and yet still acted with violence.

But where does the excuse-making end? Can't the Israelis say that they shouldn't be held to the same standards as the rest of the world, because, after all, they were born out of the Holocaust? Can't the Germans say they shouldn't be held to the same standards, because, after all, they were forced to pay reparations after WWI?

What you are proposing is not ending moral equivalence, but simply reversing the side which benefits from it. The Palestinians, in your view, are morally superior because they were abused and neglected as a child.

[Darth Rotor]

The Palestinians, in your view, are morally superior because they were abused and neglected as a child.
Special victim status. It's a game anyone can play, or try to.

[WildCat]

Okinawa or Tokia, what is it now?
I'll try to clear up your confusion:

1. Okinawa

Okinawa was invaded. In the resulting invasion somewhere between 100,000 and 175,000 civilians died, most were due to starvation, disease, and suicides or suicide attacks on US troops. That's roughly half of the population of Okinawa at the time.

The data from Okinawa is useful for guessing what an opposed invasion of Japan proper would be like (while not Japan proper Okinawa is a Japanese home island). Scale it up and you get a very conservative rough estimate of tens of millions of Japanese civilian deaths alone. And hundreds of thousands of dead Americans. That as the tradeoff for not using the bomb.

2. Firebombing of Tokyo

Used as an example showing that the nuclear attacks were not the most deadly bombing attacks of the war.

I hope this is clear now.

[WildCat]

Did they have to bomb cities, and given the state of Japan at the time, a few days was not enough time. The die hards weren't going to be able to hold on in the face of inevitable defeat.
Except all of the evidence argues against this. At a rate approaching 100%, Japanese men and officers fought to the last man. Even in battles that were hopeless from the start.

1) Demonstration bombing, then time for the leadership to absorb the results. That could have been a week or two.
2) Then a city.
There were only 3 bombs available. In effect, we were already bluffing the Japanese who thought we had many more bombs on hand.

Japan was defeated with no chance of a resurgence.
Uh, they had a rather nice resurgence.

[WildCat]

both Israel and the Palestinians have done very bad things.

the Palestinians have murdered hundreds of innocent civilians with suicide-attacks and rockets, and have attempted to kill many more.

the Israelis continue to build illegal settlements on occupied land, often times on confiscated private property, and have engaged in a inhumane and cruel embargo upon Gaza.

there is no good guy, in this conflict.
So murdering civilians is the moral equivalent of building a house in occupied territory.

:boggled:

[dtugg]

There were only 3 bombs available. In effect, we were already bluffing the Japanese who thought we had many more bombs on hand.

There were only two in existence when Hiroshima was bombed. But yes, the USA bluffed the hell out of them. After Hiroshima, Japan (correctly) figured that the US didn't have very many bombs. But after Nagasaki it was figured they could have many. The bluff obviously worked out to the benefit to everybody. Except for the war criminals who were prosecuted for their heinous acts, of course. The war criminal God-Emperor Hirohito is very lucky didn't didn't end up one of the ones executed and that Truman and MacArthur (probably correctly) figured he that he was worth more alive than dead.

[a_unique_person]

*snicker*

I agree that an invasion would have killed millions of civilians, but that aspect of modern warfare doesn't seem to hold in Iraq.

[WildCat]

There were only two in existence when Hiroshima was bombed. But yes, the USA bluffed the hell out of them. After Hiroshima, Japan (correctly) figured that the US didn't have very many bombs. But after Nagasaki it was figured they could have many. The bluff obviously worked out to the benefit to everybody. Except for the war criminals who were prosecuted for their heinous acts, of course. The war criminal God-Emperor Hirohito is very lucky didn't didn't end up one of the ones executed and that Truman and MacArthur (probably correctly) figured he that he was worth more alive than dead.
I've read that there were 2, and that there were 3. Was it ever declassified?

[Thunder]

So murdering civilians is the moral equivalent of building a house in occupied territory.

its a political equivelant. and they are both war crimes.

[dtugg]

I've read that there were 2, and that there were 3. Was it ever declassified?

From everything I have read there were definitely only two with a third available in some weeks time and more at an ever increasing rate. There was some debate, if Japan didn't capitulate, whether to use them as they became available or to use them immediately preceding the invasion of the Japanese main islands.

[WildCat]

From everything I have read there were definitely only two with a third available in some weeks time and more at an ever increasing rate. There was some debate, if Japan didn't capitulate, whether to use them as they became available or to use them immediately preceding the invasion of the Japanese main islands.
Ah, the 3rd was a few weeks away, thus my confusion.

But I'm pretty sure the target for that one was Tokyo.

[WildCat]

its a political equivelant. and they are both war crimes.
It's not equivalent in any way, shape, or form.

Until you figure out how to get those lives back in a peace settlement... :rolleyes:

[Thunder]

It's not equivalent in any way, shape, or form.


much of the world disagrees with you. but, I guess that's because much of the world are anti-Semites, right kitty?

[WildCat]

much of the world disagrees with you.
So far, we only have evidence that you disagree, and none for "much of the world".

Lives cannot be given back.

[Thunder]

So far, we only have evidence that you disagree, and none for "much of the world".

Lives cannot be given back.

End the occupation and the killing will end.

[dtugg]

End the occupation and the killing will end.

If by occupation you mean the Jews leave Israel, sure. Otherwise, no.

[Thunder]

If by occupation you mean the Jews leave Israel, sure. Otherwise, no.

more Uber-Zionists strawman arguments. surprise...surprise.

[dtugg]

more Uber-Zionists strawman arguments. surprise...surprise.

Black Zionist? LOL. I think it is pretty clear that the Palestinians would settle for nothing less than the elimination of the Jews in the Middle East.

[Thunder]

I think it is pretty clear that the Palestinians would settle for nothing less than the elimination of the Jews in the Middle East.

YOU would think that.

It is pretty clear to me, that some Israelis and Zionists would settle for nothing less than the removal of the non-Jews in Israel.

[dtugg]

YOU would think that.

Yeah me. A black atheist Zionist. :rolleyes:

It is pretty clear to me, that some Israelis and Zionists would settle for nothing less than the removal of the non-Jews in Israel.

Some? Sure. Just like some white people in the US would settle for nothing less than the removal of all non-whites in the US.

[WildCat]

Yeah me. A black atheist Zionist. :rolleyes:
Hey, if this recovering confirmed Catholic can be a "right-wing Jew" you can be a black atheist Zionist. :D

[WildCat]

Some? Sure. Just like some white people in the US would settle for nothing less than the removal of all non-whites in the US.
And some people in the US burn the President in effigy... :boxedin:

[Thunder]

Yeah me. A black atheist Zionist. :rolleyes:


are you suggesting a black person who does not believe in God, can't recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel?

Oh, I got it. Only white Jews can be Zionist.

;)

[Skeptic]

These cities were largely untouched during the nightly bombing raids and the Army Air Force agreed to leave them off the target list so accurate assessment of the weapon could be made

You're misreading that. It's "and", not "because".

Bombing raids of Japan started in 1942. Only in 1945 (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/fire_raids_on_japan.htm) did they move to incendiary city bombing. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not yet attacked when, shortly after the beginning of that campaign, they were asked to not attack Hiroshima and Nagasaki for that purpose.

If anything it shows the relative humanity of the USAF over Japan, which refused to use incendiary carpet bombing until it was proven that pinpoint strategic bombing failed.

On your "interpretation", however, the "real reason" for the USAF not carpet-bombing any particular city for three years was because they there as potential weapon-testing grounds.

[Skeptic]

Frankly, I can't see much difference between what Parky says the "uber-zionists" or the "right-wing zionists" are out to do (control the world, brainwash the USA, kill all Palestinians, etc.) and what the garden-variety antisemite claims plain ol' "zionists" are up to.

[Skeptic]

Yeah me. A black atheist Zionist. :rolleyes:

One-eyed?