Aug 6th : Are nuclear weapons less moral...

... than conventional weapons?

On August 6, 1945, the United States becomes the first and only nation to use atomic weaponry during wartime when it drops an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

Approximately 80,000 people are killed as a direct result of the blast, and another 35,000 are injured. At least another 60,000 would be dead by the end of the year from the effects of the fallout.

https://www.history.com

Japan could have surrendered on the 7th or 8th but chose not to, and so three days later on the 9th August a bigger bomb was detonated over Nagasaki killing another 40,000 people instantly.

It is claimed that millions would have died in a conventional attack and invasion.

@divegeester said
... than conventional weapons?

[i]On August 6, 1945, the United States becomes the first and only nation to use atomic weaponry during wartime when it drops an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

Approximately 80,000 people are killed as a direct result of the blast, and another 35,000 are injured. At least another 60,000 would be dead by the end of the ...[text shortened]... e instantly.

It is claimed that millions would have died in a conventional attack and invasion.

the purpose was to get Japan to surrender by melting as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time

so I guess they are less moral whatever that means

@lemondrop said
the purpose was to get Japan to surrender by melting as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time

so I guess they are less moral whatever that means

Are you saying that nuclear the weapons used against Japan are less moral than a conventional attack because they work and they served their purpose?

@divegeester said
Are you saying that nuclear the weapons used against Japan are less moral than a conventional attack because they work and they served their purpose?

I don't always believe that the end justifies the means
Japan is a very forgiving nation
it's not an easy question to answer

@lemondrop said
I don't always believe that the end justifies the means
Japan is a very forgiving nation
it's not an easy question to answer

Millions would have died in a prolonged conventional attack involving ground forces.

@divegeester said
Millions would have died in a prolonged conventional attack involving ground forces.

maybe
and maybe dropping the bombs over a less densely populated area or a preview of the destructiveness of the bombs would have achieved the purpose

@lemondrop said
maybe
and maybe dropping the bombs over a less densely populated area or a preview of the destructiveness of the bombs would have achieved the purpose

Earlier you said that ”the purpose was to get Japan to surrender by melting as many people as possible in the shortest amount of time... so I guess they are less moral whatever that means”.

I think you may be allowing your strong opinion regarding the strategic purpose, the tactical means and the fail/success outcome to impact a judgment on whether the use of nuclear weapons are more of less moral than conventional weapons.

For example, it is irrelevant to the moral comparison as to wether or not nuclear weapons “melt people” when one compares then with napalm for example. But it might be relevant that nucluar explosions leave behind them a signature blanket of radiation which impacts generations.

You mention demonstrating the power of nuclear weapons as a threat and I think this is an interesting point in that an enemy may decide to surrender when confronted with the scale of their opponents, but it really only lends itself to morality of the nature of warfare itself and not wether nuclear weapons are more or less moral than conventional ones. But on that point it think it is fair to say that in principle a show of strength is good way to prevent conflict, and we see this frequently over the years with nuclear and missile test etc. Would Japan have surrendered if they had seen a nuclear detonation a few miles off of their coast? I doubt it, they didn’t even surrender when Hiroshima was levelled , it took Nagasaki to do that.

@divegeester said
Are you saying that nuclear the weapons used against Japan are less moral than a conventional attack because they work and they served their purpose?

The difference is that it's a single weapon. In a bomber stream attack each bomb was either an incendiary or a 2,000 lb high explosive. There's a basic problem in the rules of war of going for an attack of that type of a city called distinction. Basically, military forces cannot deliberately target civilians and their attack should be against a military target. About the same number of people were killed in the fire bombing of Tokyo (at least 80,000) as Hiroshima (90,000) and more than in Nagasaki (39,000) [1]. So a conventional attack can kill about as many people as a nuclear one.

However, the question is about the morality of the weapon. Towards the end of the war there was a Tallboy attack on a tunnel near Saumur which successfully collapsed the tunnel [2]. The Germans hastily excavated it, but the attack delayed an SS panzer division from reinforcing Normandy. Anyone in the immediate vicinity of the blast or in the tunnel would be in trouble, but the nearby town was unaffected. Had they been using a Fat Man device (not that they were available then) then it would have gone badly for the town. Simply put a Tall Boy bomb could be used in such a way that it's use does not affect civilians not in the immediate vicinity of the target. With atomic weapons that is much harder.

I think it's possible to select targets which minimise the effect of atomic weapons use on the civilian population of a country being attacked. However, the nature of the attack makes significant levels of collateral inevitable. So it's on these criteria that nuclear weapons should be judged. Carpet bombing is an attack profile, not a weapon.

[1] These are the low end estimates from the relevant Wikipedia pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saumur#World_War_II

@deepthought said
However, the question is about the morality of the weapon.

I know, that’s what I’m asking in my OP. Well actually relative morality vs conventional weapons.

I’ll get back to you post later or tomorrow. Thanks

@divegeester said
... than conventional weapons?

[i]On August 6, 1945, the United States becomes the first and only nation to use atomic weaponry during wartime when it drops an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.

Approximately 80,000 people are killed as a direct result of the blast, and another 35,000 are injured. At least another 60,000 would be dead by the end of the ...[text shortened]... e instantly.

It is claimed that millions would have died in a conventional attack and invasion.

No.

I think it's a question of justifiability.

@deepthought said
The difference is that it's a single weapon. In a bomber stream attack each bomb was either an incendiary or a 2,000 lb high explosive. There's a basic problem in the rules of war of going for an attack of that type of a city called distinction. Basically, military forces cannot deliberately target civilians and their attack should be against a military target. About ...[text shortened]... iki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saumur#World_War_II

Having read this completely now, I think your argument holds up in general terms but not specifically in the Japan case of WWll where the types of alternative highly targeted weaponry didn’t exist. There are commentaries explaining that a typical air and land invasion of Japan in 1945 would have resulted in millions of deaths and much more infrastructure disablement which would have also impacted national recovery.

@secondson said
No.

I think it's a question of justifiability.

Can you give one or two examples?

@divegeester said
Can you give one or two examples?

Is war ever sanctioned and ordained of God?

Of course it is! God is sovereign over all the affairs of man. That does not mean God sanctions or ordains everything man does.

Meticulous records are being kept.

@secondson said
Is war ever sanctioned and ordained of God?
Of course it is! God is sovereign over all the affairs of man. That does not mean God sanctions or ordains everything man does.
Meticulous records are being kept.

You were saying that where or not nuclear weapons were more or less moral was a question of “justifiability”...You seem to have go off track.

@divegeester said
You were saying that where or not nuclear weapons were more or less moral was a question of “justifiability”...You seem to have go off track.

Sorry. Didn't mean to go off track.

In my opinion it's not a question of the kind or type of weapon used to kill. It's a question of whether or not the killing is justifiable.