mushroom cloud

No, It Was Moral To Use Nukes Against Japan

I recently read the following article regarding the nukes used against Japan:

https://fee.org/articles/ike-and-leahy-were-right-the-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-were-wrong

And here are my brief thoughts on this issue. Which I have very strong views on.

Let me explain the reality of the situation.

The Reality

Anyone insisting the bombings were wrong has no understanding of the history or the moral issues. Or is advocating monstrously immoral surrender to evil.

Both nukes were absolutely moral. Let me explain why.

Japan had to be defeated. They made it clear that they were never going to cease their attacks until they won. Or until they were rendered unable to continue fighting.

So, that gave the US and its allies one option: Allow Japan to defeat them or defeat Japan. Obviously, they were not about to let Japan defeat them, not when that would mean the destruction of their countries.

So, they had to defeat Japan. But how to do so?

They could invade the mainland and destroy Japan’s ability to fight the war. That would involve firebombing much of Japans major cities and infrastructure into oblivion and then invading and causing vast destruction.

Much of Japan and its infrastructure would have been utterly destroyed. And many, many millions of Japanese lives would have been lost. Most of its major population centers destroyed.

Millions of US lives would also have been lost and the US and its allies would have spent years and billions of dollars of damages achieving this. For no reason, when they could prevented these deaths with the deployment of the nukes.

There was one alternative: Drop nukes on Japan until it surrendered. Since much of Japan would have been destroyed in the invasion, everyone was better off this way.

Not that it was the job of the US to worry about that. The Japanese were the aggressor and choose to start a war with the US. Enemy aggressors must be stopped. Regardless of what destruction must be rained down upon them to achieve this.

The destruction caused as a result is not the moral fault of those defeating the aggressor. They must destroy their enemy and force unconditional surrender, regardless of how much destruction is required to do so.

The defending nation must bear no moral blame for the level of destruction they must inflict upon their enemy before victory is achieved. The aggressor nation, in this case, Japan, must bear full moral blame for the destruction brought upon them by any wars they initiate.

Any nation defending against such an aggressor has the right to inflict unlimited destruction upon the enemy nation. And should do so if it helps achieve military victory. And thus remove the threat to their existence.

Including inflicting innocent casualties. Since the alternative is massive innocent casualties within their own nation.

Not that there are all that many innocent civilans in enemy states. After all, the leadership of a country tends to reflects its dominant political and moral idealogies.

But, let’s go back to what the US decided to do: Nuke one city and then give the Japanese a chance to surrender. They told them that they had a chance to surrender and should do so.

They refused. Another bomb was dropped. No long afterwards, they did surrender.

Now, which do you think is the better result, for everyone?

The nukes. The Japanese certainly came to agree. They came to see the nukes as “Gifts from Heaven”. Two cities were destroyed and many lives were lost. But they surrendered. Before much of their country was destroyed. They recognized that the nuclear destruction of two of their cities saved them from a far more destructive invasion and a far greater loss of Japanese lives.

nukes

If the nukes were so immoral, why then did the Japanese view them as “Gifts from Heaven”?

Were the nukes immoral? Given the only moral alternative was the widespread destruction of much of the country and a far greater loss of life? If it was immoral to nuke Japan, why were the Japanese so grateful?

Is any loss of life in enemy states immoral? What then was the alternative? Surrender to Japan and the loss of the war? Massive destruction of US and Allied nations and loss of Allied life?

Either the nukes were moral or you have to hold one of two false premises: That Japan would have been better off firebombed into oblivion or that the US had no business winning the war and should have allowed Japan to defeat it.

Either premise is false and indicative of either immense ignorance or moral surrender to evil.

Which is it? Or do you support the US nuking of Japan after all?

It really is this simple. If you value lives, on either side, then the only rational conclusion is that the nukes were moral.

Read more on this issue using the following link:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/american-victory-over-japan-1945/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *