Syria poison gas

[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?