Was ending the war with Japan without an invasion that would have cost tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers' and civilian lives and left Japan in total destruction a good thing?
Now I will answer. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not much morally different than the fire-bombings of Tokyo, Kyoto, Dresden, London, etc. during the War. Obviously, no consideration was given to sparing civilian lives; the intent was the break the will of the people.
I certainly agree that the fire-bombings of London, Dresden, Kyoto etc were just as much attacks of terror as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each were reprehensible and indefensible.
There seems to me a hidden presumption in the question you pose, Phil. In my opinion this does not in any way excuse the detonation of atomic warheads on these two Japanese cities. And given the civilian casualties, what sort of "math" does this give -- even if there were not other alternatives?
HP: There seems to me a hidden presumption in the question you pose, Phil. In my opinion this does not in any way excuse the detonation of atomic warheads on these two Japanese cities.
Only God knows what would have happened if the bombs hadn't been dropped, HP, and if other alternatives would have been effective. The experience of the allies was that the Japanese on the islands were prepared to fight to the last man, and there was no reason to think it would be different on the mainland. Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed that the U.S. could systematically and methodically destroy Japan's population centers without losing a single American life. That was deflating, to say the least -- and it worked! The Japanese surrendered. They would have had to do so eventually anyway, as they could not have survived an invasion of the mainland. It's likely that many, many more lives on both sides would have been lost with an invasion, and much more property destroyed.
This was an all-out war, HP -- not the kind we fight now where we (the U.S., at least) are careful to avoid targeting civilian areas. As I mentioned above, it was about breaking the will of the people as much as achieving a military victory (for the two are, in the end, inseparable). Terms like "terrorism" as used today do not apply.
LOL. I think I was supposed to say, "Why, yes, that was nothing but a terrorist act. As Chomsky has stated, the U.S. is the biggest terrorist nation on the face of the earth!" Bad USA. Bad! Bad!
