Today is the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. On the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, I posted the first part of what was going to be a debate last year between myself and Shawn of the blog Rerum Novarum on the morality of the bombings. Prior to the debate, Shawn and I agreed that the atomic bombings would be justified only if two conditions were met:
1) the bombings did not involve the intentional targeting of noncombatants; and
2) the bombings saved lives, that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life.
In my previous post, I argued that the first condition was not met. In this post, I argue that the second condition also was not met. Prior to the debate, Shawn had argued that the second condition, proportionality, had been met by the bombings, and had cited in support some figures on the high number of casualties (both American and Japanese) that could have resulted from a land invasion of Japan. I responded as follows:
As to the second condition, even if we assume that your figures on the likely deaths from an invasion are correct, this does not establish that the second condition is met, as it is not the case that the only two options the U.S. had at the time were to bomb Hiroshima or to invade. On this, a couple of points.
First, the Japanese were already prepared to surrender prior to the bombings. Once the Tojo government fell in July 1944, the Japanese strategy was to sue for peace once they had won one decisive battle so as to guarantee better terms. Originally this victory was going to occur in the Philippines, then in Okinawa, then in Kyushu. The problem was that by the early summer of 1945 the Japanese military was in shambles. They were short of fuel, food, and even weapons. An effective Allied blockade had cut Japan off from virtually all supplies, and the country had been reduced to using the iron fragments from U.S. bombs to make shovels. A report delivered to the Emperor on June 9, 1945 indicated that by the end of the year Japan would no longer be able to continue fighting and would face as great a threat from civil unrest as from the U.S. On June 22, 1945, the Emperor told the Supreme War Council “I desire that concrete plans to end the war, unhampered by existing policy, be speedily studied and that efforts made to implement them.”
Thereafter Japan made a number of attempts to sue for peace through intermediaries, including most prominently the Soviet Union. The U.S. knew about these attempts, as they had broken Japanese codes early in the war. Examples of some of these intercepts can be found here.
Truman and other top officials even seem to have thought that the attempts to sue for peace were real. The notes for an August 3, 1945, conversation between Truman, Secretary of State Byrnes, and Admiral Leahy (Truman’s Chief of Staff) states that “President, Leahy and JFB agreed Japan looking for peace. President afraid they will sue for peace through Russia instead of some country like Sweden.”
That Japan was willing to surrender prior to the atomic bombings is, in my opinion, indisputable. The only question is whether they would have been willing to surrender on approximately the same terms that they eventually did, or whether they would have only accepted somewhat better terms. Personally I think that even if Japan only would have surrendered on significantly more favorable terms than they ultimately did, such a surrender would have been worth it just to keep Russia out of the war. Without Russia’s entering the war in August of 1945, Manchuria and the northern half of Korea would not have fallen under Communist domination, Mao would not have had a base of operations from which to launch attacks against the Kuomintang, and it’s quite possible China would have been spared 30 or 40 million deaths, half of Korea would have been spared the hell on earth that is life in North Korea, and more than 36 thousand U.S. solders would not have had to die to protect South Korea a few years later.
Second, even supposing you think that Japan’s surrender had to be (virtually) unconditional for some reason. Still, the bombings were not necessary. Once Russia entered the war, any hope Japan had of gaining more favorable terms was completely destroyed. They would now be facing threats from two fronts, and could not simply concentrate their forces in Kyushu in anticipation of an American attack. Over 600,000 Japanese solders in Manchuria were forced to surrender to the Soviets within a week of the Russian attack, despite being better trained and better equipped that most of the solders on the mainland. The Soviets already had plans to invade Hokkaido prior to the planned U.S. invasion of November 1, 1945. Once Russia entered the war, then, Japan faced a choice between unconditional surrender and occupation by the U.S. and unconditional surrender and occupation by the Soviets. Given the Japanese fear of the Soviets, I have no doubt what they would have chosen.
Finally, even if we assume, contrary to all this, that an atomic bombing was necessary, it still was not necessary to bomb cities full of civilians. The U.S. could have used the bomb on purely military targets (such as the Japanese troops in Kyushu) or otherwise taken steps to minimize civilian deaths. This was advocated by General Marshall, who said that “these [atomic] weapons might first be used against straight military objectives such as a large naval installation and then if no complete result was derived from the effect of that, he thought we ought to designate a number of large manufacturing areas from which the people would be warned to leave – telling the Japanese that we intended to destroy such centers.” See Memorandum of Conversation with General Marshall, May 29, 1945.
The idea that the bombings were military unnecessary is not simply a piece of “ivory tower” revisionism, but was the view of some of the greatest military minds of the time, which are documented here.
Since the U.S. could have achieved the same outcome without the bombings as it did with them, the bombings cannot be said to have saved lives, and in fact represent needless loss of life on a grand scale. The second condition is therefore not met either.
BA
You know, I’ve been told by some people that “of course we had already won the war, but the bombs were used to show our might to the Soviets.” Obviously, as your post shows, it didn’t do any good. Even if it did, it wouldn’t be justified. The act was an act of evil; and all the good which could have come out of it does not justify it.
Destruction of this magnitude is never justified. Wasn’t Nagasaki the most Christian of Japanese cities?
David
Yes; and its destruction has hurt Christianity in Japan; though it’s not entirely gone, and its influence can be found in many of the non-Christian “new religions” which flourish in Japan, Christianity itself has been set back for — who knows how long — in Japan. Indeed, it might not ever get its full say there now.
And you are right about the destruction; as an act of evil, no justification for it is possible. We can explain and understand elements of why it happened, and we can hear excuses for what good came out of it; but all those do not remove the fact that the evil was done and should never have been done.
Excellent two posts!
The atomic bomb detonated only 500 meters from Urakami Cathedral.
I find it very strange that Catholics defend this bombing, for the “collateral damage” included not only human lives, but also the Blessed Sacrament. God himself.
Nice that you’ve got it all figured out. I’m happy you set the record straight, o wise one. The Japanese didn’t even surrender after the first bomb. Obviously, a land invasion would have killed an enormous amount of American troops, which is the most important thing. And, it would have killed more Japanese, too. One need only look at the various battles for small islands.
The firebombing of Tokyo was more devastating, yet because it was many bombs as opposed to one, it’s somehow not as bad. Japan only had itself to blame The American help after the surrender certainly was both undeserved and exemplary.
And wtf does it matter whether a city has Christians in it or not.
A few rebuttal points:
1) The issue is not surrender on the terms provided by the Japanese, but unconditional surrender. Ultimately a conditional surrender was accepted (the Emperor may remain in power), but up until the 2nd bombing the Japanese were seeking a peace with conditions and restrictions. The peace offered by the US was magnanimous in that it contained a condition not requested.
2) The policy of the US seeking unconditional surrender was clearly known. It had been articulated in FDR’s request for a declaration of war, and had been repeated every since.
3) Though the Russians had entered the war, they had not yet invaded mainland Japan. By ending the war shortly after the dropping of the second bomb, millions of Japanese were saved from brutal Stalinesque treatment.
4) We must again recall that we have the benefit of historical perspective. The Fog of War was very real during this era, even with the ULTRA program in place.
5) If the Japanese wanted peace on the terms provided (unconditional), they could have contacted us directly after Hiroshima. The fact that the Japanese DIDN”T immediately surrender following Hiroshima shows they were not prepared to immediately surrender.
“And wtf does it matter whether a city has Christians in it or not.”
I’m not sure if you’re Christian or not, but – Christians are supposed to protect each other. That we kill each other is a bad thing, even when it’s in a just war or self-defense. So it’s preferable to avoid killing Christians when possible.
Histor
[...] “It was not necessary to bomb cities full of civilians.” [...]
“2) the bombings saved lives, that is, any alternative course of action would have resulted in even greater loss of life.”
Your argument is all well and good, and the fundamental point holds: even if (2) were correct, the atomic bombings would have been unjustifiable, instrinsically evil acts. You can never do evil so that good might come of, and it is simply indisuptable that the object of this act was evil.
There is no question that it was morally unjustified, but the looming question is whether it was necessary. No one can make an argument that blowing people up is moral, only that is it necessary for the prevention of some other kinds of harm (insert Doctrine of Double Effect and friends here).
Doube effect does not work here, because you do not pass the first step ie. is this act evil in its object?
Assuming, which is not the case, that this defence works for the first bomb, it fails for the second: if the object was to induce Japan to surrender, the second bomb was redundant.
A nice story from St. Anthony online. Hope its okay with ya’ll . Over the years he took an interest in things that happened on August 9, like the execution of the Catholic German war resister Franz Jagerstatter. In the early 1980’s, when Father Charles noticed that Edith Stein died on August 9, he began reading about her. “For the next two months, I read pretty much all day, every day, on Edith Stein. I came to the conclusion that Edith Stein was in microcosm what Nagasaki, the cradle of Christianity in Japan, was in macrocosm. In other words, here was a Christian woman who was destroyed by Christians. Auschwitz was an operation run entirely by baptized Christians,” explains McCarthy. “So was the bomb crew that destroyed Nagasaki
Any Saint would have died starving before dropping a big ass bomb on a bunch of children and elderly folks.
“Blackadder”,
I thank you for presenting these matters in comformity with our agreed-upon joint declaration of dialogual principles. (The part pertaining to general principles being viewable a href=”http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/2008_08_10_archive.html#233470021263801837″>here for those who are interested.)
Again, you are to be commended sir -I will endeavour to respond in the same spirit in the coming days to your postings in the order they were put up.
Whoops the link did not work. Lets try it this way:
Principles of Dialogue
http://rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/2008_08_10_archive.html#233470021263801837
Response to “Blackadder” on the Atomic Bombings -Part II of II
Japan’s historical rule by war lords and sociopathic killers ruined the nation, now under the iron hand of fascist usa; today the people of Japan realize that they have lost much more than control of their own destiny (at the hands of the fbi/cia/pentagon assassins); their genius is also imprisoned & laid to waste.
___________________________________________________