Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Japan had to tell Obama NOT to apologize for Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Rate this topic


brian0918
 Share

Recommended Posts

By your argument every non combatant tax payer in the US is a fair target for our enemies.
Given that the U.S. is a democracy, our government pretty much reflects some type of "average" ideology of voters as a whole. Since one cannot expect an enemy to try figuring out who voted for what, each of us should expect to be a target if the U.S. attacks some other country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, there isn't. If you think that Japan would've surrendered over anything less than exactly what was done to it, you don't understand Japanese culture and history.

Had the cities been spared, Japan would've never surrendered. The war would've ended exactly when the last Japanese soldier died, not a second sooner.

The death of soldiers was expected. In fact, there was no less expected of soldiers, but to fight to the death. Only when the nation itself was threatened with annihilation did surrender become justifiable in the minds of Japan's leaders. Before that, surrendering to save soldiers would've meant depriving them of their honor and purpose for existing. It would've been treason: an unconscionable crime against Japan's entire 1500 year history.

Look, with all respect, I truly am not trying to be condescending here... but it sounds like you've read too much Shogun (a lovely book by the way) and other such books focusing on Japanese "warrior culture".

The stereotypes promoted in the west about the Japanese in this regard are as silly as any racial stereotypes.

A kernal of truth... and then a bunch of ridiculous half-truths, distortions, exaggerations and lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the U.S. is a democracy, our government pretty much reflects some type of "average" ideology of voters as a whole. Since one cannot expect an enemy to try figuring out who voted for what, each of us should expect to be a target if the U.S. attacks some other country.

Your point seems to be my point.

Each of us should absolutely expect that- but I don't know that that would make the attacks "just" or "moral".

I was arguing against Nicky's assertion that the citizen noncombatants of Japan were guilty of what their government was doing.

They had no say, no representation, no dmeocracy.

So to say that to kill them because it was practical to do so I can accept.

What I will not accept is that they were responsible for what their government did and thus deserving of their deaths as some seem to be saying here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point seems to be my point.

Each of us should absolutely expect that- but I don't know that that would make the attacks "just" or "moral".

In this fictional scenario, assume the following:\
  • assume that the U.S. has started the aggression,
  • assume that it was a significant aggression, not just some small border skirmish
  • assume that the other country has been fighting the U.S. army for a while with a lot of loss of life
  • assume that the other country thinks this act will reduce the loss of lives for their own citizens

Under these assumptions, wouldn't it be moral to go act against U.S. citizens ?

I was arguing against Nicky's assertion that the citizen noncombatants of Japan were guilty of what their government was doing.
Yes, I understand that. The reason I wanted to explore the fictional example -- where the U.S. is the aggressor -- is to understand whether lack of democracy is the crucial deciding factor in your mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against the wholesale murder of a people even after their government has admitted defeat.

Check your facts. The last bombing of Japan was on 14 Aug 1945. Hirohito announced the surrender via radio the next day (15 Aug). Additionally, the terrible firebombing of Tokyo referenced by the essay you linked was 5 months earlier on 9-10 Mar.

The single historical source quoted by the essay does not say that 1,000 bombers hit Tokyo on 14 Aug. It says GEN Arnold wanted a big raid on Tokyo, but multiple separate targets were chosen instead. The records I found in a quick google search showed the last bombing of Tokyo on 10 Aug (14 Aug was other cities).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... ... let's remember the Weimar Republic.
That's an excellent point. Post WW-I, a lot of Germans did not quite accept that they were aggressors who had been thoroughly beaten. Contrast this to the post-WW2 attitude of the Japanese who basically decided that expansionist martial culture is a disaster.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your argument every non combatant tax payer in the US is a fair target for our enemies. We make the money that fuels the military and pays for the weapons we kill them with.

I reject that completely.

Ok, you reject it. Now what?

Look, with all respect, I truly am not trying to be condescending here... but it sounds like you've read too much Shogun (a lovely book by the way) and other such books focusing on Japanese "warrior culture".

The stereotypes promoted in the west about the Japanese in this regard are as silly as any racial stereotypes.

A kernal of truth... and then a bunch of ridiculous half-truths, distortions, exaggerations and lies.

Maji? Shiranakatta. Watashi ni motto oshiete kudasai, sensei.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'll put my little soviet spin on this.

First of all as others mentioned above, the A-bombs have more likely prevented more civilian deaths than the alternatives. The bombs caused Japan's immediate surrender and stoppped the war in its tracks. Can you imagine the civilian causalities if the US did sustained bombing of Tokyo instead of dropping the A-bombs?

However there is another factor at play. The great Red Communist land not far beyond Japan's borders. Stalin had no intention of stopping at Berlin. Soviet troops were preparing to march straight to the Channel, and were training paratroopers en masse. Recall the ultimate goal of Soviet era was to unite all proleteriat of the world. However with US displaying the power of their new toy, USSR had to stop and make peace (at least until they stole the technology).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...