Use of nuclear weapons

[Libido_Itch]

It seems in the end of every discussion I have about this subject everyone agrees that it was the ethical or 'right' thing to do.  Which is fine, I could care less, its war.  But what really angers me is the hypocrisy in this thinking; if Hiroshima bombing was the right thing to do, why wouldn't 9/ll and other forms of terrorism be wrong?  You never hear about Hiroshima or Nagasaki as a Genocide; which it technically was.  If people would just  agree that It was a 'Genocide' this would not irk me so much but obviously its not genocide if the United States did it, a Empire that has a military base in just about every fucking country in the world.

[Cargést]

History is written by the victors, etc.  Nobody talks about America's concentration camps, for example, despite the large number that existed around the country, and the large number of "prisoners of war" (read: ex-pat Japs living in 'Merica) they held.

All war is genocidal, in its most stripped-down form.  You are seeking to displace another people entirely, either by simply destroying them all, or by subjugating those that it makes no sense to kill.

As for the Atomic Bomb, I find guns to be dishonourable, so you can probably guess what I think about bombs in general.

[ForgottenLore]

All war is genocidal, in its most stripped-down form.  You are seeking to displace another people entirely, either by simply destroying them all, or by subjugating those that it makes no sense to kill.

Not to be condescending or pedantic, but this is known as "total war", and is merely one form of military strategy. It is, and has been, against the goals of most military institutions and leaders to harm civilians.

[Cargést]

All war is genocidal, in its most stripped-down form.  You are seeking to displace another people entirely, either by simply destroying them all, or by subjugating those that it makes no sense to kill.

Not to be condescending or pedantic, but this is known as "total war", and is merely one form of military strategy. It is, and has been, against the goals of most military institutions and leaders to harm civilians.

What is the goal of the aggressor?  Usually, land, or resources (requires land), or slaves, or any combination of these, with any number of more "symbolic" benefits of victory (honour, prestige, and so on).  If you take a people's land, you sever their link to that land.  What is an ethnicity without a home ("Let my people go")?  Eventually, conquered peoples are assimilated (Romano-British, Aeneas's Italy) or exterminated/exiled (Saxons vs. Britons, Yamato People vs. everyone else in Japan) - of course, Exile usually leads to assimilation somewhere else, by some other People.  Now, if you take the people themselves, you are contributing to the demise of that people, still.  My definition of "genocide" is not "absolute".

[Muaddib]

As for the Atomic Bomb, I find guns to be dishonourable, so you can probably guess what I think about bombs in general.

Although I feel the same way about guns and bombs, the A-bomb has got its charm, something to do with the total annihalation it brings. The problem with it is that it is an absolute weapon which destroys everything. You can't take the land or homes or the people, they are all contaminated.
So, unless its a fucking desert and you could care less about that place, I would recommend against it.

[More Celt Than Sassenach]

It seems in the end of every discussion I have about this subject everyone agrees that it was the ethical or 'right' thing to do.  Which is fine, I could care less, its war.  But what really angers me is the hypocrisy in this thinking; if Hiroshima bombing was the right thing to do, why wouldn't 9/ll and other forms of terrorism be wrong?  You never hear about Hiroshima or Nagasaki as a Genocide; which it technically was.  If people would just  agree that It was a 'Genocide' this would not irk me so much but obviously its not genocide if the United States did it, a Empire that has a military base in just about every fucking country in the world.

I do not think the comparison of the atomic attacks against Japan and the Islamic 9/11 attack against America is a useable idea. The purpose of the American bombs was to shorten the length of the war and to save not only the lives of the American soldiers but also ultimately the lives of the Japanese population . It's almost certain that an invasion of mainland Japan would incur far more civilian and military casualties than the death toll of the two bombs that were used. The Islamic attack against America was  squarely aimed at a civilian population not to cause capitulation but only to hurt civilians.

History is written by the victors, etc.  Nobody talks about America's concentration camps, for example, despite the large number that existed around the country, and the large number of "prisoners of war" (read: ex-pat Japs living in 'Merica) they held.

Nobody talks about them? I always thought it to be common knowledge. One does not have to look far to find the great number of atrocities committed by the United States. Maybe it is different in America.

[Cargést]

Nobody talks about them? I always thought it to be common knowledge. One does not have to look far to find the great number of atrocities committed by the United States. Maybe it is different in America.

I'm English, and we were given extensive training to despise the Nazis for their hideous crimes against Humanity and (if we were religious) God, but were told nothing of the "atrocities committed by the United States".  I can't think of a greater example of the mob defeating the enlightened than World War II, actually.

[Dylar]

The Japanese were ultimately allowed to surrender under terms essentially identical to those that their government had proposed prior to Hiroshima.  In terms of purely military calculus, Hiroshima was probably unnecessary, and the Nagasaki attack was certainly unnecessary.  The strategic logic behind the use of the atom bombs was a logic directed not at the the Japanese military junta, but at the Soviet Union's Man of Steel.  Of course, even that was actually unnecessary, but Truman, unaware of the depth of penetration that the NKVD had achieved within the American government bureaucracy and within the Manhattan Project itself, couldn't know that Stalin was fully aware of the power of the atom bomb.

Nobody talks about them? I always thought it to be common knowledge. One does not have to look far to find the great number of atrocities committed by the United States. Maybe it is different in America.

No.  The internment of Japanese-Americans is well known here.  What's less well known is the even larger scale internment of Americans of German and Italian extraction, which extended well into 1946.  Nor is the genocide of over 2 million people of ethnic German descent in Central and Eastern Europe that occurred after the war in Europe ended.

I've always argued that the difference between the United States and Hitler's Germany is that the US completed and got away with its wars of genocide.

[Umbrage]

The Islamic attack against America was squarely aimed at a civilian population not to cause capitulation but only to hurt civilians.

It was aimed at not just an economic center but also an economic symbol. The attack was mostly meant to hurt and destabilize Americas economy. 2973 victims isn't much if you want to hurt 308,586,000 Americans, but harm the economy and you've harmed the whole country.

It seems in the end of every discussion I have about this subject everyone agrees that it was the ethical or 'right' thing to do.  Which is fine, I could care less, its war.  But what really angers me is the hypocrisy in this thinking; if Hiroshima bombing was the right thing to do, why wouldn't 9/ll and other forms of terrorism be wrong?  You never hear about Hiroshima or Nagasaki as a Genocide; which it technically was.  If people would just  agree that It was a 'Genocide' this would not irk me so much but obviously its not genocide if the United States did it, a Empire that has a military base in just about every fucking country in the world.

Was it ethical of the Japanese to commit war crimes against the Chinese? War is unethical in itself yet everybody likes to pretend they're the good guys. The a-bomb was dropped to try it out on a society which was known for its unwillingness to surrender. America had the means and the excuse to do it, everybody was tired of the war and wanted it over as quick as possible. Like everything in war it was a demonstration of power, the same reason why the bombing of Iraq in 2003 was so highly televised. It gave Bush a chance to test and demonstrate his new cluster bombs to the world and force Iraq on its knees quickly. The military term for it is shock and awe.

[Forza Romana]

Very interesting points that are being discussed here.

I have asked myself this question of the A-bomb. The point for America was to end the war, but at what cost bombing civilians? The same point could be applied to the fact that not all italians wanted what Mussolini  wanted. It was actually for from the truth.

Also I have started my research for my own personal interest into the internment of the Italians, as Dylar mentioned.

[istaros]

Exterminate all the brutes!

[AnHero]

Was it ethical of the Japanese to commit war crimes against the Chinese? War is unethical in itself yet everybody likes to pretend they're the good guys. The a-bomb was dropped to try it out on a society which was known for its unwillingness to surrender. America had the means and the excuse to do it, everybody was tired of the war and wanted it over as quick as possible. Like everything in war it was a demonstration of power, the same reason why the bombing of Iraq in 2003 was so highly televised. It gave Bush a chance to test and demonstrate his new cluster bombs to the world and force Iraq on its knees quickly. The military term for it is shock and awe.

"War is unethical in itself" = "War is evil"
"everybody likes to pretend they're the good guys" = "People can't take action without believing it is right/makes sense"
That's how I read it anyway.

Sorry if this is cherry picked, but to say that the kind of conflict inherent in the world is unethical in itself is to say the world is unethical in itself, implying you could have designed it better.

[Conservationist]

It seems in the end of every discussion I have about this subject everyone agrees that it was the ethical or 'right' thing to do.  Which is fine, I could care less, its war.  But what really angers me is the hypocrisy in this thinking; if Hiroshima bombing was the right thing to do, why wouldn't 9/ll and other forms of terrorism be wrong?  You never hear about Hiroshima or Nagasaki as a Genocide; which it technically was.  If people would just  agree that It was a 'Genocide' this would not irk me so much but obviously its not genocide if the United States did it, a Empire that has a military base in just about every fucking country in the world.

It wasn't genocide. It was a really high intensity bombing of a mixed civilian/industrial area. Yeah, it sucks -- so does war.

I don't think ethics or right/wrong have much to do with life. You try to do what's constructive; bad shit happens and if you're honest about life, you write it off. If you're dishonest, you hide it and couch it behind inverted ethical terms. Boring.

[scourge]

"everybody likes to pretend they're the good guys" = "People can't take action without believing it is right/makes sense"

Deontology cripples you. Ignoring it maims the other guy instead.

[Umbrage]

Was it ethical of the Japanese to commit war crimes against the Chinese? War is unethical in itself yet everybody likes to pretend they're the good guys. The a-bomb was dropped to try it out on a society which was known for its unwillingness to surrender. America had the means and the excuse to do it, everybody was tired of the war and wanted it over as quick as possible. Like everything in war it was a demonstration of power, the same reason why the bombing of Iraq in 2003 was so highly televised. It gave Bush a chance to test and demonstrate his new cluster bombs to the world and force Iraq on its knees quickly. The military term for it is shock and awe.

"War is unethical in itself" = "War is evil"
"everybody likes to pretend they're the good guys" = "People can't take action without believing it is right/makes sense"
That's how I read it anyway.

Sorry if this is cherry picked, but to say that the kind of conflict inherent in the world is unethical in itself is to say the world is unethical in itself, implying you could have designed it better.

You took my words the right way but then went way off with your conclusion. I was not implying that I could have designed the world better. I was replying to someone else's definition of ethical so I'm not trying to reach any moral high ground here by using the word myself. Instead I'm just trying to offer a sense of relativity.
As far as ethics, they're invented by man aren't they? So it's silly to reason that "man can't obey his own laws so man has failed" An attitude like that can only be explained from a religious standpoint and I say it must be shunned for its negative dogmatic influence. It's good to have ideals but its bad to be a sore loser and a quitter. I try to be realistic first and then idealistic instead of the other way around.