Just one of the quotes in my link; "...in [July] 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. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. "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. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." - Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380 In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson: "...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63
This has been discussed before - here, for instance (admittedly, an odd place for a discussion of the bomb). From my reading of the history of the time, I largely agree with Kaethy's conclusions. We will never know, of course, and it is easy to judge history at this remove from WWII. But I think it was a horrible mistake, and the world since has paid for it.
I don't think the mass killing of civilians to apply political pressure to a government, society/group etc. is ever justified, WWII or not. It is, by it's very definition, terrorism. And continues to pay for it. The hubris of victory from WWII continues to propel the Wilsonian vision of Pax Americana, world policeman, into Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now possibly Iran. I have an article link I want to send you (off topic). Will you mind if I PM?
It's so much easier to deal with reality with the luxury of hindsight at your side. It's an impossible question to answer. Diplomacy was tried, so out side of saying, pretty please, with sugar on top, force was apparently the only remedy. And, history has shown it worked.
Macarthur's plan - Operation Downfall - was never attempted: Nuclear arms were used. We employed them. There is not a single entity in the world that cannot now claim they are a legitimate means to wage war. We unleashed hell, on that day, and we reap the rewards now.
It can't be: and At the same time. It is precisely that - arguable as to whether it was legitimate or not. I acknowledge, helluva thing to armchair judge the bomb, even the fire raids over Tokyo and Dresden, from this position, 60 years later. Like many of us, my relatives bled during this conflict (my Uncle fought the Bulge; my father was in the Pacific). But beyond the moral question, a more realpolitik question - at what cost? What did we unleash on the rest of history? What did we justify as a legitimate tool to wage one's military ends?
This war had to be fought. While it is arguable that the atomic bomb never had to be dropped, it was, and it did assist in ending the war either way you look at it. With that said, I'm glad we had leaders like Patton who were willing to do what was required to win a war. Unfortunately, I can't say that we have that ability anymore.
That's an overly simplistic view. We had more than 2 choices at the time. We were not limited to 1. pretty please, or 2. atrocious bombing. There were an infinite number of choices, some better than others. Choosing heavily populated civilian targets was not one of the more easily defended options. Did you read the quotes in my link?
Sanctions do not justify blowing up a major fleet and harbor. Where is your topic complaining about the horrors from the Japanese against civilians? You always complain about Americans killing civilians but I have yet to see anything about the other people.
However, if his "belief" and "thought" were INaccurate, I am mightly glad we dropped the bomb since it brought a hastier end in our favor. In times of war I believe ANY means used against ANY target are viable if they further your cause and bring a hastier end to a war. Even though we try to dictate "rules" for wars, these rules are really ludicrous. War is not rules. It is a state of chaotic desperation. If you must engage in a war, do it fast, do it lethally, do it completely, and then stop. I regret we didn't have the bomb 4 years earlier then we did. Jim
Presumably, you're also going to live in a world that is the aftermath of that war. What you teach that world may come back to bite you in the ass. Pretty hard to argue for nuclear non-proliferation when we didn't only develop, but dumped hell on a people. Jim, it seems to me that by this logic, in effect, "what's the holdup?" - this damn war in Iraq has obviously dragged on. Why don't we just nuke the country, and be done with it? All means, so long as it finishes the job - biological and chemical warfare, OK? Demonstration effects on civilian populations? Anything goes, really?
FDR not warning Pearl Harbor is not justified either. The thing is, the Japanese attacked the American Navy. They didn't conduct a sneak attack on San Francisco. If sanctions are an act of war (and they are), then responding with military force would seem to be consistent with warfare. That's a strawman and irrelevant. I complain about Americans killing civilians because we're supposed to be better than that. That is where we supposedly get the moral authority to bomb Kosovo, or to overthrow Saddam. If we're "not better", then maybe we don't have the moral authority to police the world.
How do you define a sanction? Can a country unilaterally stop trading with another country? Can a group of countries agree to stop trading with another country? I am a little confused as to what you consider to be the act of war. Are all UN sanctions acts of war?
Yes, if we really believe we have been provoked, if we really believe in the war in Iraq, if we really believe we have to fight that war, and if we really believe we need to win it, then I would do whatever it takes and be done with the problem and move on, and I would tell anyone who wants to mess with us over it that we might do the same thing with them. I wouldn't worry about what others think. The west and east will never see eye to eye or coincide peacefully. The dye has been cast and it is indellible. Our goal should be to bring a swift end to such nonsenses as they arise in a way that harms our people and development as a nation least. I would also take away all the foreign aid we give out and do two things: 1. Build a 40 foot high wall around our country with one gate, which I would open in 10 years or so and see where the dust has settled; and 2. Invest in and perfect a strategic air defense system, starwars if you want to call it that. Jim
I wonder what makes us think we have the moral authority to police the world? Just because we "believe" certain things about ourselves and think we are "better", does not make it reality. Reality is what it is. War does not have a high moral ground. It is war. Jim
To be clear - you believe nukes, chemical weapons, biological weapons - in short, weapons of mass destruction - anywhere, anytime, are justified, so long as we are fighting a "just war?" I would argue that what we do to the world, especially anymore, is what we do to ourselves. We live in a world with buttons on nuclear triggers; we provided the prototype for all such options. I don't have such a pessimistic outlook, nor do I believe the last 150 years - the years, roughly, of the ascendancy of the nation state - are exemplar, either of humanity's history, or our potential.