Hiroshima: necessary?

What's the difference in:

Nineteen Saudi Arabian soldiers hijack US planes and kill 3000 US civilians

and

Nineteen Saudi Arabian civilians hijack US planes and kill 3000 US civilians?

Aren't the civilians still dead? Weren't they a non-threat to anyone's life either way?

The logic behind excusing murder in war is based on self-defense. You kill the other guy because he poses a direct threat to your health and well-being. That simply doesn't exist for Hiroshima, Nagasaki or most other US actions of the last half-century.

(And before it's pointed out, yes, absolutely the same goes for other nations. I happen to be a US citizen, and as such have a vested interest in the actions of my government.)

how would the american military have had perfect access to the relevant information abt japan's capabilities and morale etc while the fighting was still going on?

Nineteen Saudi Arabian civilians hijack US planes and kill 3000 US civilians?

The distinction isn't only between the jobs of the people responsible. Hiroshima happened in the context of an existing war which had been raged for years; it was, in broad terms but obviously not specifics, predictable. It was not entirely out of the blue -- i.e. even if Hiroshima was unjustified (and I'm not making an argument that it was, you know), even if that specific attack was a surprise, "Americans attacking Japan" certainly wasn't. It was the latest action in a context of war.

Flying a plane through the World Trade Center wasn't. Blowing up a federal building in Oklahome City wasn't.

I'm not saying you should kill civilians in a war. I'm not saying we should've dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. I'm saying that pretending there's any real parallel between those actions and the World Trade Center bombing, for the sake of some perceived scored point, is asinine.

2) War and unsanctioned terrorist attacks -- assuming for the moment that the acts of war in question don't include acts of terrorism (I'm not arguing that's universally or even usually the case, but there doesn't happen to be a word for 'non-terrorist acts of war') -- are precipitated by different motivations, which is after all why we have a word for terrorism in the first place. Terrorist acts are first and foremost emotional: they aim to inspire terror, fear, panic. There's a difference between blowing up a munitions factory and blowing up a convent, and even if you think both are wrong in any circumstance, if you can't see the difference, you're blind.

The key sentence here : assuming for the moment that the acts of war in question don't include acts of terrorism.

That's a false assumption. Modern war is one long act of terrorism. From the Blitz to "shock and awe."

And the events I've mentioned - 9/11 v. Hiroshima, certainly falls under the terrorist banner.

As such, no distinction between them based on 'declared war.'

3) Because distinctions matter. Recognizing distinctions is one of the fundamental functions of rational thought, maybe second only to perceiving causality. If you can't make them, if you allow emotional objections to deny them, you are quite simply incapable of a useful discussion and may as well just hang up a sign that says "I think X," and let everyone ignore you from the get-go.
It's not that I'm "ignoring" distinctions, I fail to see a rational distinction based on "declared war."

How does "declaring war" change the acceptability/morality of an action?

What distinction is created by "declaring war"?

How would 9/11 have been different under a declared war?

Howso? I'm not saying Saudi Arabia was responsible for the attacks. But, as the head of the organization and most of the people involved came from SA, it's a shorthand.

milo, just because people realised AFTERWARDS that the war needn't have been fought the way it was doesn't mean that people at the time were involved in some dastardly plot to pursue evil at all costs, knowing that it wasn't necessary

how would the american military have had perfect access to the relevant information abt japan's capabilities and morale etc while the fighting was still going on?
Perhaps noting the surrender talk being passed through Moscow?

Or listening to Eisenhower or any of the other people in the military who said it was unnecessary?

Or noting that the Soviets would soon join the war, making an American invasion unnecessary or even less costly should it have had to happen? (Of course, this goes back to the real cause - we needed to show we had the bomb and would use it on a civilian population. Prelude to a Cold War.)

This is a discussion on the "necessity" of the bombing. And, thus far, there has been nothing presented to show it being necessary.

The distinction isn't only between the jobs of the people responsible. Hiroshima happened in the context of an existing war which had been raged for years; it was, in broad terms but obviously not specifics, predictable. It was not entirely out of the blue -- i.e. even if Hiroshima was unjustified (and I'm not making an argument that it was, you know), even if that specific attack was a surprise, "Americans attacking Japan" certainly wasn't. It was the latest action in a context of war.

Flying a plane through the World Trade Center wasn't. Blowing up a federal building in Oklahome City wasn't.
In all three cases, people were killed who posed no threat to the lives of the people who killed them.

How does the "context of war" change that?

I'm not saying you should kill civilians in a war. I'm not saying we should've dropped a bomb on Hiroshima. I'm saying that pretending there's any real parallel between those actions and the World Trade Center bombing, for the sake of some perceived scored point, is asinine.

How is there not a parallel? All you keep coming back to is this "context of war," without showing how that "context" excuses or changes any action.

In both cases, non-combatants were killed to serve no purpose outside of "terror." Do you agree?

If so, how does the "context of war" change the events? Unless war mitigates terrorism, there is no difference.

You state that the "context of war" creates "distinctions."

As asked earlier, what is the point of these distinctions, if not to create different standards for identical actions?

What is the point of "distinctions" and "contexts" here, if not to determine acceptability.

I'm not sure he realizes that I don't even necessarily disagree with him about Hiroshima itself.
You don't, not quite.

As I see it, the people who ordered the Enola Gay to attack, and the people who carried it out, are no different from Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers. Only the former killed many more people.

In both cases, the people involved took actions designed to murder thousands of civilians who posed no threat, in order to serve a political purpose.

I fail to see how any "distinction" or "context of war" mitigates anything.

Finding it acceptable but disapproving = "we shouldn't have done it, but that doesn't make the Americans war criminals."

Finding it unacceptable and disapproving = "we shouldn't have done it and the Americans involved are war criminals."

1) I have not mentioned mitigation. I have not condoned the bombing of Hiroshima. I have not specifically condemned it because I don't feel I'm informed enough to have an educated opinion. My gut feeling is that it was unnecessary -- but I'm not certain I would have been able to determine that in 1945.

2) I could name a thousand types of distinctions that have nothing to do with acceptability -- gender, color, anything perceptible by any sense, and the several-times-mentioned apples versus oranges -- but who has time for that? If you don't get it, you don't get it; if it's inconvenient to the type of rhetoric you want to stick to, you'll pretend not to get it, judging by what Blount implies.

3) The two most important reasons to make a distinction in this case are:

a) intent -- if you automatically lump the WTC bombing and the Hiroshima bombing together, you "pre-win" any arguments about the possible intents or motivations for the Hiroshima bombing. Without doing so, someone could conceivably argue that those who ordered the Hiroshima bombing were motivated by a desire to preserve American life -- whether their actions resulted in that or not, that motivation could be proposed. By equating it with the WTC bombing, you are automatically denying that possibility without bothering to argue it -- Osama couldn't possibly have thought the lives of his people would be preserved by the WTC bombing, and therefore no one could have thought the same for the Hiroshima bombing, QED, la la la. It's lazy, and it's bullshit, and it's beneath anyone of intelligence.

b) Respect. Making the sloppiness of your thinking that evident isn't just an insult to your own intelligence, it's an insult to the intelligence of anyone who would carry on the argument with you.

Which is why I'm done.

and this statement: As I see it, the people who ordered the Enola Gay to attack, and the people who carried it out, are no different from Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers.

is so utterly relativistic that we might as well just all go on a killing spree right now because it's the same thing as being born. I'm outta here too.

If you didn't think it was right and proper, you wouldn't find it "necessary." "Necessary" acts as a positive value judgement - an action was "required."

Then what purpose do "distinctions" and "contexts" serve here? I've asked this several times.

If war doesn't act as a mitigating circumstance - which, in fact, it does ("self-defense"), then what "distinction" is made?

Is there a distinction between war and peace? Yes. One is war and one is peace.

Does that distinction matter when looking at actions? Not that I can see, and not that I have been shown here.

2) I could name a thousand types of distinctions that have nothing to do with acceptability -- gender, color, anything perceptible by any sense, and the several-times-mentioned apples versus oranges -- but who has time for that? If you don't get it, you don't get it; if it's inconvenient to the type of rhetoric you want to stick to, you'll pretend not to get it, judging by what Blount implies.
Thousands of distinctions are irrelevant here.

You're arguing that there exists a distinction between "actions undertaken in times of war" and identical or similar "actions undertaken in times of peace."

What is the point of this distinction, other than to create two standards of conduct for the actions?

a) intent -- if you automatically lump the WTC bombing and the Hiroshima bombing together, you "pre-win" any arguments about the possible intents or motivations for the Hiroshima bombing. Without doing so, someone could conceivably argue that those who ordered the Hiroshima bombing were motivated by a desire to preserve American life -- whether their actions resulted in that or not, that motivation could be proposed.
You're right. I consider the "preserving American life" argument a matter of the historical record, and a non-issue.

But you know what the counter-argument here would be? For someone to show that the bombing preserved American life. Or even that it had the chance to.

By equating it with the WTC bombing, you are automatically denying that possibility without bothering to argue it -- Osama couldn't possibly have thought the lives of his people would be preserved by the WTC bombing, and therefore no one could have thought the same for the Hiroshima bombing, QED, la la la. It's lazy, and it's bullshit, and it's beneath anyone of intelligence
They're separate issues. First we dealt with the necessity of the bombing - and I feel that has been safely put to rest. If anyone can provide any sort of counter-argument involving saving American lives, I'd love to hear it.

But the only recent time that has been raised was by Blount, who immediately backed off of it.

Milo, Mark S. is OTM. I think you're heavily influenced by conspiracy laced hindsight. No one knew what would happen if/when the USA would have to invade the Japanese mainland. Based upon Japanese tactics and behavior throughout the war (the barbaric slaughter of Chinese civilians, American and British POWs, the willingness to send Kamikaze planes by the thousands), it would be hard to look at a few confused missives going through Moscow (who we were already suspicious of) as a sign that we wouldn't have to invest enormous resources and risk the lives of thousands of servicemen in a bloody assault on an island nation - after all, even Hitler decided against 'Sea Lion' largely because of the unknown costs of invading an island fortress with millions of possibly fanatical civilians.

No one has provided any sort of evidence to support this view. It's complete and utter conjecture. "Well, maybe we thought they were going to act barbaric." Maybe so. Maybe we thought they were Martians.

But the opposing view, that there would never have been an invasion and the war would have ended within two-three months - that actually has some evidence presented in its favor. What we know is that a) we needed to scare the Russkies b) no invasion would have been necessary, according to the military c) the Japanese were already discussing surrender d) the attacks served no military goal, civilians were the target.

and this statement: As I see it, the people who ordered the Enola Gay to attack, and the people who carried it out, are no different from Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers.

is so utterly relativistic that we might as well just all go on a killing spree right now because it's the same thing as being born. I'm outta here too.
Howso?

If I order thousands of civilians killed with a general's star that makes it more acceptable than doing so without one?

By stating a view and defending it?

The irony here is that what you've whined about elsewhere, that I won't "take a position," is exactly what I've done here, and now you whine about that.

This is one of the few times in history where I can look at it and make a judgement call - killing 250,000 civilians solely to serve a political purpose was wrong. Dead wrong. And the people involved should have been tried in an international court.

Likewise, the people responsible for killing 3,000 civilians were wrong, and should see justice.

1) The Japanese regime != the Japanese civilan population, but the former were always happy to exploit the latter for many different ends and means

2) War is bloody, destructive, insane.

3) Monday morning quarterbacking is hardly limited to football (right now I'm reading Michael Carley's 1939 on the failed attempt to pull together an Anglo-French-Soviet alliance in the face of Nazi Germany).

4) The intentions, goals and desires of those carrying out actions which can and do result in death are as variable and multiple as the stars in the sky, as the atoms in a galaxy -- none of which is meant to excuse or ignore the saddest and simplest fact:

5) The innocent can die. Those who caused their death may never see justice as we would like it to be in a perfect world. That, regrettably, is life, but at least we can honor their memory and hope for better -- while not being surprised that it will happen again. And again.

We bombed Hiroshima to "favor American lives" over "the enemies'." Is that a valid summation of your argument?

My response was to point out the government's words - no invasion was necessary. Thus "favor[ing] American lives" is irrelevant. No American lives would be lost by not bombing.

Do you disagree?
Have you any evidence that American lives were saved by the attack?

is becuz any sort of discussion with you is impossible since the discussion inevitably becomes about semantics, your terms of the debate, you you you instead of what the discussion was originally going to be about.
Except the only semantic distinction here has been about the role "distinctions" in war vs. peace, and then only because I can't pinpoint what purpose Tep's distinction serves. If it doesn't serve to create different standards, to mitigate some actions (and I'll argue that war is a mitigating circumstance in many contexts, but not all), then what purpose does the distinction serve?

To bring up another context - had the Enola Gay wandered off-course, or somehow a mistake was made and the people of Hiroshima were accidentally killed, that would make a huge difference to me.

That's the role distinctions and contexts play - accident v. determination in this instance.

But we specifically (and avoidably) targeted a civilian population for annihilation, an action that served neither military nor humanitarian (saving American lives) purpose, but sought to terrorize the population and governments of Japan and the Soviet Union.

So what purpose did it serve? It kept the Russians out of Japan (and thus out of post-war negotiations). It fired up the Cold War.

That's a political purpose.

Secondly, what was that political purpose? How do you know that it didn't save future American lives from even being threatened?
So basically, your argument is that I should assume that Truman and co. did the right thing? Based on what?

As I've said, the historical record doesn't bear out any kind of "save American lives" claim. Unless someone can find me where it did.

murder = bad
death = bad
killing = bad
suffering = bad
war = bad for these reasons and plenty of others

I mean we'd ALL like to live in PerfectWorld but we DON'T and we definitely weren't living in it in 1945. Calling it unnecessary is just more 20/20 hindsight and I do believe we've learned our lessons considering that no nuclear weapon has ever been used by anyone for other than testing and research purposes since.

Howzabout, you show me the evidence that "it was necessary" or that anyone "thought it was necessary." What have you got? Assumptions.

and again, even the 'it weren't neccessary' smoking gun you have states the end of the war as no earlier than november 45 - do you think there wouldn't have been any american casualties in those three months?
You're right. I am balancing the deaths of 250000 vs. possible casualties over a couple of months of bombing.

I mean your argument isn't that different from the 'we shoulda invaded' argument, except even less plausible!
Damn that historical record!

Milo, I'm not going to get drawn into this argument with you, that's why I posted the way I did and left it at that -- at this point I myself have no exact conclusion on this matter, like I said two years on this very thread even. But trying to argue that a government might have different goals other than ones officially stated is like saying that the sky is blue, and trying to push this as some sort of arch-surprising revelation here is a goddamn bore.
But I wasn't arguing with you. Your last point just reminded me of something else.