Syria poison gas

[MU82]

I don't want this to be a political thread about the merits of taking action against Syria.

I just want to ask a question that genuinely perplexes me:

Why is a poison-gas attack worse than any number of other kinds of attacks?

If Assad had "only" bombed the hell out of Douma and killed half its citizens, including kids and women, how outraged would world leaders be? Because that basically is what Assad has been doing the last several years - killing tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of his own countrymen. But the world only really got outraged when poison gas was used.

I certainly am NOT defending the use of poison gas (obviously). I just am perplexed about why bombings and other methods used to murder thousands elicit little more than a shoulder shrug but poison gas is the red line that demands military response from other nations.

[jsglow]

Not sure other than to suggest that the horror stems from WWI where this new technology for the times seemed to cross the line of human decency.  With the huge exception of Hitler's Final Solution, I don't believe it was used as a battlefield weapon in WWII at all.  Be an interesting academic study about why it fits where it does in the world mindset.

[Hards Alumni]

I don't want this to be a political thread about the merits of taking action against Syria.

I just want to ask a question that genuinely perplexes me:

Why is a poison-gas attack worse than any number of other kinds of attacks?

If Assad had "only" bombed the hell out of Douma and killed half its citizens, including kids and women, how outraged would world leaders be? Because that basically is what Assad has been doing the last several years - killing tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of his own countrymen. But the world only really got outraged when poison gas was used.

I certainly am NOT defending the use of poison gas (obviously). I just am perplexed about why bombings and other methods used to murder thousands elicit little more than a shoulder shrug but poison gas is the red line that demands military response from other nations.

Gas isn't as controllable, kills totally indiscriminately, and the way that people die is horrific.

[GGGG]

Gas isn't as controllable, kills totally indiscriminately, and the way that people die is horrific.

Sounds like the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Anyway, I understand the initial question.  What is going on in Syria has been horrific regardless of the gas attacks, but now the use of gas is a bridge too far?

[muwarrior69]

I don't want this to be a political thread about the merits of taking action against Syria.

I just want to ask a question that genuinely perplexes me:

Why is a poison-gas attack worse than any number of other kinds of attacks?

If Assad had "only" bombed the hell out of Douma and killed half its citizens, including kids and women, how outraged would world leaders be? Because that basically is what Assad has been doing the last several years - killing tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of his own countrymen. But the world only really got outraged when poison gas was used.

I certainly am NOT defending the use of poison gas (obviously). I just am perplexed about why bombings and other methods used to murder thousands elicit little more than a shoulder shrug but poison gas is the red line that demands military response from other nations.

All is fair in love and war; until it isn't.

[GGGG]

All is fair in love and war; until it isn't.

That's a pretty darn good summary. 

[Benny B]

Poison gas as a weapon has a psychological component that essentially turns it into a weapon of torture.

Conventional	Gas
You can see a bomb	You can't see gas
You can hear a gun fire	You can't hear gas
Can kill you instantly	Can inflict tortuous pain
Prognosis can be ascertained	Unknown physiological effects

Bottom line is this... with a conventional weapon, there's usually some sort of warning, and you know what's happening to you... if you get shot, you can feel the bullet; missile strikes your house, you can see the damage. 

Gas... you don't know where it is or what's happening until you've already succumbed.  Not to mention, conventional weapons are precision weapons compared to gas.  You can control where a bullet goes much easier than you can control where gas goes.

The comparison is a lot like pornography... either you understand it or you don't.  But here's an example... let's say that gangs are roaming your neighborhood and breaking into houses and murdering people that, let's say, don't have Christmas ornaments in their trees.  So you have two options: 1) put Christmas ornaments in your trees in the hopes you'll be left alone or 2) grab your AR-15 and put 911 on speed dial.  Feel pretty good about your chances, right?  At least you feel like you have some semblance of control or the ability to fight back.

Now consider the gangs aren't roaming around with guns and instead of breaking into houses, they're stealthily setting off canisters of sarin gas outside the windows of houses without ornaments.  So there's not going to be any warning; you could patrol the perimeter of your house, but that only increases your exposure.  Your AR-15 won't do you a damn bit of good.  And even if you put up ornaments, your neighbor didn't, and the wind just happens to be light enough in the direction of your house if the canisters are set off next door.

Follow where I'm trying to go here?  I suppose the tl;dr is that the Geneva Convention can basically be summed up by saying if you're going to attack and kill someone, try to do it in the quickest, most painless way possible.  Poison gas is pretty much the opposite of that.

[Benny B]

That being said....

I certainly am NOT defending the use of poison gas (obviously). I just am perplexed about why bombings and other methods used to murder thousands elicit little more than a shoulder shrug but poison gas is the red line that demands military response from other nations.

Because as a global society, we've become desensitized to guns, missiles and bombs over the last century.  Gas attacks are rare enough that they still sell newspapers.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Sounds like the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Anyway, I understand the initial question.  What is going on in Syria has been horrific regardless of the gas attacks, but now the use of gas is a bridge too far?

No wars (or crimes) are moral. Some are just. There are now in place laws of warfare and WMD agreed to by almost all countries on the face of the earth, and these have been continuously violated in this case, despite repeated warnings and violations of further Syrian agreements. At some point, appeasement gives way to enforcement.

[MU82]

I appreciate all those who have responded, including Benny with his long response.

It seems psychological more than anything else - we feel we can hide from a missile but not gas, and the missile death can be instantaneous and relative painless (though not always) vs the horrific death from gas.

Still, it does seem awfully easy for world leaders to totally ignore non-gas mass murders such as those that have been taking place in Syria for years.

Now ... gotta go ask my neighbor to hang those ornaments back up. And not just for me but for the entire cul de sac!!!

[Coleman]

Chemical weapons (such as gas) are against the Geneva Conventions, as well as many other international laws of war.

[MUBurrow]

That being said....

Because as a global society, we've become desensitized to guns, missiles and bombs over the last century.  Gas attacks are rare enough that they still sell newspapers.

And to this end, I think gas is a bright line that we're able to draw in an area (international law) with extremely few bright lines.  Talk to 100 political scientists, and you'll get 100 answers about how smart it is for a country to restrict its own future behavior with international treaties, and 100 answers about whether international law is truly law without a single, consistent enforcement body. But I think gas is one of those things that we can all agree is against whatever laws we have, and its able to serve as a rallying cry to unify enforcement of those laws against bad actors, thereby implicitly serving as evidence as the strength of those otherwise often ineffectual institutions.

[Benny B]

And to this end, I think gas is a bright line that we're able to draw in an area (international law) with extremely few bright lines.  Talk to 100 political scientists, and you'll get 100 answers about how smart it is for a country to restrict its own future behavior with international treaties, and 100 answers about whether international law is truly law without a single, consistent enforcement body. But I think gas is one of those things that we can all agree is against whatever laws we have, and its able to serve as a rallying cry to unify enforcement of those laws against bad actors, thereby implicitly serving as evidence as the strength of those otherwise often ineffectual institutions.

Except Russia.  And North Korea.

[mu03eng]

It's relatively simple. Both gas and nuclear weapons kill at scale and indiscriminately.

If you remove the morality of it, there is legitimate military science behind the use of chemical and nuclear weapons on the battlefield if all you are trying to achieve is to defeat the enemy. However, there are significant non-military impacts of gas and nuclear that are uncontrollable. Both are genies that we never, ever should allow out of the bottle.

[Spotcheck Billy]

So they have WMDs, when are we invading Iraq Syria?

[real chili 83]

Interesting points about nukes in Japan in WWII.  We justified it because:

*Japan wasn't going to surrender to us any time soon
* The cost of us invading would have been horrendous
* The number of Japanese lives lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a fraction of the total Japanese and American deaths predicted from an invasion.

Not saying it was right or wrong to drop nukes, but that's the math/logic behind it.

[GGGG]

Interesting points about nukes in Japan in WWII.  We justified it because:

*Japan wasn't going to surrender to us any time soon
* The cost of us invading would have been horrendous
* The number of Japanese lives lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a fraction of the total Japanese and American deaths predicted from an invasion.

Not saying it was right or wrong to drop nukes, but that's the math/logic behind it.

I know.  The "winner" oftentimes gets to provide the justification / rationalization.

I am noting saying it was a wrong decision, but just that a lot of what Hards used to describe gas attacks could also be used to describe nuclear attacks as well.

[Buzzed]

Chemical weapons (such as gas) are against the Geneva Conventions, as well as many other international laws of war.

This along with Syria signing several international treaties saying they will not use chemical weapons. With the US as a permanent UN security council member, it's duty is for international peace and security. Larry LeBlanc could provide the nuances.

[GGGG]

This along with Syria signing several international treaties saying they will not use chemical weapons. With the US as a permanent UN security council member, it's duty is for international peace and security. Larry LeBlanc could provide the nuances.

LeBlanc was a fantastic professor.

[tower912]

If there was an easy answer, it already would have been implemented. 

[#UnleashSean]

Interesting points about nukes in Japan in WWII.  We justified it because:

*Japan wasn't going to surrender to us any time soon
* The cost of us invading would have been horrendous
* The number of Japanese lives lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a fraction of the total Japanese and American deaths predicted from an invasion.

Not saying it was right or wrong to drop nukes, but that's the math/logic behind it.

Also:

*Our firebombing of Tokyo resulted in much more damage and casualties then both atomic bombs
*It was a shock and awe psychological affect IE: HOLY BALLS THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN DO THAT????  WAAAAAIT IT WAS ONE BOMB, FROM A SINGLE PLANE? HOW MANY OF THOSE DO THEY HAVE.

The nuke was necessary against an absolute brainwashed country literally thinking they had a God on their side.

[mu03eng]

Interesting points about nukes in Japan in WWII.  We justified it because:

*Japan wasn't going to surrender to us any time soon
* The cost of us invading would have been horrendous
* The number of Japanese lives lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a fraction of the total Japanese and American deaths predicted from an invasion.

Not saying it was right or wrong to drop nukes, but that's the math/logic behind it.

You forgot to include "Signal to the Russians that we weren't to be f'd with"

[Coleman]

The nuke was necessary against an absolute brainwashed country literally thinking they had a God on their side.

Maybe. But were two of them necessary? And was it necessary to drop them in the middle of major urban centers where a maximum number of civilians would be killed?

Just asking questions. These are very complex issues for me and I will admit I do not have ready answers for either side of the debate. Any answer is problematic.

War sucks.

[real chili 83]

Maybe. But were two of them necessary? And was it necessary to drop them in the middle of major urban centers where a maximum number of civilians would be killed?

Just asking questions. These are very complex issues for me and I will admit I do not have ready answers for either side of the debate. Any answer is problematic.

War sucks.

They didn’t quit after the first one was dropped. Second one was three days later 

[rocket surgeon]

i stand to be corrected, but didn't japan's unprovoked bombing of pearl harbor drag us into WW II?  or was it at least the last straw? 

granted, nuclear weapons of today make "little boy" look like a well, a little boy.  but i am a firm believer in "things happen for a reason"  very much like, if we ignore history, we are bound to repeat it,  anyway, i am hoping that we continue to teach/talk about WW II so our kids and kids kids, etc realize the power of nuclear war and the fear of God to ever have to use it because we truly have created a monster. 

[buckchuckler]

Easy answer.  When the machines take over we don't want the gas around. 


But in seriousness, I think gas was banned because it was easy to ban due to its relatively low effectiveness.  It is easy (at least was when gas was used) to equip soldiers against its effects. 

It was easy for countries to say "look we care and we aren't evil" when really it was more of a "eh, this stuff is unpredictable and doesn't really work well anyways" deal.

And since it has been banned for going on 100 years, it has been bestowed a stigma that it is worse than anything else, when that really may or may not be true.  I don't know, and hope to never find out.

[buckchuckler]

Maybe. But were two of them necessary? And was it necessary to drop them in the middle of major urban centers where a maximum number of civilians would be killed?

Just asking questions. These are very complex issues for me and I will admit I do not have ready answers for either side of the debate. Any answer is problematic.

War sucks.

Well, the second bomb is still a debated topic, I think in the end it comes down to the fact that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb.  They actually kept preaching victory and battle.  And while they were dropped in major urban centers, the silver lining (albeit a small one) is that neither one was dropped on Tokoyo.

I could be wrong on this but I seem to remember that Hiroshima was home to a military base, and Nagasaki was not the initial target, but a secondary target that was hit because the primary target was inaccessible.  It was a secondary target due to munitions plants and a shipyard.

It was not indiscriminate targeting of civilians. 

[Benny B]

Well, the second bomb is still a debated topic, I think in the end it comes down to the fact that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb.  They actually kept preaching victory and battle.  And while they were dropped in major urban centers, the silver lining (albeit a small one) is that neither one was dropped on Tokoyo.

I could be wrong on this but I seem to remember that Hiroshima was home to a military base, and Nagasaki was not the initial target, but a secondary target that was hit because the primary target was inaccessible.  It was a secondary target due to munitions plants and a shipyard.

It was not indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Secondary target that missed the mark.  But still considered a successful miss.

[#UnleashSean]

Well, the second bomb is still a debated topic, I think in the end it comes down to the fact that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb.  They actually kept preaching victory and battle.  And while they were dropped in major urban centers, the silver lining (albeit a small one) is that neither one was dropped on Tokoyo.

I could be wrong on this but I seem to remember that Hiroshima was home to a military base, and Nagasaki was not the initial target, but a secondary target that was hit because the primary target was inaccessible.  It was a secondary target due to munitions plants and a shipyard.

It was not indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

All major cities in Japan had military districts. It was a common theme to put them intertwined with civilians to deter bombings (That didn't work at all) Plus all the factories and everything else that goes into war logistics.

Tokyo was also on the list. I believe there were like 10 cities on each day's bombing, and were selected based on air coverage, wind, weather, etc.

[MU82]

Easy answer.  When the machines take over we don't want the gas around. 


But in seriousness, I think gas was banned because it was easy to ban due to its relatively low effectiveness.  It is easy (at least was when gas was used) to equip soldiers against its effects. 

It was easy for countries to say "look we care and we aren't evil" when really it was more of a "eh, this stuff is unpredictable and doesn't really work well anyways" deal.

And since it has been banned for going on 100 years, it has been bestowed a stigma that it is worse than anything else, when that really may or may not be true.  I don't know, and hope to never find out.

This rings true to me, buck.

[mu03eng]

Maybe. But were two of them necessary? And was it necessary to drop them in the middle of major urban centers where a maximum number of civilians would be killed?

Just asking questions. These are very complex issues for me and I will admit I do not have ready answers for either side of the debate. Any answer is problematic.

War sucks.

Yes they did, for all sorts of reasons including we didn't totally know what the power of the weapons were and if you drop it in the middle of a field it doesn't have the psychological impact to say "no seriously, you should probably quit". Whether it really matters or not, we attempted to limit the damage by air bursting the nukes about 1000 feet off the ground as opposed to letting it ground burst where the damage/death would have been at least 10x worse.

[buckchuckler]

Yes they did, for all sorts of reasons including we didn't totally know what the power of the weapons were and if you drop it in the middle of a field it doesn't have the psychological impact to say "no seriously, you should probably quit". Whether it really matters or not, we attempted to limit the damage by air bursting the nukes about 1000 feet off the ground as opposed to letting it ground burst where the damage/death would have been at least 10x worse.

I am pretty sure that doing this actually increases the damage radius of the blast.  I don't know if that was well understood at the time, but I would guess they knew that.

[jsglow]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country. 

[mu03eng]

I am pretty sure that doing this actually increases the damage radius of the blast.  I don't know if that was well understood at the time, but I would guess they knew that.

There is a difference between low level air burst and high level air burst. Low level air burst, with the right munition type would increase the blast radius (typically under 500 feet) and example of this is the MOAB and the BLU-82. Anything over 500 feet (at least with conventional weapons so I'm extracting here a little) and the air burst method actually starts reducing the effectiveness of the munition (it's a density of air thing)

[buckchuckler]

There is a difference between low level air burst and high level air burst. Low level air burst, with the right munition type would increase the blast radius (typically under 500 feet) and example of this is the MOAB and the BLU-82. Anything over 500 feet (at least with conventional weapons so I'm extracting here a little) and the air burst method actually starts reducing the effectiveness of the munition (it's a density of air thing)

Makes sense, thank you!

[buckchuckler]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country.

Well written sir.

[buckchuckler]

No wars (or crimes) are moral. Some are just.

This line stuck with me a bit yesterday.  I am very intrigued by the margin between morality and justice.  In most cases I guess I believe they are nearly inseparable, but not in all.  This is a very interesting concept.

It was certainly just to stop the evil happening during WWII.  I guess I would also say it was moral to do so.  Isn't stopping injustice and immorality to some degree moral?  Is it any more moral -- even though it may be just --to hit a country (North Korea for example) with sanctions that will primarily hurt the civilian population which is already in bad shape?

I am clearly not smart enough to know the answer, and not enough of a philosopher to figure it out.  I do find it very interesting though and something I would like to spend a little time exploring.

[Benny B]

I am pretty sure that doing this actually increases the damage radius of the blast.  I don't know if that was well understood at the time, but I would guess they knew that.

Mostly correct.  Consider that an explosion is spherical with the bomb at the center.  If you detonate on the ground, half of the "blast sphere" is absorbed by the ground.

With that said, the decision to detonate Little Boy at 600 meters was made with little, if any, regard to death/injury.  In other words - and this is where it gets confusing, not to mention difficult to explain - there was the obvious contemplation that maximizing physical damage would have a correlative effect on death/injury, but strategically, detonation at altitude was strictly for the purpose of maximizing physical damage/destruction, with - at best - indifference given to potential civilian casualties.

To the butler's question, the goal of damage/destruction, not casualties, being the primary goal is pretty apparent when you look at the strategy behind the five potential targets identified: Hiroshima (major military HQ), Kokura (munitions plant), Nagasaki (naval ordnance), Yokohama (aircraft mfg and oil refining) and Niigata (steel/aluminum plants)... notably missing: the three largest cities in Imperial Japan -- Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya (combined population in excess of 10,000,000).  Also corroborating this are the facts that a) the fourth largest city Kyoto, population ~1,000,000, was originally on the target list but was replaced with Nagasaki, population 250,000, and b) fifth largest Yokohama, also ~1,000,000, was also dropped from consideration.  (Niigata remained a potential target, but was neither among the Enola Gay's nor Bockscar's primary or secondary targets.)

If the purpose of the nuclear bombings was to maximize death/injury, then Allied leaders made a huge error in narrowing the primary and secondary targets to four cities that had a collective population of 900,000.

[MU82]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country.

As the proud son of a WWII vet - my dad, who unfortunately has been gone since 1998, fought in the Battle of the Bulge - I agree with every word of this outstanding post. Well done, glow.

You certainly are right about the level of sacrifice. I explained to my kids how thousands upon thousands of young men who weren't even drafted volunteered to serve, how major corporations shut down their operations so they could make equipment for the war effort, how professional athletes interrupted their careers, how women put their lives on hold to work in factories or as medical personnel, how the war pretty much dominated everything going on in America and abroad (as it should have).

One of the most incredible half-hours of my life was when my son, who was then 9, did a telephone interview with my father about his WWII experiences. I had helped prepare the questions but Ben asked them all. I was on the extension and listened to my father's careful, thoughtful, sometimes painful recollections. He never liked to talk about the war, and to hear this was very powerful and emotional for me.

The summer before my dad died, a bunch of us from our family went to the Holocaust memorial in DC, and I could see how it affected him (and me). A few years after he died, my kids and I watched Ken Burns' incredible documentary about the war, and I got tears in my eyes on more than one occasion.

I am not one who likes to "romanticize" anything - especially anything as brutal as war - but I agree wholeheartedly with what you say in your eloquent post.

[mu03eng]

Mostly correct.  Consider that an explosion is spherical with the bomb at the center.  If you detonate on the ground, half of the "blast sphere" is absorbed by the ground.

With that said, the decision to detonate Little Boy at 600 meters was made with little, if any, regard to death/injury.  In other words - and this is where it gets confusing, not to mention difficult to explain - there was the obvious contemplation that maximizing physical damage would have a correlative effect on death/injury, but strategically, detonation at altitude was strictly for the purpose of maximizing physical damage/destruction, with - at best - indifference given to potential civilian casualties.

To the butler's question, the goal of damage/destruction, not casualties, being the primary goal is pretty apparent when you look at the strategy behind the five potential targets identified: Hiroshima (major military HQ), Kokura (munitions plant), Nagasaki (naval ordnance), Yokohama (aircraft mfg and oil refining) and Niigata (steel/aluminum plants)... notably missing: the three largest cities in Imperial Japan -- Tokyo, Osaka and Nagoya (combined population in excess of 10,000,000).  Also corroborating this are the facts that a) the fourth largest city Kyoto, population ~1,000,000, was originally on the target list but was replaced with Nagasaki, population 250,000, and b) fifth largest Yokohama, also ~1,000,000, was also dropped from consideration.  (Niigata remained a potential target, but was neither among the Enola Gay's nor Bockscar's primary or secondary targets.)

If the purpose of the nuclear bombings was to maximize death/injury, then Allied leaders made a huge error in narrowing the primary and secondary targets to four cities that had a collective population of 900,000.

The difference in air density at 1800 feet versus near ground level decreases the effectiveness of the pressure wave by about 30%. Whether they knew that or cared matters but the altitude of the detonation reduced the damage level.

[mu03eng]

As the proud son of a WWII vet - my dad, who unfortunately has been gone since 1998, fought in the Battle of the Bulge - I agree with every word of this outstanding post. Well done, glow.

You certainly are right about the level of sacrifice. I explained to my kids how thousands upon thousands of young men who weren't even drafted volunteered to serve, how major corporations shut down their operations so they could make equipment for the war effort, how professional athletes interrupted their careers, how women put their lives on hold to work in factories or as medical personnel, how the war pretty much dominated everything going on in America and abroad (as it should have).

One of the most incredible half-hours of my life was when my son, who was then 9, did a telephone interview with my father about his WWII experiences. I had helped prepare the questions but Ben asked them all. I was on the extension and listened to my father's careful, thoughtful, sometimes painful recollections. He never liked to talk about the war, and to hear this was very powerful and emotional for me.

The summer before my dad died, a bunch of us from our family went to the Holocaust memorial in DC, and I could see how it affected him (and me). A few years after he died, my kids and I watched Ken Burns' incredible documentary about the war, and I got tears in my eyes on more than one occasion.

I am not one who likes to "romanticize" anything - especially anything as brutal as war - but I agree wholeheartedly with what you say in your eloquent post.

And the sacrifice didn't end with the end of the war. The amount of capital spent on rebuilding Japan, Europe(mostly Germany) and then providing defense for Europe and Japan is astronomical. Certainly it wasn't all altruistic but if that GDP had been kept on shore, it could have solved a lot of problems (while creating a lot of international issues in the power vacuum but still )

[MUBurrow]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

I love this - its fascinating to look at the intermittent dedication to nationbuilding that has occurred in the aftermath of every war in the past 60 years, and compare it to what took place after WWII. Very much a reaction to the isolationism that was blamed for allowing WWII to percolate in the first place, and almost as dramatic an example of national collective action as the actual fighting of the war.

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.
...
Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.

While this is undoubtedly true, that war's lack of moral ambiguity has also plagued our discussions of war and international affairs in a negative way ever since.  For the last 70 years, we look at every remarkably complicated, ambiguous, and morally problematic situation through the lens of WWII. All problematic leaders are like Hitler, and all dovish positions are like 1930s-1940s pacifism. But perhaps the most unique aspect of WWII was the clarity of who the good guys were, who the bad guys were, and what would happen if the bad guys won. That's the exception, not the rule, and I'm optimistic that if faced with that type of existential (but also unambiguous) threat again, this generation and every generation since would also rise to the challenge.

[GGGG]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country. 

While I agree with everything you said here, there was a real good reason why we were so benevolent - and that was we didn't want more of Europe and Asia to fall under Soviet influence.  In fact the initial recovery plan, the Morgenthau Plan, was going to completely prevent the German industrial base from ever recovering fully.

But when people realized how short-sighted this was, and communist insurrections started in places like Greece, the U.S. realized that more investment was needed, and it needed to include Germany.  Otherwise Europe (and Asia) was simply going to fall under Soviet influence more than anything.

[Benny B]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country.

There was backchanning going on prior to Hiroshima in discussion of a "limited surrender," which added several conditions to the Potsdam Declaration's terms, but as I recall, nothing material was communicated between the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

Incidentally, the Supreme Council (basically, Japan's "War Cabinet") was literally in a meeting discussing the possibility of ending the war (accepting the Potsdam Declaration's terms) at the moment Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki.  Even with the knowledge that Nagasaki was just hit by another atomic bomb, the Council's vote to accept Potsdam was 3-3, and even the three voting in favor were doing so under the premise that they would add a condition (to guarantee the Emperor's position).

I have been a WWII junkie for years, and even today, I'm still learning new things.  But early on, I came to the realization - which has only been fortified as time goes on - of the great sacrifice that was made by nearly all Americans, with many making the ultimate sacrifice, in order to not only ensure the American way of life, but to prevent the entire world from succumbing to evil.  It doesn't take much to vision what the entire world may look like today if WWII went a different way... we see pockets of it here and there today, but our grandparents and great-grandparents fought to ensure that such evil would be anomalies, not status quo.

And yet, even today people reduce themselves to accusations of "evil" and "fascist," truly ignorant to what those terms actually mean.

[MU82]

There was backchanning going on prior to Hiroshima in discussion of a "limited surrender," which added several conditions to the Potsdam Declaration's terms, but as I recall, nothing material was communicated between the time Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.

Incidentally, the Supreme Council (basically, Japan's "War Cabinet") was literally in a meeting discussing the possibility of ending the war (accepting the Potsdam Declaration's terms) at the moment Fat Man was dropped on Nagasaki.  Even with the knowledge that Nagasaki was just hit by another atomic bomb, the Council's vote to accept Potsdam was 3-3, and even the three voting in favor were doing so under the premise that they would add a condition (to guarantee the Emperor's position).

I have been a WWII junkie for years, and even today, I'm still learning new things.  But early on, I came to the realization - which has only been fortified as time goes on - of the great sacrifice that was made by nearly all Americans, with many making the ultimate sacrifice, in order to not only ensure the American way of life, but to prevent the entire world from succumbing to evil.  It doesn't take much to vision what the entire world may look like today if WWII went a different way... we see pockets of it here and there today, but our grandparents and great-grandparents fought to ensure that such evil would be anomalies, not status quo.

And yet, even today people reduce themselves to accusations of "evil" and "fascist," truly ignorant to what those terms actually mean.

Well stated, Benny. I especially like your last paragraph.

[jsglow]

Some really great stuff here.  Thanks for everyone's contribution.

[Coleman]

My recollection was there were only some backchannel efforts by a few for a 'limited' surrender in the aftermath of Hiroshima.  The US rightly demanded a full and unconditional surrender.  That's exactly what was signed on the deck of the Missouri.  And immediately thereafter, the greatest benevolent superpower in the history of the world showed both mercy and compassion in the countless steps she undertook across the entire world.  I wish more truly understood that.   

WWII was not some nuanced geopolitical arm wrestling match.  Genuine evil needed to be destroyed at all cost, both in Europe and the Far East.  Some will correctly argue that Stalin wasn't dealt with but practically speaking that wasn't really possible.  There was no appetite for that but Truman did what he could, given the circumstances.

Sadly, every day there are fewer Americans alive that truly understand the complete and total sacrifice that was necessary.  All of us alive today have our fathers, grandfathers and perhaps even great grandfathers to thank plus those mothers, grandmothers and great grandmothers that often sacrificed everything in support of their efforts.  Same goes for our friends overseas who can NEVER repay the debt they have to this country.

I am the grandson of a WWII vet who earned a purple heart from a Japenese Kamizake attack on his ship. I understand the total sacrifice.

And WWII was a just war, if there ever was one. I agree that the enemy was evil, and that the allies were fighting for a good (democracy and liberation of the oppressed). I never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't mean we can't question the tactics used in battle. The end does not justify all possible means. The systematic removal of Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was morally reprehensible. As I said before, the use of nuclear weapons is a morally difficult thing for me to grapple with. I see both sides to the argument. This is not black and white to me.

While the war was just, it is our right, nay, our duty, to question and object to immoral tactics used to wage it. Let us not conflate the two issues. 

[Jockey]

I am the grandson of a WWII vet who earned a purple heart from a Japenese Kamizake attack on his ship. I understand the total sacrifice.

And WWII was a just war, if there ever was one. I agree that the enemy was evil, and that the allies were fighting for a good (democracy and liberation of the oppressed). I never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't mean we can't question the tactics used in battle. The end does not justify all possible means. The systematic removal of Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was morally reprehensible. As I said before, the use of nuclear weapons is a morally difficult thing for me to grapple with. I see both sides to the argument. This is not black and white to me.

While the war was just, it is our right, nay, our duty, to question and object to immoral tactics used to wage it. Let us not conflate the two issues.

Very well said, Coleman.

[mu03eng]

Honestly, one of the biggest overlooked impacts that led to victory in WWII was the British holding out in 1940. If the British had lost any number of key engagements (Dunkirk, Battle of Britian, North Africa) Defeating the Nazi's would have become incredibly difficult and probably would have doubled the length of the war if not more. The world owes a lot to the British.

[jsglow]

I am the grandson of a WWII vet who earned a purple heart from a Japenese Kamizake attack on his ship. I understand the total sacrifice.

And WWII was a just war, if there ever was one. I agree that the enemy was evil, and that the allies were fighting for a good (democracy and liberation of the oppressed). I never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't mean we can't question the tactics used in battle. The end does not justify all possible means. The systematic removal of Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was morally reprehensible. As I said before, the use of nuclear weapons is a morally difficult thing for me to grapple with. I see both sides to the argument. This is not black and white to me.

While the war was just, it is our right, nay, our duty, to question and object to immoral tactics used to wage it. Let us not conflate the two issues.

We agree completely.

[buckchuckler]

Honestly, one of the biggest overlooked impacts that led to victory in WWII was the British holding out in 1940. If the British had lost any number of key engagements (Dunkirk, Battle of Britian, North Africa) Defeating the Nazi's would have become incredibly difficult and probably would have doubled the length of the war if not more. The world owes a lot to the British.

And yet, while the British were helping to defeat the Nazis, they were also instrumental (to what degree is hotly debated) in the famine in Bengal which resulted in over 2 million people dying. 

The British have a lot on the ledger for which they need to make amends. 

[MU82]

I am the grandson of a WWII vet who earned a purple heart from a Japenese Kamizake attack on his ship. I understand the total sacrifice.

And WWII was a just war, if there ever was one. I agree that the enemy was evil, and that the allies were fighting for a good (democracy and liberation of the oppressed). I never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't mean we can't question the tactics used in battle. The end does not justify all possible means. The systematic removal of Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was morally reprehensible. As I said before, the use of nuclear weapons is a morally difficult thing for me to grapple with. I see both sides to the argument. This is not black and white to me.

While the war was just, it is our right, nay, our duty, to question and object to immoral tactics used to wage it. Let us not conflate the two issues.

Excellent, Mr. Coleman.

[buckchuckler]

I am the grandson of a WWII vet who earned a purple heart from a Japenese Kamizake attack on his ship. I understand the total sacrifice.

And WWII was a just war, if there ever was one. I agree that the enemy was evil, and that the allies were fighting for a good (democracy and liberation of the oppressed). I never suggested otherwise.

But that doesn't mean we can't question the tactics used in battle. The end does not justify all possible means. The systematic removal of Japanese-American citizens into concentration camps was morally reprehensible. As I said before, the use of nuclear weapons is a morally difficult thing for me to grapple with. I see both sides to the argument. This is not black and white to me.

While the war was just, it is our right, nay, our duty, to question and object to immoral tactics used to wage it. Let us not conflate the two issues.

I have a question about the bold part.

Was the most moral thing to do the thing which cost the least lives?  Because that was probably the bomb.  Obviously it let another genie out of the bottle, but with the US, Britian, Canada, Japan and Russia (the Germans too obviously, but they weren't an issue at this point) all working on nuclear bombs during the war, it likely would have existed one way or another. 

The other options for ending the war were an all out assault on Japan, which by every estimate I have ever seen would have cost lives on an unimaginable scale.  For reference there were about 45,000 casualties  (combined US and Japanese) at Iwo Jima, and that was with about 20,000 Japanese defenders--almost all of which were killed or injured.  Okinawa was even worse with about 130,000 military casualties and estimated of up to 150,000 civilians killed. There were an estimated 4.3 million Japanese soldiers readying to defend the Japan.  The cost on both sides would have been historically brutal. Or at least this seems to be the prevailing though.  Maybe faced with the US invading from the south and the Soviets from the North, they would have surrendered long before many have posited. 

Another option was a blockade (likely resulting in famine) combined with extensive bombing raids.

With the fanatical mindset of the Japanese at the time combined with what the US had learned about their dedication to defending their land, and their skill in defending their land, the bomb was not only the most efficient way to end the war but possibly the least destructive.

The death toll of either of these strategies could have quickly eclipsed the approximately 250,000 that were killed by the atomic bombs.

Not that using the bomb was moral, but I don't think there were any other options that were any better, and they were likely all worse, at least in terms of lives lost.

I certainly understand your position, my question comes down to, was there a better, less destructive option?