The ethics of Nuclear War-fare

[Khamul]

In a recent MSN discussion with Anc, we got into a small argument about whether "nuking" another country was politically, socially, and ethically correct. He was firmly against it's use, saying that the outbreak of cancer is a direct cause of the violence. While this is true, many lives were saved in the act, mine included. My grandfather was on the front lines, going into enemy territory, not the safest thing. There was a good chance he would have died, but the bomb forced the surrender of the Japanese, and peace overcame the horror.

With a direct man-to-man attack on the shorelines, many Americans and Japanese would have surely been killed. The nuclear attack saved lives, it was used to save not to harm as any attack done by the Middle East, purely in spite of America.

Opinions?

[Ciryaher]

I heartily agree with Sting. Had it not been for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, would have died in an assault on the stalwart Japanese. More lives were lost in the Battle of Britain and the Firebombing of Tokyo separately than in both of the nuclear attacks combined!

Nuclear weapons, through the philosophy of MAD (mutually assured destruction), kept the world from blowing itself to kingdom come. Terrorists who wish to use a nuclear weapon can have the thread that a nuclear device will be used on one of their own cities (Mecca comes to mind) and can serve as a deterrent for that, as well.

[Anamatar IV]

The thought of thousands of nukes floating around out there (yes I know Im going to get chastised for that one ;) ) just scares me. I read some where that during the cold war the soviet union stock piled enough nukes in A SINGLE submarine base to blow up most of Europe. :eek:

Which brings me to a question about nukes:

Is an A-Bomb a nucleur bomb? Im pretty sure it is...

[Ancalagon]

So, are we to assume that dumping 2 A-bombs on largely populated cities, packed with innocent civilians is reason enough for potentially saving lives of military personnel?

Why not drop it in an unpopulated area as a sign of the potency of the weapons destruction at the very least? Though even that to me is unnecessary as it was well understood that the effects of radiation fallout is indiscriminate and also bourne by winds across huge areas. It was shown after the bomb was dropped that sheep in Scotland had increased levels of radiation as a result of their use in Japan.

Then again, it was also well-known in Govenrment that the Japanese were seeking to end the war;
"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Eisenhower).
So, why drop the bomb?

[Ciryaher]

I *highly* doubt that the two tiny bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had a serious effect on sheep in Scotland. It was more likely the thousands of tests that involved bombs ranging from the low-kiloton to 30 megaton range.

[Ancalagon]

Sheep aside (for the moment), enlighten me on Eisenhower's comments and the decision to still drop the bomb!

[Grond]

Eisenhower wasn't the President at the time... Truman was and he (as the leader of the U. S.) felt there was no way that the Japanese would unconditionally surrender because of "face".

Truman felt the only way to keep from losing thousands of additional American lives in an invasion of Japan was to use the bomb. He may have been wrong in his decision to drop the bombs, but the outcome of his actions did save thousands of Americans (at a horrendous cost to the Japanese people). :(

[Kat]

Interesting thread...the use of the bombs against the Japanese were used for other reasons than to end the second world war. There is a large school of thought that considers the use of the bombs as the first step in the cold war: rather than a weapon of war, a tool of US forign policy. Check out a book called Atomic Diplomacy by Gar Alperovitz, a great discussion on the subject.

In support of this contention is the terms of Japanese surrender after the war. As Anc pointed out, the US government knew well that the japanese were ready to surrender. The Japanese had in fact made overtures of peace, and had given notice to the US government of a conditional surrender. The US rejected the terms and went ahead with the bombing anyway. The interesting thing is that the subsequent surrender of the Japanese entailed the exact conditions which they had been seeking in the months leading up to August 5, most notably the retention of the Japanese Emporer in his position as head of state.

There are HEAPS of papers, theses, books, autobiogs etc written by or about the key US figures at the time, including Stimson, Truman Roosevelt and Eisenhower (who I believe was Supreme commander in europe at the time)which make it apparent that using the bombs was not a necessity in ending the war. Indeed, the administration knew that the Japanese were already economically and militarily crippled. A blockade or embargo would perhaps finished them. But with the breakdown in cooperative relations with Stalin, the Soviets moving towards Japan through China and the strategic benefit of a US allied Japan in the post war era, a decisive, rapid and demonstrative end was needed.

Again agreeing with Anc, a demonstration would have been desirable, and would arguably have encouraged the Japanese to surrender, if that was the real aim of the US. But the use of the weapon on a city provided a ghastly test of their effect on an urban environment, which a visit to the Hiroshima museum clearly illustrates.

[Húrin Thalion]

This is a very interesting thread and I have for several years given thought to the topic.

Firstly I would like to say that it would not have been very hard or bloody to invade the country. What would cost lives was continuing the cruel and (sometimes) effectless bombings of civilians. Japan was very close to a total collapse at the time, there were almost no regular forces left for these had been squandered at Iwo Jima, Okinawa and many similar battles. The last large army was destroyed in a lightning campaign (probably the best one in the war) led by Georgij Zjukov (Zhukow) Marshall of the Soviet Union, the most brilliant general of WWII. This was the Kwantung army in Manchuria. In the mainland there were no arms for the home guard and food was scarce. After a few weeks the soldiers would have wandered home again. The reasons that the bombs were dropped were the following (according to me):

1 Show the Russians that they possesed nuclear weapons (the Soviet nuclear program was not as some think accelerated in 1945 by fear of nukes, it was the seizing of Kaiser Wilhelm institute in Dahlem and the Schlesian uranium)

2 To end the war quickly and prevent more dead American soldiers.

3 If you had spent so much money on a bomb why not use it? (A presidential advisor said something like that)

About avoiding nuclear holocaust through warning the world none seemed to have learned the lesson since both parts wanted to use NW in the Korean war. The real lesson was learned through extensive science on the effect of large scale nuclear attacks.

Elen

[TheFool]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë

Firstly I would like to say that it would not have been very hard or bloody to invade the country.

I'm afraid I disagree with this Elen. Berlin, Leningrad, Stalingrad, all these cities were 'crippled'; by many accounts these were the bloodiest most unimaginable battles.

"Olympic called for an initial assault against southern Kyushu on November 1, 1945 with a force of 815,548 troops; Coronet was the plan for the invasion five months later, of Honshu in the Tokyo area, with a commitment there of a further 1,171,646 men."

"Hata planned that, when invasion came, every man, woman and child in western Japan would carry a weapon. He had authorised classes to train women and the elderly in the use of bamboo pikes; when the enemy came these civilians would throw them like spears at the advancing troops. Children were shown how to construct and hurl petrol bombs: enough bottles and fuel were being conserved to make over three million. Even the infirm were mobilised. In Hiroshima the bed-ridden and wheelchair-bound were assembling booby-traps, to be planted in the beaches of Kyushu"

"And from what Tibbets had gleaned, the invasion was going to be costly. The long and bitter campaign to secure Okinawa had just ended. It had taken over half a million troops three months to subdue the Japanese garrison of 110,000 who had fought fanatically and had died almost to a man. If the American casualty figures for Okinawa were any guide - 49,151 dead plus 34 warships sunk and 368 badly damaged - the resistance to be expected on the mainland would be formidable. The latesty American Intelligence reports indicated that some of the two million battle-hardened troops in China were being brought home to help defend the precious ground of Dai Nippon. Already in Japan were another two million soldiers, untried in battle but eager to fight. The vast mass of the Imperial Forces had not been beaten."

"Ruin From The Air", G. Thomas & M. Morgan-Witts, Sphere 1977.

Assuming that the Japanese were not about to surrender: I believe the atomic strikes were the best available way to end the war. Certainly they were no worse than the Allied carpet-bombing of Dresden which served little purpose and killed far more people, or a ground invasion as detailed above?

[Húrin Thalion]

You are right in some ways but in others I think TheFool has been fooled.

Of course the invasion would have been bloody but I do think that the Japanese people wouldn't fight to the death. Even the most indoctrinated has human reflexes and the fear would tell you not to stand up to the enemy if he is so grossly superior. All these preparations were just an empty threat directed to no one and a display in foolishness. As for the Kamikaze pilots they had planes but not enough fuel to make them as effective as in earlier stages. The ammunition supplies were too small for a long war and the Japanese production had through bombing and lack of raw materials sunk to almost nothing. The civilian population was already subdued and only the officers who organized the mobilization believed in it.

The difference beetween nuclear weapons and invasion is that when you attack a nation with conventional forces your aim is the enemies soldiers even though civilians often "get in the way". If you bomb a city it is with the obvious aim of killing the inhabitants. By the way I forgot a reason in my last post:

4 The Americans wanted to test the bomb on people to see, among other things how many people would die and etcetera.

About the American plans to invade Japan they overestimated the enemy because of their Pearl harbor complex.

When you are comparing Dresden to Hiroshima and Nagasaki you are completely wrong. About numbers the people killed in H. and N. are estimted to be between 120000 and 300000. In Dresden the numbers are quite lower. After the war the municipal authorithies and Eastern German state said that around 30000 civilians perished in the attacks by R.A.F and U.S.A.F.

Elen

[Parrot]

Interesting thread. In my opinion, there is probably some truth to both sides of this debate. We used the bomb to end the war as quickly and painlessly to our side, the nature of war, as possible; we used the bomb to make a statement to the Ruskies; and we used the bomb partly as payback for Pearl Harbor - You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

My problem is this: Why Nagasaki? Why the Second Bomb? Wouldn't Little boy have accomplished all of various goals, military and political, so why call in Fat Man? I suppose someone could make the case that we needed to show that the first bomb was not a fluke and that we had perfected the process, or maybe that Nagasaki possessed legitimate military targets, but the whole thing just smacks of major payback to me.

[LadyGaladriel]

I think that the action of actually killed millions of inocent lives scare me. The Atom Bomb in Hiroshama caused horrific injuries and some of these injuries are still present even today in the form of Cancer and radiation poisioning.
The politics were correct at first because it did stop the Japanesse from furthur attacks however the second Bomb in Japan was purely for revenge of Pearl Harbour . The americans disliked the Japanese becuase of what they did that day and all they wanted was revenge. They even asked the Allies for armed forces to attack the Japanese and I think it may just be rumour and propaganda but Im also think they negoatited with the Germans to see if they would give way for a quick and easy way to the Japanese but I actually think the Germans refused (I could be wrong BTW)
I also think that they wanted to tes it out. I think that they also wanted to show over super powers like Russia what they could do although the Americans could say that this was awar prevention.
Im afraid your wrong on this point Elen ;
Japanese people wouldn't fight to the death
Quite Frankly , yes they would Have. the Japanese were renowened for the fact that they would rather die than be taken POW. i have heard of a case which actually said that after a vicory for the Americans all The POW's (this was also women and Childrenwho were with the Japanese soldiers) actually Jumped off a cliff rather than be taken by the americans.
I think that the only reason we have a kind of peace now is that everyone has a nuclear weapon pointed at their heads.

[TheFool]

Originally posted by Elen Carnë

Of course the invasion would have been bloody but I do think that the Japanese people wouldn't fight to the death. Even the most indoctrinated has human reflexes and the fear would tell you not to stand up to the enemy if he is so grossly superior. All these preparations were just an empty threat directed to no one and a display in foolishness. As for the Kamikaze pilots they had planes but not enough fuel to make them as effective as in earlier stages. The ammunition supplies were too small for a long war and the Japanese production had through bombing and lack of raw materials sunk to almost nothing. The civilian population was already subdued and only the officers who organized the mobilization believed in it.

The difference beetween nuclear weapons and invasion is that when you attack a nation with conventional forces your aim is the enemies soldiers even though civilians often "get in the way". If you bomb a city it is with the obvious aim of killing the inhabitants. By the way I forgot a reason in my last post:

4 The Americans wanted to test the bomb on people to see, among other things how many people would die and etcetera.

About the American plans to invade Japan they overestimated the enemy because of their Pearl harbor complex.

When you are comparing Dresden to Hiroshima and Nagasaki you are completely wrong. About numbers the people killed in H. and N. are estimted to be between 120000 and 300000. In Dresden the numbers are quite lower. After the war the municipal authorithies and Eastern German state said that around 30000 civilians perished in the attacks by R.A.F and U.S.A.F.

Elen

The Americans 'estimates of the Japanese' I think come from the fact that they [Japan] had proved themselves as formidable opponents throughout the entire war.

As I understand it, Dresden was destroyed primarily because it was in the path of the advancing Russian armies, and would serve as a demonstration of 'UK/USA military might'. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed primarily to force an end to the war with Japan (although I totally agree there were other less 'important' reasons as you have stated).

"The advocates of nuclear disarmament seem to believe that, if they could achieve their aim, war would become tolerable and decent. They would do well to read this book and ponder the fate of Dresden, where 135,000 people died as the result of an air attack with conventional weapons. On the night of March 9th, 1945, an air attack on Tokyo by American heavy bombers, using incendiary and high explosive bombs, caused the death of 83,793 people. The atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima killed 71,379 people."
quote by British Air Marshall Sir R. Saundby, from "The Destruction of Dresden", D. Irving, 1964.

(of course, these figures are not this exact, and we have conflicting sources, need more people to sort this out :confused: )

American forces in the Pacific practically had to kill every Japanese because of the way they fought. The Japanese people would have been aware of this. In that case it would be a similar situation to the Germans (civilians and soldiers) fighting to the death against the Russians because they knew the Russians were going to show them no mercy (however desperate/starving/poorly equipped they were) because of the way the Germans had previously treated the Russians, etc. : 'the Americans are going to kill us whatever'


"President Truman's statement, describing the weapon in some detail and released to an astounded world and a delirious American public the day before, was then broadcast to Japan. It was dismissed by many politicians as propaganda. The Japanese public were told nothing by their leaders."

The ultra cynical view: The 'Nagasaki' bomb was of a different type to the first bomb, and they wanted to test it out.

[Ancalagon]

Parott, I agree with your sentiments that there is an element of truth in both arguements that you described however, a third, possibly the most sinister reason is the fact that both targets, were heavily populated, strategically pointless and perfect examples of an ordinary town the world over. Both an absolute peach for a long-term study of the effects of a nuclear explosion, within a built-up, highly populated area.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, because of the bombings of these two cities, we ought never to see these weapons used again. Yet, does anyone truly feel they were used to stop a war, that was almost won? If peace had been declared, when would the next oppotunity ever arise to test these recently perfected weapons in open warfare?

There was absolutely no question that the US had to retaliate, the question is whether ANY world power can ever be an apologist for, or morally justify the use of such a destructive, brutal and inglorious implement of death. It is ethically and morally bankrupt.

[TheFool]

Originally posted by Ancalagon
If peace had been declared, when would the next oppotunity ever arise to test these recently perfected weapons in open warfare?

Of course I am purely speculating, but how much worse off would the world be today if the un-tried atom bomb had first been used against Russia (or indeed by Russia against America), in the imminent confrontation that everyone knew was coming (ie 1945 -> the cold war onwards)?

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by TheFool
Of course I am purely speculating, but how much worse off would the world be today if the un-tried atom bomb had first been used against Russia (or indeed by Russia against America), in the imminent confrontation that everyone knew was coming (ie 1945 -> the cold war onwards)?

I understand that speculation, but it is only with hindsight that we can consider this as an valid arguement. At that time, it was not about trying it out on another super-power, it was simply about trying it out, testing it in the field under perfect conditions, following the results and then using those results to perfect even more destructive capabilities. So, when you consider this, I do not think the excuse of ending the war is valid, but a better one than trying to explain a field test.

[TheFool]

I understand the argument of 'needing to test the bomb' - I was speculating that if it had not been dropped on Japan, then the 'next in line' target for 'testing' it was Russia (well most likely I think), who scarily had their own bomb within 4 years of the end of WWII.

I still think that Japan would not have surrendered if not for the atomic bombs. If the bombs had not been dropped, there would have had to have been a ground invasion. IMHO this would have lead to many more Allied (Russian, American, etc) and MANY more Japanese lives being lost.

[Ancalagon]

Originally posted by TheFool
I still think that Japan would not have surrendered if not for the atomic bombs. If the bombs had not been dropped, there would have had to have been a ground invasion. IMHO this would have lead to many more Allied (Russian, American, etc) and MANY more Japanese lives being lost.

So, putting aside the 'testing' debate for a moment, does this part of your arguement make it 'ethically' acceptable or 'morally' justified?

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by TheFool

"President Truman's statement, describing the weapon in some detail and released to an astounded world and a delirious American public the day before, was then broadcast to Japan. It was dismissed by many politicians as propaganda. The Japanese public were told nothing by their leaders."
So President Truman told the world about the weapon before it was dropped. But what did he say after??

I have been looking around the net before posting and I found some interesting things.

First. This is from the diary of president Truman.
This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.
He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...
Truman quoted in Robert H. Ferrell, Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S. Truman (New York: Harper and Row, 1980) pp. 55-56. Truman's writings are in the public domain.
next.The written order for the use of the atomic bomb against Japanese cities was drafted by General Groves. President Truman and Secretary of War Stimson approved the order at Potsdam.
The order made no mention of targetting military objectives or sparing civilians. The cities themselves were the targets. The order was also open-ended. "Additional bombs" could be dropped "as soon as made ready by the project staff."
The Order began. The 509 Composite Group, 20th Air Force will deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945 on one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata and Nagasaki. Then we have the announcement of the act after.
The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians. But that attack is only a warning of things to come. If Japan does not surrender, bombs will have to be dropped on her war industries and, unfortunately, thousands of civilian lives will be lost. I urge Japanese civilians to leave industrial cities immediately, and save themselves from destruction.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Harry S. Truman, Containing the Public Messages, Speeches and Statements of the President April 12 to December 31, 1945 (Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1961) page 212. The full text also was published in the New York Times, August 10, 1945, page 12.
So the city of Hiroshima was described as a Military Base. Quite a sizable base I would say. But then again, perhaps even Truman had trouble with the ethics of nuclear war-fare even so soon after it was first used.

The source files for the above quotes can be found at www.dannen.com/decision/index.html

[Ciryaher]

The only excuse that there is for the dropping of the atomic bomb is not one of ethics or morality, it is a tactical one. The United States wanted to show the world that we were the big dogs on campus, and dropping the bombs did that. If we had wanted to strike terrible fear into the Japanese, we could have dropped the bomb in a relatively unpopulated, yet easily visible location. We wanted to do more than beat the hopeless Japanese into a quivering pulp begging for mercy. We wanted to point at the craters in Japan and look at Russia and say "Don't mess with us if you don't want that."

[TheFool]

btw Trumans statement was made after the first bomb was dropped, sorry I should have stated that.

Hiroshima did contain one of the largest military bases in Japan: 40,000 military personnel, and 280,000 civilians. (NB I am not saying this makes it 'all OK then'). For a long time the primary target was Kyoto the ancient capital (a choice of General Groves), which was not a military base - thats why it was changed. Tokyo had already been practically razed to the ground by B29s using conventional weapons. The war against Germany was won by carpet bombing all their major cities killing hundreds of thousands (if not millions), then a massive, bloody ground invasion - FDR, Truman, Churchill, Stalin all had NO QUALMS about this because at that time, this was the alternative 'way to win a war'.

It is true that Hiroshima was not subjected to a 'large' bombing raid before the atomic mission as they wanted to see the full effects.

Straight after the first bomb, the Japanese were still unwilling to surrender - considering this, would a 'harmless demonstration' have worked? If they did not have the atomic bomb, then Hiroshima would probably have been fire-bombed anyway, like so many other major cities. Secondarily: The 'secret' Manhattan project had cost billions if not trillions of dollars, most of which the Government had not been told of. What would have been the reaction of America if they were told 'after the sacrifice of untold numbers of your lives, we have now spent a trillion dollars of your money so we could drop a priceless atomic weapon (one of maybe three in the world) on an empty field in Japan - oh and by the way they haven't surrendered'?

I am certainly not in favour of dropping nuclear weapons on people, or fire-bombing them, or covering their country with land mines, or starting wars; I think it was better to end the war by dropping the bomb, to the best of my knowledge the best available way at that time, and ultimately save more human lives than would otherwise have been lost.

[Ciryaher]

I think that perhaps the dropping of The Bombs not only ended the largest and bloodiest war in history, but it also served to mark the end of the Old Era. Wars would never be on such a massive scale again, because the large countries all began stockpiling nuclear arsenals. So, in a way, even thought the atomic bombs killed a great many people, they may have saved lives by showing that these sorts of things should never be used.

What if we hadn't used them? The Cold War would surely have started anyhow, but would we have been so reluctant to use them? Maybe World War III would have been begun because people didn't understand the true horrors of nuclear weapons. It comes down to a choice of the lesser evil (though that wasn't the original plan); to have dropped the bombs and killed tens of thousands of people or ignorantly start a full-scale nuclear war and eradicate the human race?

[TheFool]

To anyone: relevant stuff (http://www.milnet.com/milnet/nukeweap/) for this discussion, hope it is of interest. A huge document, hopefully it will be completed soon..

[Kat]

The claim that those cities were targetted specifically because they were centres of military power are flawed. TheFool's figures show that the civilian population outnumbered military personel seven times. Also Fool, somewhere in Thomas and Morgan-Witts book, it states that one contributing factor in selecting Hiroshima was the density of the wooden civilian structures in the city, which would ensure widespread, devastating destruction.

Something which has often given me pause for thought in my studies as a postgrad student in international law and politics, and a question which I pose is: if Hitler and the Germans had perfected a nuclear program before their defeat, and used these weapons against British cities rather than conventional bombs, surely we would after the war had claimed the act a war crime. Why should the fact that the act was perpetrated by US against THEM, and the notion of victors justice excuse it??

[TheFool]

Originally posted by Kat
The claim that those cities were targetted specifically because they were centres of military power are flawed. TheFool's figures show that the civilian population outnumbered military personel seven times. Also Fool, somewhere in Thomas and Morgan-Witts book, it states that one contributing factor in selecting Hiroshima was the density of the wooden civilian structures in the city, which would ensure widespread, devastating destruction.

Something which has often given me pause for thought in my studies as a postgrad student in international law and politics, and a question which I pose is: if Hitler and the Germans had perfected a nuclear program before their defeat, and used these weapons against British cities rather than conventional bombs, surely we would after the war had claimed the act a war crime. Why should the fact that the act was perpetrated by US against THEM, and the notion of victors justice excuse it??

One of my points is that, seeing as the Allied leaders were quite happy to employ a strategy of mass fire-bombing raids (the majority of resulting casualties being civilians, which they were fully aware of) surely it was better to end the war sooner rather than later. As you point out Kat, Hiroshima sounds like an ideal target for a fire-bomb raid...

"August 13, 1945 -
Stimson recommends shipping the second plutonium core to Tinian.
Truman orders area fire bombing resumed. Gen. Henry Arnold, US Army Air Force, launches the largest raid on Japan of the war with over 1000 B-29s and other aircraft, carrying 6000 tons of bombs.
August 14, 1945 -
Following leaflet bombing of Tokyo with surrender terms, Hirohito orders that an Imperial Edict accepting surrender be issued.
2:49 p.m. (1:49 a.m. Washington time), Japanese news agency announces surrender.
August 17, 1945 - Oppenheimer warns Stimson that:
1. atomic weapons would improve qualitatively and quantitatively over coming years;
2. adequate defenses against nuclear weapons would not be developed;
3. the US would not retain hegemony over nuclear weapons;
4. wars could not be prevented even if better nuclear weapons were developed."
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/nukeweap/Nfaq10.html


Kat, I think your question is very good (as well as horribly complex!), does it lead us into paths such as 'what would Hitler's Nazi Regime have considered as war crimes' .....:confused:

[Húrin Thalion]

Been out a couple of days but there is one thing that I have to write about.

The war against Germany was won by carpet bombing all their major cities killing hundreds of thousands (if not millions), then a massive, bloody ground invasion

This Fool is wrong in several ways. I'll take them in chronological order:

1:The strategical bombings dod not win the war or change it's outcome in any way. The bombings did as much damage to the RAF and USAF as it did to Germany. In fact production increased greatly between 1941 and 1944.

2:This may seem like something small but not all their major cities were bombed, many were taken by the Russians in bitter street fighting.

3: The strategical bombings did not kill over a million people. The most effective strike was the continous raids upon Hamburg in which we estimate that about 80000 prople died after several weeks of attacks.

4: Which massive ground invasion are you talking about? If you are tslking about the American attack you are completely wrong. The most important American war effort was sending food to Soviet and defeating the Japanese. The war against Hitler was won by Stalin. Many Americans haven't yet realized that you were the Soyuznichki (small unimportant allies in Russian)(originally said by Stalin). You only faced second grade occupation troops until for the Ardenner offensive which was an unnecessary and ill supplied attack. Churchill was right when he said "What would Premier Stalin say when he's got 180 divisions up front!" when the American generals said that an they could not conquer Italy if it was defended by more than two divisions.

About the subject I'd say that it's morally wrong to own a weapon that is directed towards civilians.

E.C

[TheFool]

Please note my Location. Please don't judge a Fool by it's username, I do admit it's not the best one for serious discussions..!

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
1:The strategical bombings dod not win the war or change it's outcome in any way. The bombings did as much damage to the RAF and USAF as it did to Germany. In fact production increased greatly between 1941 and 1944.
"the war in Germany was won by ...." = the way the effort to win the war was carried out. I stated what the ALLIES did in order to end/win the war in Germany. Whether the bombing raids had major effect is beside the point - IT'S WHAT THE ALLIES DID. I am saying that it was 'better' that this did not happen in Japan as well.


2:This may seem like something small but not all their major cities were bombed, many were taken by the Russians in bitter street fighting.
I have already mentioned similar eg Berlin (although it was also bombed flat) in a previous post. Again this is beside the point.


3: The strategical bombings did not kill over a million people. The most effective strike was the continous raids upon Hamburg in which we estimate that about 80000 prople died after several weeks of attacks.
Yep, that's for one city. I said "hundreds of thousands (if not millions)". We are not in disagreement here!


4: Which massive ground invasion are you talking about? If you are tslking about the American attack you are completely wrong. The most important American war effort was sending food to Soviet and defeating the Japanese. The war against Hitler was won by Stalin. Many Americans haven't yet realized that you were the Soyuznichki (small unimportant allies in Russian)(originally said by Stalin). You only faced second grade occupation troops until for the Ardenner offensive which was an unnecessary and ill supplied attack. Churchill was right when he said "What would Premier Stalin say when he's got 180 divisions up front!" when the American generals said that an they could not conquer Italy if it was defended by more than two divisions.
Of course I was talking about the ALLIED ground invasion - notice that I used the word 'Stalin' in the very sentence that you quoted (though you didn't quote that part)!?!

Forgive me if I don't agree with the quote of Stalins you mention. A brief example: how many Russians were there in the 'small, unimportant' Normandy invasion force? I suppose he meant 'unimportant' in the sense that the other Allies were not involved in the front-line defence of Russia. Or maybe it was from a post-war speech, I don't know.

The war against Hitler was won by Stalin.
I agree that the Russians defeated a greater amount of German forces than the other Allies, again this is not my point!

edit: btw Elen, Happy Birthday! :)

[Húrin Thalion]

I did not mean anything bad when using your name.

What I meant with Hamburg is that this was the best (worst) raid and Sir Arthur Harris could not repeat his succes for several reasons.

I misunderstood you on the winning but I think that we all could be more precise in our expressions, especially me.

My point in no. 2 was that most raids were conducted in western Germany except for Dresden.

About Stalin it is a thing that I have, I have seen to much **** like Saving private Ryan and Pearl Harbor and I take every chance to point out that the western allies did not do much in the war against Germany.

E.C

P.S. Thanks for the greetings, fourteen at last!

[TheFool]

:) Hope you are having a nice day.

Originally posted by Elen Carnë
About Stalin it is a thing that I have, I have seen to much **** like Saving private Ryan and Pearl Harbor and I take every chance to point out that the western allies did not do much in the war against Germany.

I'm with you on this! Add Band of Brothers to the list.


As an aside: I do not presume to have a real idea what it would actually be like to be in combat, but a film I would recommend if you haven't seen it is 'The Thin Red Line' (dir. Terrence Malick). It is way different from the 'pop cinema' stuff above in that it deals with very basic issues (ie the 'plot' is very secondary), on a very personal level (eg courage, cowardice, terror). It's very philosophical, I think about some of the stuff in it quite a lot.. needs several viewings

[Húrin Thalion]

Of course I am having a nice day, of school and everything!:D

Yeah I saw Thin Red line a while ago and what you say is true!

To get back to the topic: I'd say that it's morally wrong to own a weapon that is directed towards civilians.

Elen

[TheFool]

Every new technology that is developed is applied to warfare. Just like fire, medicine, electricity, with hindsight (or even without it) it seems inevitable that nuclear weapons were developed; I don't know if it's really a moral decision. I think also Ciryaher's most recent post is very interesting, that owning nuclear weapons may be the main reason there have been no more 'world wars' ? *touches a very large piece of wood with both hands*

Something I find potentially very scary though, is the American's recently proposed plans to modify 'smaller' nuclear weapons for use against underground bunkers, caves etc in an offensive role (some info here (http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1997/mj97/mj97mello.html) , but note date of pub.)

back later

[Ciryaher]

I don't think that we are going to use mini-nukes in caves; that is what the newly-built thermobaric weapon systems are for.

At one point, small nuclear weapons were being built for the sole purpose of demolition and construction, as in clearing old mines or removing terrain upon which to build.

I don't know of a weapon in the world that is targeted solely at civilians (and I know quite a few weapons).