Bible and "god" sanction killing / murder

[Zzyzx]

[East of Eden]

Would as many lives been saved if the target was more of a military one away from a civilian population center?

Hiroshima was the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. It was also a communications center, a storage point, an assembly area for troops, and was a military-industrial center powered by the mass-scale forced labour of Koreans known as hibakusha. The Hiroshima island of Edajima hosted the Navy Elite Academy. Kure, around 20 km from Hiroshima, was also known for a military port and navy factories. The famous giant warship, Yamato, was constructed in Kure. The material and labour for Kure came from Hiroshima.

Nagasaki was one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and had wide-ranging industrial importance. Ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials were manufactured there. The Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works was located there. Mitsubishi produced over 10,000 Zero fighters and the battleship Musashi.

Would that not have shown as effectively to the Japanese leaders the awesome new capability of the American military? And having dropped one, why was the second civilian target necessary?

Because the first one didn't cause Japan to surrender. If the second one hadn't caused them to surrender I assume we would have detonated a third. We can second-guess all we want, but the fact is our actions achieved the goal of the surrender of Japan.

[McCulloch]

Would as many lives been saved if the target was more of a military one away from a civilian population center?

Hiroshima was the headquarters [...]

I am not disputing the military importance of these two targets. But couldn't the US military have found a suitable military target not in a civilian city? In fact, one of the criterion for selecting a target was that it had to be a large urban area.
"Atomic Bomb: Decision—Target Committee, May 10–11, 1945". http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html.

Would that not have shown as effectively to the Japanese leaders the awesome new capability of the American military? And having dropped one, why was the second civilian target necessary?

Because the first one didn't cause Japan to surrender. If the second one hadn't caused them to surrender I assume we would have detonated a third. We can second-guess all we want, but the fact is our actions achieved the goal of the surrender of Japan.

Hiroshima was bombed on August 6. Nagasaki on August 9. Before August 9, due to the entry of the Soviet Union, Japan had already offered to surrender, but not unconditionally. On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. On the second day after the Nagasaki bomb, Truman stated, displaying his obvious racism towards the Japanese, "The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true". Some historians claim that the US dropped the bombs to intimidate the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet entry into the Pacific war, than to end the war with Japan.

[East of Eden]

Hiroshima was bombed on August 6. Nagasaki on August 9. Before August 9, due to the entry of the Soviet Union, Japan had already offered to surrender, but not unconditionally. On August 12, the Emperor informed the imperial family of his decision to surrender. On the second day after the Nagasaki bomb, Truman stated, displaying his obvious racism towards the Japanese, "The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them. When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him like a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true".

You don't think Japan behaved beastly in the Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, and many other such incidents? Could it have been Truman was sincere when he said it was 'most regrettable'?

I would say the same of today's Muslim Jihadists.

Some historians claim that the US dropped the bombs to intimidate the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet entry into the Pacific war, than to end the war with Japan.

The USSR got in when they did to be in on the victor's spoils. I think they got some disputed islands for their non-efforts.

[scourge99]

I agree with the decision to nuke Japan in WWII, it saved many American and Japanese lives.

Would as many lives been saved if the target was more of a military one away from a civilian population center?

Since when is the life of the enemy a concern in total war?

Would that not have shown as effectively to the Japanese leaders the awesome new capability of the American military?

based on the prepared plans for a mainland invasion and documents stating the expected production of 1 to 2 nukes per month that would be used during the ongoing invasion, what makes you believe the military was assured of a complete surrender by the japanese empire?
Are you aware of the attempted coup to continue the war?

And having dropped one, why was the second civilian target necessary?

Because it was both a military and strategic target. Keep in mind strategic bombing, including bombing population centers, is a tactic used up to and including during the Vietnam war for its perceived effects on moral and infrastructure of both the population and military industry.

Look up the firebombing of tokyo and the bombing of dresden.

[McCulloch]

You don't think Japan behaved beastly in the Rape of Nanking, Bataan Death March, and many other such incidents?

I believe that the leaders and the military of Japan behaved very badly in those incidents. The citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, for the most part did not.

Some historians claim that the US dropped the bombs to intimidate the Soviet Union and to prevent the Soviet entry into the Pacific war, than to end the war with Japan.

The USSR got in when they did to be in on the victor's spoils. I think they got some disputed islands for their non-efforts.

With the war in Europe winding down, the US feared further Soviet encroachment in the far east. They needed to show Stalin that they possessed fearsome weaponry. What better way than to destroy a couple of Japanese cities?

[McCulloch]

Because it was both a military and strategic target. Keep in mind strategic bombing, including bombing population centers, is a tactic used up to and including during the Vietnam war for its perceived effects on moral and infrastructure of both the population and military industry.

Look up the firebombing of tokyo and the bombing of dresden.

Those acts are not morally justified either.

[scourge99]

Because it was both a military and strategic target. Keep in mind strategic bombing, including bombing population centers, is a tactic used up to and including during the Vietnam war for its perceived effects on moral and infrastructure of both the population and military industry.

Look up the firebombing of tokyo and the bombing of dresden.

Those acts are not morally justified either.

I think it would be a mistake to presume that moral justification is static and unchanging. Even more so to presume that all present day morals are reasonable and applicable to the distant past where the status quo was far different from that of today.

Perhaps societies of the future will look back on us as equally immoral and barbaric for our use of animals and the ways in which we think it best to raise our children. Their remarks would be equally senseless as ours upon our ancestors.

I cannot find fault with those from the past who did not know better. With those who were acting in accordance with the status quo.

[McCulloch]

I think it would be a mistake to presume that moral justification is static and unchanging. Even more so to presume that all present day morals are reasonable and applicable to the distant past where the status quo was far different from that of today.

Perhaps societies of the future will look back on us as equally immoral and barbaric for our use of animals and the ways in which we think it best to raise our children. Their remarks would be equally senseless as ours upon our ancestors.

I cannot find fault with those from the past who did not know better. With those who were acting in accordance with the status quo.

Yes, we could not expect that the military leaders in WW2 would have had access to such modern ethicists as Thomas Aquinas or the Geneva Convention.

[Zzyzx]

.

I cannot find fault with those from the past who did not know better. With those who were acting in accordance with the status quo.

Are we to conclude that people who made the decision to drop bombs on civilian population centers "did not know better" than to engage in wholesale killing of people who were not combatants?

Do you excuse killing of non-combatants, civilians, children if it is militarily convenient or expeditious to do so?

If one side of a conflict decides that "winning" will be promoted by wiping out civilian populations, is that a case of "didn't know better"?

[scourge99]

I think it would be a mistake to presume that moral justification is static and unchanging. Even more so to presume that all present day morals are reasonable and applicable to the distant past where the status quo was far different from that of today.

Perhaps societies of the future will look back on us as equally immoral and barbaric for our use of animals and the ways in which we think it best to raise our children. Their remarks would be equally senseless as ours upon our ancestors.

I cannot find fault with those from the past who did not know better. With those who were acting in accordance with the status quo.

Yes, we could not expect that the military leaders in WW2 would have had access to such modern ethicists as Thomas Aquinas or the Geneva Convention.

So because someone, somewhere has an idea on ethics one is required to ascribe to them? We are simply to ignore the socio/economic factors in the decision making and mindset of individuals and assume that all people everywhere are equally capable in arriving at the same conclusions we are today.

Do you hold yourself up to some unknown standard of the future?