This is part of an obsession with the atomic bomb. More Japanese civilians were killed in the month leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by conventional weapons, than were killed by either bomb. Is it perfectly all right to kill civilians with lots of small bombs, just not one or two big ones? Philosophers should know better than to engage in knee jerk reactions.
Agree, although in fairness the conventional aerial bombardment of cities in both Europe and Japan has come in for a fair amount of recent criticism too.
The context that influences the morality of Truman's decision extends far beyond the summer of 1945, and whether it might have ended the war. It includes (i) the guilt -- there, I said it -- of the Japanese in starting the war, and not only with regard to the United States, and (ii) the conduct of that war by the Japanese. There was probably no power engaged with Japan that wouldn't have used the atomic bomb at the end of the war if it had the opportunity, and that informs the morality of the decision. Are we to believe that either Chinese faction wouldn't have used it? Are we to believe that the British wouldn't have done? The French? The Thais, Malaysians, Burmese, or Indonesians, if left to their own devices?
That it seems ludicrous to imagine that any of these powers would have demurred tells us what we need to know: That the Japanese themselves had conducted the war with little or no regard for the welfare of civilians and, indeed, astonishing cruelty. If it weren't for the Nazis, the Empire of Japan would be our watchword today for unreconstructed evil.
Or, put it differently: If Churchill had gotten the bomb in 1943 and dropped it on Berlin, would we even be having this debate?
Anscombe's contribution was significant and any discussion of when to use such force would be required reading. Truman responded numerous times and even if not always pleased that he did this, he thought he made the right decision. Critics then as now, have always sold him short claiming he was incapable of being a president. Not only Anscombe but former Justice Douglas said he was second rate. However, historians recently have moved Harry into the top tier of strong presidents for all kinds of reasons. This debate on dropping the a-bomb will continue to rise. It should; we need reminding of what we are doing as a nation. Thanks.
The US dropped flyers on Hiroshima and other cities that warned the people to get out of the city because of a serious military action to come. The intent was not to kill a lot of people. The destruction of the city would be enough to get the point across about the new weapon. If millions more had died fighting the war against Japan without the bomb, and it was later learned that we had a weapon that could have ended it sooner, there would be outrage from all sides.
I thought September 1st was after the end of the 'Should We Have Used the Atomic Bomb Month'. I guess it starts earlier and ends later every year.
Truman had four ways to end the war against Japan -
1. Leave the Japanese government in place as we did with Germany in WW I. That would have gotten him impeached and left Japan to be taken over (internally or externally) by the Soviet Union.
2. Starve the Japanese into surrender with blockade, bombing and targeted attacks on the Japanese agricultural sector with the WW II equivalent of Agent Orange. This minimizes American casualties, takes 18 to 24 months, causes the death by starvation of millions of Japanese and rightly makes the United States a pariah in the world for the next hundred years.
3. Invade the Japanese islands. While casualty estimates for this vary wildly, extrapolation from Okinawa and Iwo Jima give at least a couple of hundred thousand Americans dead and wounded, and millions of Japanese dead. This would be the world's example for a 'desert called peace'.
4. Use the atomic bomb. At the cost (and I don't minimize it) of around 200,000 Japanese deaths, the Japanese were shocked into facing reality. Note that the 300 plane B-29 raids that burned Tokyo to the ground in March 1945 failed to do so.
A philosopher talking about decisions without facing the reality of the choices at hand is kidding herself.
A couple of decades ago, I gave a paper at a big academic conference. My panel dealt with military affairs and re my paper, on what constitutes a war crime. This was around the time of what I call the "Fourth Balkan War." I started my paper out with a quote about suffering civilians. I then told the audience "no, this quote isn't about Milosevic and his crimes against Sarajevo. It's about Lincoln and the siege of Vicksburg. Was Lincoln then a war criminal?" And some historians have called Sherman a war criminal for his crimes against the civilian populations of South Carolina and Georgia.
Sometime back I read somewhere that what the U.S. could have done was this: Find an uninhabited island off the Japanese coast and drop the first bomb there. We would have said to the Japanese: "If you don't think we're serious about dropping future bombs on your cities, we've got plenty more bombs in readiness." In reality, of course, we just had one, but the Japanese didn't know that.
There is some argument that Japan was reaching out to surrender with only one condition (vs our demand for unconditional) which was to keep the emperor in his place. We ended up doing just that after their surrender anyway.
I think Truman authorized the bombing as much to impress the Soviets as to actually shorten the war.
They didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. The notion that they were on the verge of surrender is a fantasy. When you read about what happened on Okinawa, you get a better picture of what was coming. Brutal fighting and countless civilian suicides as a result of Japanese propaganda.
This is part of an obsession with the atomic bomb. More Japanese civilians were killed in the month leading up to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by conventional weapons, than were killed by either bomb. Is it perfectly all right to kill civilians with lots of small bombs, just not one or two big ones? Philosophers should know better than to engage in knee jerk reactions.
Agree, although in fairness the conventional aerial bombardment of cities in both Europe and Japan has come in for a fair amount of recent criticism too.
The context that influences the morality of Truman's decision extends far beyond the summer of 1945, and whether it might have ended the war. It includes (i) the guilt -- there, I said it -- of the Japanese in starting the war, and not only with regard to the United States, and (ii) the conduct of that war by the Japanese. There was probably no power engaged with Japan that wouldn't have used the atomic bomb at the end of the war if it had the opportunity, and that informs the morality of the decision. Are we to believe that either Chinese faction wouldn't have used it? Are we to believe that the British wouldn't have done? The French? The Thais, Malaysians, Burmese, or Indonesians, if left to their own devices?
That it seems ludicrous to imagine that any of these powers would have demurred tells us what we need to know: That the Japanese themselves had conducted the war with little or no regard for the welfare of civilians and, indeed, astonishing cruelty. If it weren't for the Nazis, the Empire of Japan would be our watchword today for unreconstructed evil.
Or, put it differently: If Churchill had gotten the bomb in 1943 and dropped it on Berlin, would we even be having this debate?
I know one country that would have used it : Japan.
The Philippines would have happily used it against Japan. So would have the Chinese.
Solid take.
"If Anscombe’s theory can’t distinguish between Truman and Hitler, it doesn’t seem very useful, on either moral or practical grounds."
Quite right. In fact, by muddying the waters she lets Hitler and his ilk off the hook (they all do it). As a result she's even worse than useless.
Anscombe's contribution was significant and any discussion of when to use such force would be required reading. Truman responded numerous times and even if not always pleased that he did this, he thought he made the right decision. Critics then as now, have always sold him short claiming he was incapable of being a president. Not only Anscombe but former Justice Douglas said he was second rate. However, historians recently have moved Harry into the top tier of strong presidents for all kinds of reasons. This debate on dropping the a-bomb will continue to rise. It should; we need reminding of what we are doing as a nation. Thanks.
The US dropped flyers on Hiroshima and other cities that warned the people to get out of the city because of a serious military action to come. The intent was not to kill a lot of people. The destruction of the city would be enough to get the point across about the new weapon. If millions more had died fighting the war against Japan without the bomb, and it was later learned that we had a weapon that could have ended it sooner, there would be outrage from all sides.
I thought September 1st was after the end of the 'Should We Have Used the Atomic Bomb Month'. I guess it starts earlier and ends later every year.
Truman had four ways to end the war against Japan -
1. Leave the Japanese government in place as we did with Germany in WW I. That would have gotten him impeached and left Japan to be taken over (internally or externally) by the Soviet Union.
2. Starve the Japanese into surrender with blockade, bombing and targeted attacks on the Japanese agricultural sector with the WW II equivalent of Agent Orange. This minimizes American casualties, takes 18 to 24 months, causes the death by starvation of millions of Japanese and rightly makes the United States a pariah in the world for the next hundred years.
3. Invade the Japanese islands. While casualty estimates for this vary wildly, extrapolation from Okinawa and Iwo Jima give at least a couple of hundred thousand Americans dead and wounded, and millions of Japanese dead. This would be the world's example for a 'desert called peace'.
4. Use the atomic bomb. At the cost (and I don't minimize it) of around 200,000 Japanese deaths, the Japanese were shocked into facing reality. Note that the 300 plane B-29 raids that burned Tokyo to the ground in March 1945 failed to do so.
A philosopher talking about decisions without facing the reality of the choices at hand is kidding herself.
A couple of decades ago, I gave a paper at a big academic conference. My panel dealt with military affairs and re my paper, on what constitutes a war crime. This was around the time of what I call the "Fourth Balkan War." I started my paper out with a quote about suffering civilians. I then told the audience "no, this quote isn't about Milosevic and his crimes against Sarajevo. It's about Lincoln and the siege of Vicksburg. Was Lincoln then a war criminal?" And some historians have called Sherman a war criminal for his crimes against the civilian populations of South Carolina and Georgia.
Sometime back I read somewhere that what the U.S. could have done was this: Find an uninhabited island off the Japanese coast and drop the first bomb there. We would have said to the Japanese: "If you don't think we're serious about dropping future bombs on your cities, we've got plenty more bombs in readiness." In reality, of course, we just had one, but the Japanese didn't know that.
They didn't surrender after the first city was nuked. They wouldn't have bothered about an island.
Anscombe's contribution was sinificant
There is some argument that Japan was reaching out to surrender with only one condition (vs our demand for unconditional) which was to keep the emperor in his place. We ended up doing just that after their surrender anyway.
I think Truman authorized the bombing as much to impress the Soviets as to actually shorten the war.
They didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped. The notion that they were on the verge of surrender is a fantasy. When you read about what happened on Okinawa, you get a better picture of what was coming. Brutal fighting and countless civilian suicides as a result of Japanese propaganda.
And there was a final attempt in the Japanese military to keep the Emperor's surrender broadcast from going out over the air after the second bomb.
“F Around And Find Out” is a more useful philosophy.