|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
 Posted - 05/14/2002 : 12:23:40 [Permalink]
|
No time for a long reply, and apparently no need. Count me in with Slater for the most part.
Coupla comments, though:
(Can't quote you as it isn't letting me...don't know why, and now that I'm in POST REPLY, it's not letting me see the conversation to this point, so this is all from memory)
Propaganda? Sort of like bragging--it's not propaganda if it's true.
Consensus? Hardly. And the majority of those with opinions similar to yours are those without military experience and certainly with an anti-military bias.
I would seriously like an answer to the question of what you would consider appropriate in the event dropping the bomb off the coast did NOT result in surrender. This is, IMO, an important point that I will not let slide.
Remember the Gulf War? Remember the initially effusive comments by the American military about the accuracy and extent of our bombs dropping? Remember the backpedaling because the initial BDA (Battle Damage Assessment; a legitimate military term) was wrong? I sincerely doubt that the ability to conduct BDA in WWII was faster and more reliable than in the 1990's, yet you say/imply that the US knew immediately what the extent of the destruction to Hiroshima was.
That's it. Can't stick around and I want to post some definitions on the death penalty thread.
My kids still love me. |
 |
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 14:27:50 [Permalink]
|
I really don't want to go into the whole discussion about wether or not it was the right thing to do, to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I simply don't have the information to back up any opinion.
I just want to throw in a few bits of information and opinion here.
1.) Why is everyone so hung up about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nobody says anything anout the firebombing of Tokyo wich had more victims than either of those? Is it the technology that matters so much. What about the firebombing of Dresden wich had more victims than both atomar bombs combined?
2.) The justification saying, that it was ok to kill all those Japanese because they were racists seems a bit lacking. People deseved to die because they were racists? Do you support the death penalty for membership in the KKK? And lets not forget that we are talking about the middle of the last century here. Practically the whole world was racist. The Nazis were best at it and the Japanese not far behind, but that does not mean that the rest of the world were totally free from it.
3.) Justifying the Nukes with the atrocities commited by the Japanese throughout asia and the pacific during WW2 is not a much better argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. An eye for an eye and massacre for an massacre does not work for me. Besides that argument only holds water if you can show me, that the powers that be knew and cared about the extend of Japanese atrocities.
4.) The general idea that the civilians in those cities could in some way be held acountible for the behaviour of the Japanese nation is not really something that makes much sense to me. They might have later be made into patriotic heroes who knowing the danger stood their ground and fully supported the emperors policies, but I doubt that this was the case for everyone.
5.) Useinig events that happened after the end of WW2 as an argument only works if you have precognitive powers.
6.) The, in my eyes, only valid argument, I have heared, for the dropping of the bombs would be the one, that says that it saved lifes in the end by shortening the war. I don't have enough information to know wether this is true, so I can't comment on this. If actual numbers could be agreed upon there would probably still be disagrement on how to value the respective lives (Allies/Japanes miltary/Japese Civilians).
7.) Slater the comparison with Denmark does not realy work. I understand and agree about the points I think you were trying to make, but the situations just do no compare.
For once Denmark employing a nuke on Germany would only have made sense before or after the German invasions. At both points, it would not really have been justiefieable.
The Justification that someone-else-would-have-done-it-too, does not really work all that well for me either.
The parable of the Danish resitance fighters also does not work, because they did not generally traget civilians.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 15:29:47 [Permalink]
|
The justification saying, that it was ok to kill all those Japanese because they were racists seems a bit lacking.
I guess I didn't make myself clear, sorry. My reference to Japanese racism was because I felt that they were being portraied in an unrealistic light, not as a justification for killing them.
Justifying the Nukes with the atrocities commited by the Japanese throughout asia and the pacific during WW2 is not a much better argument. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Theoretically a very nice thought. However in the reality of combat it becomes strictly an academic exercise.
Slater the comparison with Denmark does not realy work. I understand and agree about the points I think you were trying to make, but the situations just do no compare.
I used Denmark in an attempt to get Omega to think of this on more personal terms, since that's where she is
For once Denmark employing a nuke on Germany would only have made sense before or after the German invasions. At both points, it would not really have been justiefieable.
This is where we differ. I believe that the use of extreme force in self-defense is justifiable
The Justification that someone-else-would-have-done-it-too, does not really work all that well for me either.
If you hold someone else at fault for something you would have also done it is hypocrisy.
The only Europeans I've met who even vaguely have an idea of what went on in the Pacific Theater are the English. They seem to be fixated on the Nazis and ignore the Japanese. If we had a Korean or a Filipino on this thread they would be furious.
The parable of the Danish resitance fighters also does not work, because they did not generally traget civilians.
Their explosives killed whoever happened to be near by regardless of their official standing. The Danes also didn't warn their victims for days in advance. They were fighting trying to win the same war Truman was. Truman just had better equipment.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 05/14/2002 15:30:36 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 19:10:14 [Permalink]
|
Slater> “Tell me with a straight face that if Denmark had had the bomb they would not have used it on the Nazis.”
First of all Denmark was occupied territory during WW II.
Secondly: Even if Denmark had had a nuclear bomb and used it on a huge city, I would have said the exact same things about the Danish use of nuclear bombs as I do about Truman's use of it.
What is the point?
“We had a choice. The choice was --end the war in a week killing 100,000 of the enemy and sparing our own men OR let the war last another year with estimated causalities on all sides over the two million mark.”
I'll repeat myself: But even if there had been an invasion of Japan, the claims advanced by Truman, Churchill, and others that the invasion would have resulted in the deaths of 250,000 to a million American soldiers were invented after the fact. U.S. military planners' estimates of the number of deaths that would result from an invasion varied between 20,000 and 63,000. (Lifton and Mitchell, p 178.)
“I'm not sure why you put these quotes here as they seem to be arguing my side of this debate. Surely if anyone knew the reasons, necessities and purposes behind Allied actions during the Second World War it was these three.”
The same Truman, mind you, who asserted that Hiroshima was a military base.
“Who do you think these Japanese are? You give the impression that you have some strange racial stereotype. The shuffling and giggling Geisha. The Kung Fu master who would never hurt a fly. Cherry blossoms in the spring.”
I think the Japanese are people like you and me. You're the one making it okay to kill 100.000 thousand Japanese for no reason. Are they worth less than you and me?
“Do you think they would roll over and play dead like an Asian version of France? These guys are a bunch of tough Mother F---er's. They were already using themselves as human bombs. They had no intention of giving up.”
Who's displaying racial stereotypes now?
“Do you think that the people who were incinerated by the A-bomb are any "deader" than they would be if they were shot or bayoneted or starved to death because they wouldn't surrender to a blockade?”
I am saying there was no need to kill 100.000 civilians to end the war.
“Now who is spewing out propaganda? What is ridiculous about WW II ending a year early meaning that lives on both sides were spared?”
Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman stated “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
The chief of staff says the Japanese were ready to surrender.
“Again you bring up people supporting my assertions. Noted Newsmen this time. Again you show that there is no consensus.
Are you contending that because these guys are honored reporters, statesmen, presidents and prime ministers then they are ipso facto wrong?”
Honoured reporters are not historians or the military. The quotes I used were to show the pressure put on the Smithsonian for offering a broader view, than the commonly accepted.
Truman stated Hiroshima was a military base. Is that correct?
The list of people close to Truman who felt that Japanese surrender was possible without the bomb or an invasion is staggering: Joseph Grew, Under Secretary of State; John McCloy, Assistant to the Secretary of War; Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy; and Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, to name a few more.
Are they wrong?
“The Smithsonian exhibit happened, but it was cleansed of any criticism of the U.S. decision to drop the bomb.
As is only right.”
Why?
“Let's say the Danish National Museum puts on a show about WW II and one of the curators decides to do a section on the Danish Freedom Fighters and the Resistan |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 19:18:46 [Permalink]
|
Garrette> I'm assuming your comments are for me.
“Propaganda? Sort of like bragging--it's not propaganda if it's true.”
Propaganda is bragging? Where did you come up with that idea? And what if it is wrong?
“Consensus? Hardly. And the majority of those with opinions similar to yours are those without military experience and certainly with an anti-military bias.”
So now I am anti-military? What will be next? I am extremely curious about this. It seems as by questioning the need for dropping the atomic bomb, I press some kind of nationalistic button on some people. Anti-American rhetoric, anti-American this and anti-American that.
Why is questioning an event anti-something?
“I would seriously like an answer to the question of what you would consider appropriate in the event dropping the bomb off the coast did NOT result in surrender. This is, IMO, an important point that I will not let slide.”
Then why don't you just ask the question? You think the war would have gone on forever? Japan was already on the verge of surrendering before the bombs. They would have surrendered.
“I sincerely doubt that the ability to conduct BDA in WWII was faster and more reliable than in the 1990's, yet you say/imply that the US knew immediately what the extent of the destruction to Hiroshima was.”
Are you saying they had no idea the amount of destruction the bomb would cause? After the entire Manhattan Project and the testing in July 1945, it was a “mistake”?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 19:37:10 [Permalink]
|
Omega, a bit of (hopefully) contructive critism (I apologize in advance, as I'm sure it will not be welcome):
First of all, you reply to 99% of other peoples' points with questions of your own. This gets everyone nowhere.
Secondly, and more specifically: You quote people of authority from the time period of WWII that support your argument as if what they have said is proof of your point. Your point being, ironically, that what other people of the time period have said about why they used the atomic bombs were lies (those that you are arguing against). Don't you see a problem with this?
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all |
|
|
|
Espritch
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2002 : 21:08:03 [Permalink]
|
A friend of my uncle was on a troop ship in the South Pacific during the last days of WWII. He and the rest of the soldiers on board had just been issued winter coats. He distinctly remembered the day the bomb fell on Hiroshima, because the whole convoy stopped dead in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. A few days later they turned around and headed home. I'm not sure if Trueman did the right thing by bombing Hiroshima, but if you were to ask my Uncle's friend, I'm pretty sure I know what his answer would have been.
P.S. Hindsight is always 20/20. That is a luxury generally not granted to those living the event.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 04:42:29 [Permalink]
|
If the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were thought to have solved something, then that doesn't explain the "thousand-plane" raid after the bombings.
Without getting into too many reasons, I doubt killing Hitler at any time in his life would have changed anything. He was just one man.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 05:47:07 [Permalink]
|
LARS:
1.) Why is everyone so hung up about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki and nobody says anything anout the firebombing of Tokyo wich had more victims than either of those? Is it the technology that matters so much. What about the firebombing of Dresden wich had more victims than both atomar bombs combined?
A question I would have raised in time. I'd add Hamburg to the list, though I'm unsure of the casualty figures there.
2.) The justification saying, that it was ok to kill all those Japanese because they were racists seems a bit lacking. People deseved to die because they were racists? Do you support the death penalty for membership in the KKK? And lets not forget that we are talking about the middle of the last century here. Practically the whole world was racist. The Nazis were best at it and the Japanese not far behind, but that does not mean that the rest of the world were totally free from it.
Slater has already answered this, but I have to reiterate that this is a gross misreading of what he said. He did not use the racism as justification for the bombing. He used it as an aspect of his argument that they were not about to surrender.
3.) Justifying the Nukes with the atrocities commited by the Japanese throughout asia and the pacific during WW2 is not a much better argument. Two wrongs don't make a right. An eye for an eye and massacre for an massacre does not work for me. Besides that argument only holds water if you can show me, that the powers that be knew and cared about the extend of Japanese atrocities.
The argument was, I believe, that there was legitimate fear that the atrocities would continue without the violent putdown of the perpetrators.
6.) The, in my eyes, only valid argument, I have heared, for the dropping of the bombs would be the one, that says that it saved lifes in the end by shortening the war. I don't have enough information to know wether this is true, so I can't comment on this. If actual numbers could be agreed upon there would probably still be disagrement on how to value the respective lives (Allies/Japanes miltary/Japese Civilians).
This is one of the two valid arguments I can think of. The evidence presented by Omega and Gorgo does not sway my opinion that the belief was that it would save lives.
The other argument is my comment after the previous quotation.
Quotations by Omega:
Slater> “Tell me with a straight face that if Denmark had had the bomb they would not have used it on the Nazis.”
First of all Denmark was occupied territory during WW II.
You seem to delight in missing the point of scenarios and questions while taking others to task for it.
Secondly: Even if Denmark had had a nuclear bomb and used it on a huge city, I would have said the exact same things about the Danish use of nuclear bombs as I do about Truman's use of it.
What is the point?
I believe Slater's point was an attempt to demonstrate hypocrisy. My point, as I've attempted to demonstrate with another question, but which this demonstrates well, is that you are against the use of nuclear weapons regardless of circumstance.
“We had a choice. The choice was --end the war in a week killing 100,000 of the enemy and sparing our own men OR let the war last another year with estimated causalities on all sides over the two million mark.”
I'll repeat myself: But even if there had been an invasion of Japan, the claims advanced by Truman, Churchill, and others that the invasion would have resulted in the deaths of 250,000 to a million American soldiers were invented after the fact. U.S. military planners' estimates of the number of deaths that would result from an invasion varied between 20,000 and 63,000. (Lifton and Mitchell, p 178.)
And what do Lifton and Mitchell say that the estimated number of Japanese deaths from the atomic bomb were prior to its actually being dropped?
same Truman, mind you, who asserted |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2002 : 07:49:25 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, TD, I kept meaning to address this and then kept forgetting:
quote:
This reminds me of something. Garette (and sorry if I'm getting off track in this thread), was it you who recommended Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series to me? I started it back up, and I'm glad I did! I'm on the 6th book.
When Rand refused to kill Lanfear, and thought to himself that he couldn't kill her because she was a woman, even though she was killing two of his friends, and claimed that he would never kill a woman, no matter what, I couldn't think of a more selfish thing to do.
Rand was choosing to avoid his own guilt, even at the expense of other people's lives.
Any thoughts?
Yes, I'm the one who recommended it. Books 7 and 8 are even better. 9 slacks off a bit, leaving, I fear, too much to be resolved in 10 whenever it comes out and which he has said will be the last in the series. The geopolitics are impressive and fun, no?
I had basically the same thoughts regarding Rand's decision not to kill women, though I went quickly through the 'how chivalrous' phase first. There is not always virtue in nobility.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 01:22:18 [Permalink]
|
Hi Interesting topic. IMHO the dropping of the the atomic bombs and area bombing of cities during WWII were CAH. Even before the war started it was convention that civilians should not be targetted. In Europe the heavy bombing of cities started as a tit for tat retailation for a few badly aimed bombs.
On both sides the killing of civilians was very deliberate. Although, it is curious that the USAAF was very reluctant to area bomb German cities, but had no problems bombing Japanese cities. Who is to say what motivated that?
I just think if you knew it was a bad thing to do before you started out and did it anyway, then it is for sure a crime.
Even the mob kills for a reason.
Yes I was in the military, I am not some peace lover that has never held a rifle. Not that I ever shot anyone or was shot at. (Some one I know that did and was said the weird thing is you can hear the bullets hit the body.)
|
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 06:59:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The "7-year-old Hitler" argument is a straw man.
I fail to see how it could possibly be a straw man. It's simply a hypothetical moral dilemma.
Sorry about the delay in responding -- I've been away from the forum for a few days. I have yet to catch up with my reading, so if anyone else has addressed this issue, this may be redundant.
Let me illustrate why your hypothetical moral dilemma is a straw man by posing a different hypothetical moral dilemma. I introduce you to my neighbor's seven-year-old daughter, and I tell you that I am a true psychic and that my powers tell me that she will grow up to be a mass murderer. However, my powers also tell me that there is but one way to stop her and save all those lives: you must strangle her within the next five minutes.
Now, would you feel comfortable discussing such a hypothetical? I doubt that you would, for any number of reasons -- you undoubtedly share my skepticsm about psychic phenomena; even if you believed in psi, you might question my veracity and ulterior motives, and so on. In other words, the hypothetical situation is not just improbable, but impossible (and impossibly complicated).
Here's a scenario that I might be more willing to discuss. You are present in a War Room in which the chief of state is monitoring a threat to your country. At some point, the situation grows so desperate that the chief of state prepares to order a massive nuclear strike that is certain to cost the lives of millions of human beings. The only alternative is the probable conquest of your country by a foreign power whose philosophy of government is repugnant to you. You have a sidearm. Do you allow the chief of state to order the nuclear strike, or do you kill him and accept your country's defeat to save the lives of millions of innocents?
The scenario above is at least conceivable, and I'd be happy to discuss it with you or anyone else. But I reject your assertion that an plainly impossible scenario is anything but a red herring.
quote:
However, a moral dilemma does not deserve criticism because of the impossibility or improbability of its situation.
One must simply suspend one's disbelief, and answer a simple moral question (here's my version):
I vehemently disagree. You might as well ask me if I would recite an incantation to change the course of history to eliminate all anti-semitism. Fantasy is fantasy, and has no bearing on real moral issues. Surely we can produce a more feasible scenario to illustrate the "life of an individual vs. the good of a whole population" dilemma!
quote:
You find yourself transported back in time, standing in a room with a loaded pistol. There is a child in the room, whom you know with absolute certainty is Adolph Hitler. You also know with absolute certainty that you will be transported back to your own time in exactly one minute (how you know either is not important or relevant; it's a hypothetical, people!). There is nothing else on your person, on the child's person, or in the room at all, just you, the kid, and a pistol in your hand.
What would you do?
Make a beeline for the nearest mental health clinic.
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 07:48:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
“Propaganda? Sort of like bragging--it's not propaganda if it's true.”
Propaganda is bragging? Where did you come up with that idea? And what if it is wrong?
I didn't say it's like bragging. I think I'm guilty of using an American aphorism and expecting you to know it. In the US, there is a common taunt that goes “It ain't bragging if it's true.” Usually said to excuse a recent spate of bragging. Propaganda is similar in that “It ain't propaganda if it's true.”
And if it's KNOWINGLY wrong or untrue, then it's propaganda. Or simple lying.
Garette,
While I agree with many of the points you made in this post, I have to disagree with you here. I don't think the definition of propaganda is dependent on the truth or falsehood of its content.
Propaganda is merely presuasive rhetoric distributed by mass media for the political advantage if the distributor. Both sides practiced it in WWII, and most governments practice it today. The USA is among the heaviest hitters.
Just because the propaganda is true definitely does not make it something other than propaganda. (The same is true of bragging, for that matter. The definition of bragging is the telling of self-aggrandizing tales; said tales may be perfectly true, yet their telling is still bragging.)
And anyhow, how can we ever determine the "truth" of the kind of statements that often crop up in propaganda? Consider: "The USA stands for individual freedom and personal liberty." Well, sure, we'd all probably agree that is true on its face. Yet there are plenty of Americans who feel that our personal liberty goes way too far (including our current Attorney General?), and others who feel it doesn't go nearly far enough. One characteristic of propaganda, then, is oversimplification. But does this make it automatically false, and therefore fit your definition? I don't think so.
I hope this post isn't too nit-picky... but I do feel we should try to at least use language consistently. It's not helpful to a discussion when everybody is using different definitions of the same words!
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Mespo_man
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 08:25:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
On both sides the killing of civilians was very deliberate. Although, it is curious that the USAAF was very reluctant to area bomb German cities, but had no problems bombing Japanese cities. Who is to say what motivated that? [opus]
The "motivation" was based on dis-similar aspects of European and Japanese cities and war production and defensive factors.
1. European cities were basically brick and morter. It took a proportionately larger tonnage of bombs to knock them down.
2. The German war production managers deliberatly dispersed factories out into the countryside to minimize the effect of a single bombing raid.
3. The Luftwaffe was formidable. So was the German "88". The best anti-aircraft weapon in production.
Taking into account the above factors, USAAF mission planners weren't going to waste bombs or lives on knocking down cities.
However, in Japan...
a) The cities were literally wood and paper. Incendiary bombs were the weapon of choice. They were cheap to manufacture and "safe" to use. The new B-29 was the best delivery system although it had early "teething" problems.
b) Except for a few huge factories and shipyards like Mitsubishi, much of the Japanese war production effort came from "cottage" industries embedded in the very hearts of the cities. There was no countryside where factories could be disbursed.
c) The Japanese airforce was overmatched by the U.S., both in the technology of the aircraft and the highly trained level of flight personnel.
The problem for USAAF mission planners in Japan was really a no brainer. Burn the cities to the ground with a minimum of risk. So they did.
************************************
In regards to the "bomb" my answer may seem incredibly simplistic, but so are the excuses for using it that I've read.
Japan didn't surrender because of the bomb, the EMPORER surrendered. There was no palace coup. Hirohito was not beheaded by a rabble who wanted to sue for peace. It was his call, and his alone. From what I've read concerning the arguments for and against peace in the Japanese cabinet before and after the bomb was dropped, everyone knew that the end was at hand. The question was the honorable way to end it. Either in a blaze of glory for the emporer or a humiliating loss of face that only the emporer himself could sanction.
Hirohito could just as easily have said "Follow me into oblivion against the Yankee dogs and (just about) EVERYONE would have followed. But he didn't. So we say that the "bomb" ended the war and the "Japanese" surrendered.
***************************************
Concerning murdering Hitler when he was 7. There are so many whirls and eddies in the currents of history, it is too simplistic to say that Hitler's premature death would have meant that there would have been no genocide. And besides, you could have changed many other historical aspects without killing Hitler.
Try this one. Hitler was a failed artist. How about inserting a mentor who could have developed Hitler's artistic talents. Or a dope dealer who would have kept him dumbed down with heroin.
(:raig
|
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 09:41:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The "motivation" was based on dis-similar aspects of European and Japanese cities and war production and defensive factors.
1. European cities were basically brick and morter. It took a proportionately larger tonnage of bombs to knock them down.
2. The German war production managers deliberatly dispersed factories out into the countryside to minimize the effect of a single bombing raid.
3. The Luftwaffe was formidable. So was the German "88". The best anti-aircraft weapon in production.
Taking into account the above factors, USAAF mission planners weren't going to waste bombs or lives on knocking down cities.
However, in Japan...
a) The cities were literally wood and paper. Incendiary bombs were the weapon of choice. They were cheap to manufacture and "safe" to use. The new B-29 was the best delivery system although it had early "teething" problems.
b) Except for a few huge factories and shipyards like Mitsubishi, much of the Japanese war production effort came from "cottage" industries embedded in the very hearts of the cities. There was no countryside where factories could be disbursed.
c) The Japanese airforce was overmatched by the U.S., both in the technology of the aircraft and the highly trained level of flight personnel.
The problem for USAAF mission planners in Japan was really a no brainer. Burn the cities to the ground with a minimum of risk. So they did.
I do not believe that those arguments are sound. European cities burned very well. In Hamburg the streets caught on fire.
The USAAF always thought it could cripple German war production up to the end of the war.
Losses to the 88mm anti-aircraft gun were not a big concern in any event, since the USAAF continued to fly daylight missions over Germany regardless of that threat.
With the introduction of the longer range fighter planes in 1944 there was air superiority for the allies. So there was no German fighter threat either regardless of the tecnology.
As to the original question, would you shoot a 7 yo Hitler. No I would not. There is no reason to believe it would have saved any lives. While it is impossible to know how histroy would have unfolded from that point on, it is possible to come up with some very plausable and horrific variations on it.
On the general principle of whether it is ok to kill a 7 yo boy to save lives...Well if he is gunning down his class mates or in some other way immediatly threating the lives of people in a diliberate way, then yes. Otherwise, to prevent possible future deaths, no.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
