War and Brutality

[theaceofspades]

I recently had a discussion with my uncle (who's his a Genius in every meaning of the word )about the move to make war "MORE CIVIL"
lets get one thing straight shall we. why'll I am a Pacifist and try to find an alternate means to Violence (mostly because It just makes more problems)agree that ABSOLUTELY NO WAR WAS EVER FOUGHT IN A CIVIL MANNER there reason were still in the Iqac was is because we have to much Red tape my uncle say(he's also a Injured vet so he knows what hes talking about )send in a bunch of sappers(kind of like Rangers) and the War would have ended in six mouths. any way I'd love to here other people in put to this little Molotov Cocktail I've made say ...ya.

[timtheenchanter]

Hmm... Molotov cocktail, eh? Interesting way of wording it...

Anyway, concerning warfare, I believe that making it "more civil" is counter-productive - brutality is necessary for war, and by extension, peace.

Allow me to explain. The atomic weapon dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, was a small (by modern standards) device of about 13 to 16 kilotons. When detonated, its lucky victims at ground zero were simply vaporised. Far more numerous were those people a bit farther away who were melted or incinerated. Those who didn't die instantly had their clothes melted to their skin, eyes burned out, or else suffered other unpleasant horrors the defy the imagination. Of course, then you have hot tar raining from the sky shortly afterward, and the inevitable radiation poisoning, causing people to die in extreme agony. From this one bomb, over 100,000 people died.

So, was the atomic bomb a brutal and horrific weapon? Of course. Were we justified in using it not once, but twice? ABSOLUTELY.

The Japanese never intended to surrender, and forcing an end to World War II would have required an invasion of the Japanese home islands. If such an invasion had taken place, we could have suffered up to a million casualties (based on the best estimates), not to mention tens of millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties.

The atomic bomb spared us and the Japanese those horrific numbers. By being so incredibly brutal with our two bombs, we forced Hirohito into accepting peace, making an invasion of Japan unnecessary, thus saving millions of lives.

A far less extreme example of war brutality is something as mundane as bullet design. The 5.56mm NATO cartridge fires a small, lightweight, lead cored, copper jacketed bullet, with a shallow horizontal groove halfway down its length. This bullet is designed to fragment after penetrating the human body (hence the groove). After entering the body, stress tears the copper jacket into little pieces off the lead core, effectively shredding any internal organs in the way and causing massive, unstoppable bleeding. If a person shot with the 5.56 manages to survive, then numerous fragments of bullet must be extracted from the body instead of a single, whole piece - in short, this well designed piece of lead and copper is a nasty piece of work.

And is it brutal? Yes. It makes wounds in non-vital areas very serious, because if you aren't killed instantly, you'll simply bleed to death! Though seen my some people as inhumane, this design kills enemies instead of wounding them, ensuring that they can't live to fight another day.

Of course, war isn't simply brutal because of the hardware involved. I don't really have the energy to talk about things like collateral damage or treatment of prisoners, but I will say that sometimes we are too concerned about fighting in a "civil" or "humane" way that we end up sacrificing combat success, leading to longer, protracted conflict.

To end this rather long response, I think I'll just sum up my argument with this: in war, brutality in the right doses is absolutely necessary in order to hasten the coming of peace. Making war "more civil" only drags things out.

That's just my opinion.

Tim the Enchanter

P.S. Molotov cocktail of a topic, indeed!

[Ankh]

I would just like to say that the killing of civilians, especially in those numbers, is never truly justifiable.
The citizens of Hiroshima were people. Real people. Families. People with hopes and plans. There was probably a pair of friends who got into a fight over something ridiculous, killed instantly before they could make up. Probably someone was waiting for a bus, to get to someone they loved. The bus might not've even reached them. Someone had probably arranged to leave work earlier to spend time with family. Family they hadn't had much time for. Think about that kid whose birthday was the next day.
These things aren't implausible. They're little things that don't seem to matter, but broken promises, fights without reconciliation, and unfulfilled hopes always haunt a place, and small ones add up to big ones. They all go unresolved. Over 100,000 of them.
Does it matter where these people lived? Does it matter where they come from? Does that all of a sudden make this okay?
The bombings of Japan may have saved millions, but that doesn't make any number of innocent deaths justified. It is a purpose, not a justification. They still died at our hands, and they were still people.

[timtheenchanter]

Duly noted. But I have to ask you Ankh, how would you have ended the war, then? What would you have done differently?

Tim the Enchanter

[theaceofspades]

I have a theory If you deliver a big Enough shock to a system it is the Kata list for change healing a wind with a anther one if you will like how the Great depression ended by use going to war and of course the Atomic bombs

[Ankh]

I believe I said, it well-reasoned, but it was not justified.
There was no other way at that point. That is true.
All this means is that we should just STOP before it gets any worse. No one should ever have to resort to it again.

[theaceofspades]

in the Emorotal Words of MegaDeth "Peace Sells...But Who's Buying"

[beaternumber1]

I beleive that when fighting a war people should fight directly with the people responsible. I beleive that people have reasons for what they do and they aren't bad reasons, but if they were in their victoms place they might think differently. I understand that I am not a soldier and unless a world war 3 pops up i don't intend to be one, but i don't think that torture, unneccesary cruelty or attack on the innocent is justifyable. But thats just my opinion.

[mousemaylikecheese]

All this means is that we should just STOP before it gets any worse. No one should ever have to resort to it again.

Well, no, attacks on the innocent or peaceful are not justified, but there will always be people who won't stop. They get attached to a cause or hate and no matter what you do, they won't stop. (The "bottle coveys"/Carcers of the world for anyone who's read The Fifth Elephant and Night Watch). And, fortunately, the US couldn't put the leaders of Japan in jail just because they don't agree with us, nor was that possible once we went to war because we were at war. I say fortunately because if one nation could put another nation's leaders in jail just because they don't happen to agree with a policy, say a tariff on the first nation's goods, the world would be out of sorts and anarchy would ensue. However, in the case of policies like those of the Soviet Union (gulags and other unfair treatment of innocent citizens) and Hitler's Germany (let's conquer the world and kill all the Jews while we're at it!), where the lives of innocent people are destroyed, another nation would have the right to step in and help the citizens elect a new government.

Unfortunately, while there's a tiny possibility that someone as obsessed as (in the fictional realm) Voldemort, or (IRL) Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, etc. could be touched by something, most of the time, they won't change. (Ask me. I have a family member, not a crazy megalomaniac, who is paranoid and very stubborn, and won't change, no matter what you do. Kindness, anger, reference to authority on the subject, reason--nothing).

I don't like or want war, but using the necessary force to stop something will save a lot of lives and is thus justified in my eyes. The Vietnam War is an example. If the US had used applicable force and nipped the Communists in the bud, perhaps not nearly so many lives would have been lost (but then, that could have caused a war with the Soviet Union and/or China(I think. I'm not entirely sure when China became Communist))

Yes, the lives lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were innocent. Was there a better option? Not that we could think of. Drop a weapon of mass distruction on a nation that was fanatically opposed to us or else allow them to continue to attack us and kill our innocent citizens? Unfortunately, we couldn't think of another way to send a wake-up call. If we were to assassinate the leaders, we set a precendent for other countries to do the same, which isn't a good thing.

There are other situations in history where decisions could have been better. For example, I believe the Senate sent first Crassus and then (who's the third member of the First Triumvirate? 's not Antony or Brutus...) Pompey (Danke, google!) to crush a slave revolt, and then all the slaves were crucified at intervals along a road to show what happens to rebels, and probably to glorify Pompey. I would rather have had them say "Rome can show mercy. Your leaders will be jailed if they do not agree to our terms; you may have another chance". ¹The rebel slaves were not mass murderers; they were simply raiders and outlaws, most of whom would probably be content if they were granted freedom.

But in this case, the reason for the atrocities was a feeling of inequity and the issue could have been resolved if the authorities could simply have addressed their concerns. This solution won't work for rulers who want to conquer everyone or those who are genocidal.

Furthermore, we can't afford to be as naive as Leonardo of Quirm and assume that just because we Americans wouldn't randomly use an atomic or hydrogen bomb on some enemy nation, that other nations won't do the same thing. In the words of the Freeciv help:

"Don't neglect your defense. Treaties are often broken"

While it isn't necessarily a good idea for us to have an atomic bomb readied, we shouldn't ignore the prospect of some enemy nation having one. The trick, I think, is knowing how to build one and use it, but not doing so.

Sorry for all the Discworld references.

¹Though this is only what I remember that I saw of it.

[Ankh]

No. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in fact, not necessary to win the war. Japan was willing to surrender without any sort of invasion from America. They were asked to surrender unconditionally. The Japanese had only one condition: to keep their emperor, a sacred image to them and their culture, in place. On that condition, they would agree to surrender. Now, the bombings took place on August 6, 1945, like you said. The Soviet Union had planned to join the war against Japan on August 8 of that year. Historians say that the true reason behind the bombings were to impress the Soviet Union and to maintain an image of American superiority. Since no invasion would have been necessary, it didn't really save many American lives.
A different point I would like to make: America is a bit too paranoid for its own good (not to mention everyone else's) We hear so much about the struggles in the middle east, but yet we hear so little. Media doesn't give the details, especially not the ones that might make us look bad. Communism, dictatorships, etc- they're all just excuses for our paranoia. Other people suffer, and we let suffer a bit longer because it makes the leaders look bad. America has a sort of contempt for following international laws, like ones on nuclear testing, starting wars with aggression, torture, and some others. Why do we do that? Because we're convinced that we're right, that it's necessary to break these laws to make sure we're safe. By being afraid of the world around us, we are actually endangering ourselves. International laws are NOT things to be taken lightly, and yes, that includes America.
(Don't get me wrong, I love America. That is why more people need to know the problems, so we can fix them!)

[mousemaylikecheese]

Upon considering what you said, I do agree with you to some extent that the bombings weren't well justified. I'd never heard anything of that sort before, possibly because I'd never really studied the Japanese side of WWII.¹

I'm frankly not that enthused about America at the moment, unfortunately. Mostly the fact that I think the politicians are doing more harm than any good.

¹(Digression: It was very interesting to read about the USSR's perspective. For example, Stalin, the normally astute (albeit paranoid) politician didn't make very good strategy decisions, and failed to consider that his "allies" a)might turn against him and b) weren't really that interested in helping him. More Russians/Soviet citizens were killed than was probably necessary. Of course, part of that might have been his ever-present paranoia and wish to create a Communist race even if it required slaughter.)

[timtheenchanter]

No. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in fact, not necessary to win the war. Japan was willing to surrender without any sort of invasion from America. They were asked to surrender unconditionally. The Japanese had only one condition: to keep their emperor, a sacred image to them and their culture, in place. On that condition, they would agree to surrender.

You do realize that Hirohito agreed to the above terms AFTER the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima? The Allied terms for Japan's surrender were announced on July 26, 1945, but the Japanese simply ignored it and didn't respond - even several days after the Nagasaki bomb, the Emperor and company were still debating whether to accept the surrender and on what conditions.

Simply put, Japan was committed to fighting to the bitter end - just read about the the battle of Okinawa to see what I mean. As long as the Emperor said the war was going to continue, the Japanese were going to keep fighting. And what convinced Hirohito to surrender were the double blows of the atomic bombings and the Soviet declaration of war.

Historians say that the true reason behind the bombings were to impress the Soviet Union and to maintain an image of American superiority.

Depends on which historians you're referring to. There's a lot of them, and there are a lot of opinions.

Since no invasion would have been necessary, it didn't really save many American lives.

An invasion was necessary if Japan didn't surrender (which they did, because of the Bomb). The invasion of Japan, Operation Downfall, was planned to start with diversionary landings in November 1945 and with a main assault on Honshu in spring of the next year. The preparations for Operation Downfall were obviously scrapped after the Japanese announced their intention to surrender.

Tim the Enchanter

[Ankh]

Depends on which historians you're referring to. There's a lot of them, and there are a lot of opinions.

The historians I was referring to were, in fact, American.

[timtheenchanter]

Feb 21, 2009 12:34:19 GMT -5 Ankh said:

Depends on which historians you're referring to. There's a lot of them, and there are a lot of opinions.

The historians I was referring to were, in fact, American.

So you're suggesting that all American historians believe that the only reason why we dropped the bomb was to make Stalin piss his pants?

Right...

I do not deny that the USA wanted to stem Soviet influence in the post-war world, but to claim that as the sole or true motivation for the atomic bombings is simply ridiculous.

Tim the Enchanter