You really get at the crux of the issue here. You could make reasonable arguments for bombing Hiroshima. But why Nagasaki? Was there any good reason to use that second bomb? No, none at all. That was simply an immoral act.
I caught most of the documentary about Nagasaki ("Rain of Ruin") on PBS the other night. It's actually 10 years old, but very interesting nonetheless. Nagasaki wasn't the original target; Kokura was chosen since it hadn't yet been bombed and thus would give the clearest picture of what the atomic bomb was capable of. A rather macabre experiment, if you ask me.
Erik, the second bomb was used because Japan still refused to surrender after Hiroshima. In the logic of war, that was a "good reason". I personally believe that it was also immoral--the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.
I don't think there are ever reasonable arguments for dropping an atomic bomb on civilians. Wiping out 70,000 people in one second? What is reasonable about that? If the Germans or Japanese had done the same it would have been called a war crime.
You can make the argument that neither bomb should have been dropped too and that's fine. However, to say that Japan hadn't surrendered really isn't a good enough reason because they by August 9, the day of the 2nd bomb, they still had little idea what had happened to Hiroshima. Transportation and communication lines were cut, both because of the atomic bomb and all the other bombs that fell. What they did know they didn't really understand because of the nature of the bomb. Japan would have surrendered at the same time without blowing up Nagasaki. I think it really only make sense in the context of the upcoming Cold War, which is not a good excuse.
Also, it should be said that the atomic bomb wasn't really any worse than the firebombs the US was already using against the Japanese cities, at least in numbers of death and amount of destruction.
I fully agree with your views...i have a short comment on similar line on my blog here:
http://saswat.com/blog/index.php...ce-007-part-ii/
thanks!
Erik, agreed. The atom bomb was only worse in the horrific aftereffects of the radiation. The US was already creating heavy casualties with regular bombs.
Just to be clear, I don't support the reasoning that allowed us to do this. I do, however, recognize that it's how the ruthless logic of large-scale war (something else that I don't think should ever happen) works.
The fact that we even MADE something for the sole purpose of vaporizing tens of thousands of people in an instant, let alone used it, is testament to how lost we've become.
I pretty much disagree with you Erik. I think the atom bomb is much worse in and of itself - the fact that it exists is immensely worse, and the fact that it was used as basically an experiment shows how truly evil some people can be. Having said that, I don't think you and I really disagree about the directed bombing against civilians being wrong.
Hi Saswat - thanks for the comment. You have a nice blog - I'ved linked to it on our sidebar.
Commenting by HaloScan
