|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2002 : 12:27:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Let me illustrate why your hypothetical moral dilemma is a straw man
A "straw man" is when one makes a caricature of someone else's position that one is arguing against, and proceeds to attack it and easily defeat it.
There are no positions being argued here, and no one's position is being caricatured and attacked.
quote:
But I reject your assertion that an plainly impossible scenario is anything but a red herring.
I find your use of the terms "straw man" and "red herring" terribly confusing in this discussion. There are no opposing positions in an argument. There is no argument. There is simply a "imagine if this happened, what would you do?" question. If you don't want to play along, don't play along. I haven't the foggiest notion why this is even an issue.
Exactly what do you think I'm trying to divert you from by introducing a "red herring"?
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
------------
Truth above pride and ego; truth above all
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/16/2002 12:37:46 |
 |
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 20:57:46 [Permalink]
|
TokyoDreamer> Why shouldn't I welcome criticism?
Sometimes you have to ask a question, to make sure you understand the other person's point or position. Answering a question with a question is a common feature around here, I'm assuming it's for that reason. Besides, if you read what I write, I ask questions also in respond to statements. Is awfully annoying spending time on a reply, only to realise I misunderstood someone. Can ruin a perfectly good argument!
“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?”
See, my line of reasoning goes as follows. I consider the nuclear blasting of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as Crimes against Humanity.. I do so, because as far as I can see it, Japan was already ready to surrender. (Slater will say it's because I'm just anti-American)
Who questioned the use of the bomb and whether or not it was needed to end the war?
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force.
Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Truman.
General Douglas MacArthur, the man in charge of Pacific operations.
Joseph Grew, Under Secretary of State;
John McCloy, Assistant to the Secretary of War;
Ralph Bard, Under Secretary of the Navy;
Lewis Strauss, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Navy.
They do NOT say, the bombing was a CaH. I use these people to argue, that the idea that there was no way around dropping the a-bombs is not correct. Can you see the difference.
Truman declared: "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, in so far as possible, the killing of civilians.” What happened here? Was Hiroshima a military base?
Espritch> Of course it's always easier to look at an event from a distance. I am also quite sure a lot of war-weary soldiers just wanted to get back home to their families.
“I'm not sure if Trueman did the right thing by bombing Hiroshima..” Why the uncertainty?
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 20:58:21 [Permalink]
|
Garrette> “A question I would have raised in time. I'd add Hamburg to the list, though I'm unsure of the casualty figures there.”
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were instantaneous killings of hundreds of thousands of people. No sirens, no time to run for shelter or anything. No protection. Not only are we dealing with people who died right then and there, but also the many radiation deaths and defects in child births.
We can discuss Dresden, Tokyo and Hamburg, too. Start another thread. If we have to discuss every single bombing in the history of warfare, how are we going to reach a conclusion here?
2) Is this perhaps the core of the discussion? Whether or not the Japanese were about to surrender or not.
3) “The argument was, I believe, that there was legitimate fear that the atrocities would continue without the violent putdown of the perpetrators.” Then be a good sceptic and support this with facts.
“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.”
The civilians have no way to defend themselves. The only atomic bombs that have been used on people in history, were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. With devastating consequences to the population in those cities. We're not discussing nuclear weapons in other circumstances, but this demonstrates your need to change the topic. The discussion here, is whether or not it was necessary to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end WWII,
“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?”
Now you're changing the subject again. I won't let this slide: An argument was put forth, that between 100.000 and 250.000 American soldiers who'd have died from an invasion, to support the need to drop the atomic bombs to end the war, If U.S. military planners' estimated the number of deaths that would result from an invasion would be between 20,000 and 63,000 is that not somewhat of a difference?
“So you do believe this, as implied by your accepted definition of CAH?”
Believe what? Dad Truman thought Hiroshima was a military base?
“No, as has been stated, Slater, I, and others, believe there was sufficient reason for the killing. If it turns out we are wrong, it does not change our reasoning.”
But if it turns out that you're wrong, would you change your reasoning?
“The Japanese are absolutely not worth less. They are absolutely as capable of atrocity and inhumanity as anyone else.”
Does this include an American president?
“They are just as liable to repercussion when they commit such atrocities and inhumanities.”
Agreed.
“Slater is not. This sort of misunderstanding seems to becoming common.”
So it is perfectly okay to accuse me of possessing peculiar racial stereotypes?
Slater is just right be definition. Were the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki all a bunch of tough Mother F—er's, that were alreadu using themselves as human bombs? Why is calling all Japanese Tough MF's not a racial stereotype?
“And your evidence, beyond the opinion of some statesmen, is…?”
Go to the start of my post. I believe I do have some evidence indicating there was no need to drop the atomic bombs to end the war. I don't know why you call Admiral Leahy and General Douglas MacArthur statesmen. But well.
“Do you believe that Truman was:
1. Attempting to eradicate the Japanese people AND
2. Was doing so for racial or national reasons.”
Political reasons.
“Your implication is not just that Truman was incorrect, but that he was intentionally incorrect. Can you simply state that outright, please?”
Can you give me an answer to my question, please?
“By the omissions on this list, we can assume that the actual Secretary of State, the actual Secretary of War, the actual Secretary of the Navy, and the actu |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2002 : 21:53:44 [Permalink]
|
I'm surprised that no one has brought up how Truman was thrust into the Presidency immediately prior to the dropping of the bomb's and he was kept in the dark on the development of it until then. He had not had much time to consider the implications of its use. It's easy to imagine all sorts of reasons in retrospect. However, these are all mere speculation and it's damn easy to build a case over 50 years later knowing what happened later. In 1945 there were a lot of indications that the Japanese would put up as good a fight as they could. Have you ever heard of a place called Okinawa? That was just a tiny island and not the Japanese mainland. Considering the fight the Germans had just put up once the Rhine was crossed the American forces should have expected unbelievable losses. You are planning their war from 50 years later and without that advantage you would be a lone voice indeed.
I also think it's worth considering what slater said about leaflets warning the Japanese were dropped prior to the bombings. That's not exactly a sneak attack.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 00:18:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In 1945 there were a lot of indications that the Japanese would put up as good a fight as they could. Have you ever heard of a place called Okinawa? That was just a tiny island and not the Japanese mainland. Considering the fight the Germans had just put up once the Rhine was crossed the American forces should have expected unbelievable losses. You are planning their war from 50 years later and without that advantage you would be a lone voice indeed.
Just because a person feels they had good reason to commit a crime does not justify that crime. Of course the idea of a CAH was not fully realised until after WWII. Perhaps, a loop hole for saying it was not a CAH. 
At the time, there was likely not much choice in the matter. The two bombs were built, people were tired of the war and if the Japanese did strongly resist and casualties were high there would have been no re-election for Truman. (Although I do not really think Truman was that cynical visa vie the last point)
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 05:50:11 [Permalink]
|
I have yet to see an compelling argument that the bombs being dropped where CAH unless you simply call all war acts crimes. If you do it that way it's easy. I think that all the information they had in 1945 made dropping the bombs the best choice. I don't think Truman was as concerned about reelection as he was about sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to their deaths. Those American lives are the ones Truman was responsible for.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 06:44:58 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps we should make a distinction here. Could it be that the nuclear bombings of largely civilian targets (as well as the fire hombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the V2 attacks on London) were war crimes, rather than crimes against humanity?
In the latter category, I'd include the Holocaust, the "killing fields" of Cambodia, and (on a smaller scale) the "ethnic cleansing" of Bosnia. These did not occur in the course of combat (not directly, anyway), and were directed against whole populations. The bombings, however, had (at least arguably) a strategic purpose in the war, and were clearly not extermination efforts. For instance, if Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been aimed at actual extermination of the Japanese race, then Truman would have rejected the "conditional unconditional" surrender of Japan, and continued using the nukes just as fast as they could be manufactured, until the Japanese islands were nothing but glowing rubble. Now that would have been a CaH!
What I'm proposing is that a war crime is a lesser crime than a CaH. Exterminating your un-favorite ethnic group is a CaH. Indiscriminate bombing of a civilian area during wartime is (at worst) a war crime. It might be held against you if you happen to be the loser of the war, but it's unlikely to be prosecuted if you're the victor. Do you agree there's a difference, either qualitatively or quantitatively? 
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 07:00:03 [Permalink]
|
Imagine a country where leaders drop a weapon that deliberately kills and maims hundreds of thousands of people and the citizenry is discussing whether it was justified or not. Can such a place really exist?
Howard Zinn once asked if you had to kill 100,000 U.S. children to achieve whatever results you thought you achieved by killing as many Japanese children, would you do it?
If not, then what's the difference?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 08:37:17 [Permalink]
|
Now you're changing the subject again. I won't let this slide: An argument was put forth, that between 100.000 and 250.000 American soldiers who'd have died from an invasion, to support the need to drop the atomic bombs to end the war, If U.S. military planners' estimated the number of deaths that would result from an invasion would be between 20,000 and 63,000 is that not somewhat of a difference?
I've read this over several times and I must not be understanding what you are saying. That isn't strange because you aren't understanding what I am saying (Garette is interperting my blurbs correctly)
If a US president was willing to sacrifice between 20,000 and 63,000 of our men so as not to hurt the enemy I would want him committed to an asylum for the criminally insane.
-------
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 |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 08:53:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I have yet to see an compelling argument that the bombs being dropped where CAH unless you simply call all war acts crimes. If you do it that way it's easy. I think that all the information they had in 1945 made dropping the bombs the best choice. I don't think Truman was as concerned about reelection as he was about sending hundreds of thousands of Americans to their deaths. Those American lives are the ones Truman was responsible for.
@tomic
Killing tens of thousands of civilians is not just another act of war. What if it was not an atomic bomb, but rather G.I.s on the ground looking them in the eyes and shooting these civilians dead. You would not have trouble or should not have trouble seeing that as a crime. Using one method of death over another should not change the morality of the action.
There is a random nature to bombing, in that, the bomber is never %100 sure of who is the bombee. Why that should make it ok though I do not understand.
quote:
Donnie B.
Perhaps we should make a distinction here. Could it be that the nuclear bombings of largely civilian targets (as well as the fire hombings of Dresden and Tokyo, and the V2 attacks on London) were war crimes, rather than crimes against humanity?
Hmmm? Possibly, in the sense that the participants were at least in their own minds thought of it as part of the battle.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 09:04:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Killing tens of thousands of civilians is not just another act of war. What if it was not an atomic bomb, but rather G.I.s on the ground looking them in the eyes and shooting these civilians dead. You would not have trouble or should not have trouble seeing that as a crime. Using one method of death over another should not change the morality of the action.
That's interesting because the feeling I get is that the real issue is ultimately that the bomb was of a nuclear fission nature. I can see litt;e reason why those 2 cities(Hiroshima & Nagasaki) are singled out as they are if not for that reason.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 09:22:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I find your use of the terms "straw man" and "red herring" terribly confusing in this discussion. There are no opposing positions in an argument. There is no argument. There is simply a "imagine if this happened, what would you do?" question. If you don't want to play along, don't play along. I haven't the foggiest notion why this is even an issue.
Exactly what do you think I'm trying to divert you from by introducing a "red herring"?
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
I won't argue the semantics, although I admit my use of those phrases was somewhat sloppy. Let me make my position as clear as I can. I find your "7-year-old Hitler" scenario to be so unrealistic that no significant insight can be gained by discussing it. If "anything goes" in a hypothetical, then you or I can simply add or modify the conditions until our desired conclusion is the inevitable outcome. Hey, maybe I would pull the trigger, if I had certain knowledge that the death of young Schickelgruber would result in eternal bliss for all (and two girls for every boy...)
Isn't it possible to devise a scenario that illustrates your original point, without resorting to one whose probablilty approaches zero?
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
opus
Skeptic Friend
Canada
50 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 12:12:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That's interesting because the feeling I get is that the real issue is ultimately that the bomb was of a nuclear fission nature. I can see litt;e reason why those 2 cities(Hiroshima & Nagasaki) are singled out as they are if not for that reason.
@tomic
Perhaps I missed the whole intention of the thread. To me, at least, the method is not an issue. Dressden, London, Hamburg or Tokyo. All were bomded as well with the intention of killing civilians. It was also pretty ineffective as it turned out.
That is, ineffective in helping to end the war. It was very effective in killing civilians.
Atomic weapons bring up that destruction of the habital earth issue, which is I think a seperate topic.
They are being singled out, because it is the nature of nuclear weapons, especially when used for the first time, that they could have been 'demonstrated' and the shock value might have forced a surrender. A demonstration was propose at the time. So this idea is not a 21st centuryt postfacto invenion. The main problem with the idea was if used and the Japanese did not surrender, there were only two bombs built and it would have taken some time to produce some more. It might not have been looked on as impressive if there was a month or two gap from demo to use.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 05/17/2002 : 15:37:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
[quote]They are being singled out, because it is the nature of nuclear weapons, especially when used for the first time, that they could have been 'demonstrated' and the shock value might have forced a surrender. A demonstration was propose at the time.
The ONI (which I was later attached to) was in charge of intelligence in the Pacific just as the OSS was in Europe. It was their considered opinion that the Japanese would react, in character, and pledge to fight to the death if a "demonstration" were held.
After dropping the first bomb the Japanese took no action. They were waiting to see if that was all we had. We let it be known that we had a stockpile-which we didn't. The surprising thing was that the Emperor gave up after only two.
-------
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 |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/18/2002 : 19:59:22 [Permalink]
|
(I think I should start by apologising for spelling-errors. But the longer it gets, the more likely those typos are it seems.)
Atomic>
The Truman administration obliterated two cities, in spite of the fact that Japan's terms of surrender before the bombings--the retention of the emperor--were accepted by the U.S. after the bombing. The bombings were therefore neither necessary to save lives nor necessary to convince Japan to surrender. If so many of the key Allied players felt that Japan was ready to surrender and the bomb was unnecessary, why were Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed?
Truman knew of the Manhattan Project. The bomb held an increasingly important place in the administration's approach to both the war in Japan and its relationship with Russia throughout 1945. The Target Committee had been set up in April 1945 to consider where to use the new weapons--months before the first test took place at Alamogordo and in spite of increasing evidence that Japan wanted to negotiate its surrender.
Also, though both Churchill and Stalin were pushing for a meeting to take place with Truman in June, he deliberately postponed any such meeting until July 15 (the Potsdam conference)--so that it would occur after the bomb had been tested and Truman could better decide how to use it in his diplomatic discussions with the other Allies. On the ship on the way to Potsdam, Truman said of the upcoming test at Alamogordo, "If it explodes, as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on those boys." (Alperovitz, Atomic Diplomacy)
While Truman's diary revealed a July 18 conversation with Churchill about the "telegram from Jap Emperor asking for peace," subsequent discussions at Potsdam made clear that the plan was to use the bomb before the war ended.
“You are planning their war from 50 years later and without that advantage you would be a lone voice indeed.”
Say you, who give me nothing to support the necessity for dropping the bombs.
I'm not planning anything. I'm just not making people in 1945 more stupid than they really were, or more ignorant.
All the people I have mentioned believed it was not necessary to drop nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the war. Among them Dwight D. Eisenhower and general MacArthur.
The bombs are CaH because they were not necessary, they targeted only civilians and the reasons were political. If a test had been made, as suggested by some of the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project, a test where the Japanese leaders could see the effect, then the bombing of a city would “only” have been a war-crime.
Donnie B.> There is a difference between war-crimes and CaHs. Both are horrible, but motivated by very different factors. And sure, the victors write the history books.
Slater> So you admit that the number we're dealing with, is less than what is usually told to us?
Sacrificing 250.000 Japanese civilians is okay?
“They were waiting to see if that was all we had.” And you know that because… ?
Have you considered, that war-ridden Japan, on August 9th 1945, were trying to figure out what exactly had happened to Hiroshima? And that it had nothing to do with “tough mother-f—kers”? If we're to follow your line of argument, the Japanese would have kept on fighting until there was nothing left of the country.
“My God, what have we done?” was uttered by the co-pilot of Enola Bay, as the plane flew away from the mush-room cloud.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams
Edited by - Omega on 05/18/2002 20:02:55 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
