70,000 Japanese paid with their lives for the attack on Pearl Harbor which killed less than 5% of that number.
If survivors fear Japan has forgotten the lessons of Hiroshima, have not the American people also? Are we to relive those horrible times again and make George Santayana a prophet?…
Article comments
26 - Clavos
"if the US' use of the bomb is justified as a 'necessary evil to achieve a greater good' so too will be every use in the future...at least to the people using it - and they're the only ones whose opinion will matter"
That has been the rationalization (for most Americans and the government, anyway) since it was actually dropped sixty years ago, and so far there haven't been any further uses.
On the contrary, our use of it then has served as a strong deterrent against anyone else trying it, although I DO believe the paradigm (both as to attitudes and technology) has shifted to the point where MAD may well no longer be a viable deterrent.
It's entirely possible that a relatively small group of terrorist zealots could insert a so-called "suitcase" bomb into an unsuspecting city and blow it to kingdom come.
And I think the probability of that city being American is very high, though the Brits appear to be nearly as much of a target, as well.
27 - troll
agreed Clavos - MAD got us this far but as you indicate: times have changed...*I DO believe the paradigm (both as to attitudes and technology) has shifted to the point where MAD may well no longer be a viable deterrent.*
28 - duane
STM (#21): "Mate, that is absolute gibber."
STM, I suppose I could have made myself clearer. As Clavos points out, my entire comment was in the form of sarcasm, which was a way to keep myself from calling Realist bad names. I wish sarcasm translated better on these threads.
My point is that WWII fell into the realm of 'total war.' The use of nukes was totally justified. Their purpose was to end the war with Japan, and they did just that. There were, possibly, more down-the-road purposes, involving Russia, but those were secondary motivations.
In the 1950s, when the programs to develop the H-bomb were just getting underway, the true philosophical aspects of nuclear warfare came to the fore. It was believed by some that access to the "red button" would be too tempting, that inflicting genocide was becoming too easy. Even Oppenheimer ("I have become death....") became a critic of the push to develop more powerful weapons. The concept of "first strike weapons" spoke of potentially terrible intent. Images of mad leaders and mad scientists were placed before the public, and the public felt fear and shame. MAD soon came along, and the public could not resist the double meaning. Against this changing philosophical backdrop, the Japan bombings began to take on a more sinister affect.
I think people like Realist, raised in a culture that is prone to view the nuclear weapons program in the context of power-mad politicians and the evils to which science and technology may be applied, have been horrified by the stories of the carnage associated with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. There have been numerous documentaries, books, TV specials, art exhibits, speeches, etc., dedicated to depicting the horrible aftermath of the bombings. "The bomb" has become part of our culture, and rightly so, since the nuclear stockpile is much more than a weapons stockpile; it has become a political instrument.
But if you look a little below the cultural mainstream surface, you can find other stories. Stories of soldiers fighting a purely conventional war, and citizen bystanders subjected to total war. They are no less horrifying. The shock wave alone from a conventional artillery explosion would ram your eyeballs backward into your skull and turn them to goo. The depictions of soldiers' experiences in the Pacific theater are good depictions of Hell on Earth.
I disagree strongly that, in the WWII context, death by nuke was more horrible or tragic than death by firebombing or grenade or .50 calibre shell or being burned alive in a tank. It is all a horror. If Realist wants to convince us that war is bad, thanks, but we're already convinced. But this spin on the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings that Americans committed sin by virtue of dropping two bombs doesn't stand up to an alternate history version of the climax of the war in which Americans dropped thousands of conventional bombs in firebombing raids on a host of Japanese cities, and eradicated the rest of the Japanese military, with great cost in American lives thrown in. The A-bombs were a military expedient. It was a solution that ended up saving lives. We brought a bigger gun to a gun fight. That's how to fight a war.
29 - Alec
Clavos - RE: It's entirely possible that a relatively small group of terrorist zealots could insert a so-called "suitcase" bomb into an unsuspecting city and blow it to kingdom come.
From everything that I have read on the subject, it is highly unlikely that a "suitcase bomb" could blow up an entire city. And here we don't have to depend upon episodes of "24" as a guide. The Federation of American Scientists provide a nifty web site with a Nuclear Effects Calculator
30 - RJ
The American use of atomic weapons on Japan in WWII was fully justified, and almost certainly saved lives overall, both American and Japanese.
It's too bad the American military didn't use atomic weapons in the Korean War as well...if we had, we wouldn't have had to station 50,000 or so American troops in South Korea for over 50 years, because North Korea would no longer be ruled by an insane midget Stalinist dictator who starves his people while he ... wait for it ... builds nuclear weapons that he threatens the US and Japan with ...
Yeah, sorry, but MacArthur was right and Truman was wrong. When the US had a nuclear monopoly, we should have used it. The world would be a better place today if we had done so. Just ask the starving, oppressed people of North Korea.
31 - STM
Duane, I knew it was ... sorry. Somewhere between continents, meanings get lost. We are, indeed, one people separated by the barrier of a common language.
32 - STM
Must ... remember ... to ... use ... emoticons
33 - REMF
"When the US had a nuclear monopoly, we should have used it."
Kinda gives ya a hard-on just thinking about it.
34 - Dave Nalle
From everything that I have read on the subject, it is highly unlikely that a "suitcase bomb" could blow up an entire city.
Wouldn't that depend on the size of the city? We've got cities here in Texas with 40 people living in them.
What you can't deny is that a suitcase nuke could kill a hell of a lot more people in a heavily populated area than the WTC attack did.
With the population density in new york city all it would have to do is take out 1 square mile and it would kill 10 times more than the WTC attack.
Dave
35 - REMF
I wonder how many stray dogs an altoid-box bomb would kill?
(MCH)
36 - Clavos
The non sequitur quotient just escalated again...
37 - Alec
Dave Nalle - RE: Wouldn't that depend on the size of the city? We've got cities here in Texas with 40 people living in them.
I know some Texans love to brag, but 40 people ain't even a hamlet, much less a city.
RE: What you can't deny is that a suitcase nuke could kill a hell of a lot more people in a heavily populated area than the WTC attack did.
There ain't too much point in either confirming or denying a purely theoretical discussion. Might as well talk about the casualties in a videogame.
By the way, there was an interesting post in The Straight Dope a while back that talked about the great difficulty in even putting a suitcase nuke together
RE: With the population density in new york city all it would have to do is take out 1 square mile and it would kill 10 times more than the WTC attack.
But the bottom line is that this would not destroy the entire city, or even disrupt life in New York for more than a brief period. It would, however, piss off a lot of New Yorkers, and their anger and retribution would be a lot worse than the effects of a suitcase bomb.
38 - Clavos
"and their anger and retribution would be a lot worse than the effects of a suitcase bomb."
Hmm.
Maybe, maybe not.
Not much happened after 9/11.
39 - Michael J. West
Yeah, sorry, but MacArthur was right and Truman was wrong.
That may be the first time in history that anyone has ever uttered that phrase. Including General George Marshall and the entire military command apparatus (excepting MacArthur) during the Korean War.
40 - REMF
^ Michael, you're not disputing RJ's vast military expertise, are you?
41 - RJ
Upon further review, it looks like both MacArthur and Truman seriously considered using atomic weapons against North Korea and/or Red China:
The U.S. government seriously considered using nuclear weapons in Korea in early 1951. The immediate threat was the USSR’s deployment of 13 air divisions to East Asia, including 200 bombers that could strike not just Korea but also American bases in Japan; and China’s deployment of massive new forces near the Korean border. On March 10, 1951, MacArthur asked Truman for a 'D-Day atomic capability'â€"the ability to launch a massive nuclear assault. Truman complied, ordering the Air Force to refurbish the atomic bomb loading pits at Okinawa, Japan, which were used during World War II. Atomic bombs were then carried to Okinawa unassembled and put together at the base, lacking only the essential nuclear cores.
On April 5, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ordered immediate atomic retaliation against Soviet and Chinese bases in Manchuria if large numbers of new troops entered the war. Also on April 5, Gordon Dean, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), arranged for the transfer of nine nuclear capsules held by the AEC in the United States to the Air Force bomb group that would carry the weapons. Truman approved the transfer as well as orders outlining their use the next day.
The president also used this extraordinary crisis to get the Joint Chiefs of Staff to approve MacArthur's removal. For some time, MacArthur had chafed against restrictions placed on him by Truman. MacArthur sought to expand the war to mainland China and ignored Truman’s orders to use only Korean troops near the Chinese border. On April 11, 1951, Truman asked for MacArthur’s resignation. Most observers assumed Truman wanted a more subordinate commander. Although this observation was partly true, U.S. government documents later made clear that Truman wanted a reliable commander in the field should Washington decide to use nuclear weapons. Truman, in short, was not sure he could trust MacArthur to use nuclear weapons as ordered.
So, I wasn't 100% correct. But neither was Michael J. West...
42 - Michael J. West
So, I wasn't 100% correct. But neither was Michael J. West...
Well, I said that nobody really took MacArthur's side over Truman's, which remains true.
Truman indeed threatened as early as October 1950 to use nukes in Korea if need be, but when MacArthur decided that that was reason enough to ask for authorization to use them, the JCS consistently denied him that authorization.
I just read another essay by the same author as the one RJ cites, which again makes the argument that Truman fired MacArthur because he wanted to use nukes and was afraid to have MacArthur be the one to implement them, although it curiously doesn't cite any of the "U.S. government documents" that "later made clear" that position (although he uses plenty of citations elsewhere).
But even if it's true (and yes, I concede that it might be), the fact remains that what MacArthur wanted was to drop 30 nukes and create an atomic wasteland between North Korea and mainland China. A truly monstrous notion. And MacArthur had had a 40-year career of exceeding authority and ignoring orders that Truman had every reason to believe that he would try for that goal even if ordered not to.
Thus even if Truman did have a nuclear strategy in Korea, I stand by my earlier assertion: MacArthur's strategy was wrong, and Truman was right to reject it and fire MacArthur.
43 - REMF
"...the fact remains that what MacArthur wanted was to drop 30 nukes and create an atomic wasteland between North Korea and mainland China."
Now I know that image will give some of the war-wimps a hard-on...
(MCH)
44 - Deano
To err is Truman....
Sorry, couldn't resist.
45 - zedd
I've heard it stated that dropping the bomb saved lives but I have never heard real proof of that.
As administrations do, reasons would be given for committing such an atrocity. Whether the reason is valid is a different thing.
I am ever surprised at our need to believe the elite as they play chess with the lives of those who are not so much unlike ourselves all over the globe.
46 - Silver Surfer
Even many Japanese admit to that being the case Zedd. You really need to consult the history books on this one.
In this case, possibly just for once, it's not propaganda.