# Were the Allies justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?



## Mr. Bultitude (Dec 28, 2021)

I'm curious about the breakdown here on the Puritan Board of how people view the use of nuclear weapons in World War 2. Was it right and proper? Was it morally monstrous?


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 28, 2021)

We dropped leaflets prior. We did not bomb Tokyo but lesser cities that had more major roles in production for the war effort. The bomb saved Us AND Japanese lives by shortening the war. They considered the nuclear bomb as a difference of degree and not a difference in kind, and so this was merely the next step in the already horrific bombing raids already happening under Curtis LeMay. The fire-bombs dropped on Tokyo might be less morally justifiable than the nukes. The Japanese were horrendous to civilians and thus lost some of their own immunity from the targeting of cities full of civilians.

We must ask ourselves what exactly is an "innocent" civilian in a time of Total War when the entire population is mobilized to support the war effort. Putting yourself in the way of war intentionally sometimes makes you lose your civilian immunity. In the very least, if you are helping to make bombs in a Japanese city you should not be surprised if the Allies bomb you to bits. Just like the wives of Jihadis driving the tactical vehicles or cleaning or holding weapons for Jihadis deserve to get you bombed to pulp even if you are a female. If anyone raises their hands to kill you, then they are no longer innocent. And producing bombs may be considered such an act that renders you a fair target. In a city hiding such factories but you don't know exactly where, there is some justification for flattening all suspected areas being used to produce weapons....and this sometimes means nearly the whole city needs to go.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## arapahoepark (Dec 28, 2021)

Tendency to say yes...
It was horrific no matter what. Fire bombing was even more disastrous. However, and perhaps this is a fallacy of 'whataboutism,' Japan's own track record probably surpassed that of Europe's Axis powers. They got, essentially, a taste of their own medicine.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 28, 2021)

It's important to remember, as Pergy says in his OP, that we warned them by dropping leaflets first. Also, it's important to bear in mind that, even after both nukes were dropped, fanatical members of the Japanese military were _still_ unwilling to surrender, wanting to continue to prosecute the war. Emperor Hirohito (whose own role in the war is still debated, I think, despite his supposedly being "above it all") finally had to personally intervene and say, "Enough!"


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 28, 2021)

I admit ignorance to the details surrounding but I have a hard time rationalizing mass civilian deaths regardless of potential prevention or what the other side was doing. Willing to be persuaded from Scripture to the contrary however.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Dec 28, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> I admit ignorance to the details surrounding but I have a hard time rationalizing mass civilian deaths regardless of potential prevention or what the other side was doing. Willing to be persuaded from Scripture to the contrary however.


Self defense is scripturally justifiable (Exod. 22:2-3). Arguing from the lesser to the greater, if an individual is allowed by God's law (I would actually argue _required_, given the sixth commandment) to defend his own life and the lives of those under his charge, as well as his property, a civil magistrate has the same prerogative and duty, being the civil "father" of his nation. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was national self defense. Given that it probably spared countless more lives being lost in a prolonged war, it was also a necessary show of force.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 28, 2021)

I also believe strongly in self-defense but self-defense is always attacking the attacker and not non-combatants. I believe arguing that killing x civilians is justified since it saved x lives is a pragmatic argument rather than a biblical one. Could we not have destroyed those military targets without nuclear weapons? Were nuclear weapons an absolute "must" for self-defense?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Dec 28, 2021)

Comparing the numbers:

Number of Japanese killed in Tokyo March 9, 1945 - 83, 795.
Number of Japanese killed in Nagasaki August 9, 1945 - ~39,000
Number of Japanese killed in Hiroshima August 6, 1945 - ~66,000

(Allied Casualties from the Atomic bombings totalled 20_


Operation Olympic would pit 680,000 Allied troops against 900,000 Japanese entrenched defenders. Estimated US deaths would have been 230,000. Based upon previous operations against the Japanese, if successful, would have been at least triple that. Of course, the US was considering using atomic bombs against the Japanese to reduce American losses. 

Of course, ofter Olympic, an much larger Operation Coronet would be needed. Over a million allied troops would have been used for that operation against a roughly equal Japanese force. 

Projections are all over the board, but planners did estimate 100,000 replacement troop as month would be needed to maintain force strength. Japan planned to execute roughly 100,000 POWs if the home islands were invaded. In any event, total allied casualties would probably have been at most a million, with Japanese casualties double that. It is highly likely that a higher percentage of Americans would have survived their injuries. So likely less than 500,000 dead to a couple of million Japanese (military and civilian. 

So, cast your vote - 105,000 dead, or 2.5 million dead. 500,000 allied dead, or 20 allied dead.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 28, 2021)

Again, comparing numbers of fatalities is a pragmatic argument. Show me in Scripture where we are justified in the killing of non-combatants in war. In ancient warfare, at least you were dealing with much more precision weapons in direct combat (I understand sieges would have killed many non-combatants). With nukes, you have a very imprecise weapon and not a lot of control over collateral damage. Hence why we have rightly invested so much time and money into precision weapons which I believe is the right approach because, at least in theory, we value non-combatant human life.

If you are going to make the lives saved vs lives possibly lost argument, you need to justify it with Scripture. If you can do so, I will entertain your argument. If not, I don't see the point.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Andrew35 (Dec 28, 2021)

I revisited this question several years ago myself after discovering that many WW2-era conservatives were horrified by the bombing.

See, e.g., Russell Kirk: https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/04/the-awful-humanity-of-russell-kirk.html

One quote from the above:

"Who could forgive such a thing, Kirk again asked. 'A handful of individuals, some of them quite unused to moral responsibilities on such a scale, made it their business to extirpate the populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima; we must make it our business to curtail the possibility of such snap decisions, taken simply on the assumptions of worldly wisdom,' Kirk wrote in Pauline fashion.

"The real conservative, he continued in 1954, can urge upon his nation a policy of patience and prudence. A ‘preventative’ war, whether or not it might be successful in the field–and that is a question much in doubt–would be morally ruinous to us.” Still, he thought, remembering the American atrocities committed against civilians in 1945, 'there are circumstances under which it is not only more honorable to lose than to win, but quite truly less harmful, in the ultimate providence of God,' Kirk concluded."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 28, 2021)

I think all war is a terrible thing. It seems like almost every sin imaginable is heightened and seen in war. Civilian casualties are a horrendous thing. Even casualties of soldiers are a horrible thing. I'm sure most of them don't want to be there, and have been brainwashed and indoctrinated by their leaders. A few people who have power over thousands come together and make a decision, and sacrifice human lives because of their sin.

I understand not all war is like this, and sometimes leaders are just in fighting, but when we look at the history of war, it is a horrible thing, wherein all wars could be prevented if we just loved each other and humbled ourselves.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Dec 28, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> I also believe strongly in self-defense but self-defense is always attacking the attacker and not non-combatants. I believe arguing that killing x civilians is justified since it saved x lives is a pragmatic argument rather than a biblical one. Could we not have destroyed those military targets without nuclear weapons? Were nuclear weapons an absolute "must" for self-defense?


I will preface by saying that I did not intend to argue that what I presented earlier was legitimate. I was merely presenting the argument.

Regarding what you’ve said here, though, it is a good point. However, it does not seem possible to consider every possible negative outcome when in a war like WWII. The fact is that Japan—as a nation, civilians included—was the aggressor, and violently so. The US was acting in self defense by showing overwhelming force. As others have stated, the US in dropping the A-bombs was not just trying to kill a bunch of people randomly; it was strategic.

Again, not saying this to argue the ethical legitimacy of dropping the bombs. This whole question seems to me to be to a certain degree speculative. I suppose the point is that, in the end, war is almost never black and white.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Dec 28, 2021)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> …all wars could be prevented if we just loved each other and humbled ourselves.


Agreed, but that will never happen this side of Christ’s return. Until then, war is as inevitable as human sin, because there will always be a bloodthirsty maniac on the throne of some nation somewhere.


----------



## Edward (Dec 28, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Show me in Scripture where we are justified in the killing of non-combatants in war.


 "At that time we captured all his cities and devoted to destructionc the people of every city, including women and children. We left no survivors. We carried off for ourselves only the livestock and the plunder from the cities we captured."

"At that time we captured all sixty of his cities. There was not a single city we failed to take—the entire region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and gates and bars, and there were many more unwalled villages. We devoted them to destruction,a as we had done to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city."

" And if it is established with certainty that this abomination has been committed among you, you must surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword. Devote to destructionc all its people and livestock."

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 28, 2021)

I have been reading a lot of World War 2 related history this year. The more that I read, the more that I am convinced that this war was nothing to celebrate. I voted "No" in the above poll, though my vote is a tentative one. I have ordered a book that specifically addresses the bombing of these cities. I may be able to say more when I have read it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 28, 2021)

Edward said:


> "At that time we captured all his cities and devoted to destructionc the people of every city, including women and children. We left no survivors. We carried off for ourselves only the livestock and the plunder from the cities we captured."
> 
> "At that time we captured all sixty of his cities. There was not a single city we failed to take—the entire region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and gates and bars, and there were many more unwalled villages. We devoted them to destruction,a as we had done to Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children of every city."
> 
> " And if it is established with certainty that this abomination has been committed among you, you must surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword. Devote to destructionc all its people and livestock."


 So are you making the argument that God's Holy War to put His people into the promised land of Canaan is normative for either ancient or modern warfare? Surely you understand the uniqueness of this particular war in both time and redemptive history?


----------



## Taylor (Dec 28, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> So are you making the argument that God's Holy War to put His people into the promised land of Canaan is normative for either ancient or modern warfare? Surely you understand the uniqueness of this particular war in both time and redemptive history?


They are not normative, no, but they could show that killing civilians in war is not _inherently_ unethical.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Dec 28, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Agreed, but that will never happen this side of Christ’s return. Until then, war is as inevitable as human sin, because there will always be a bloodthirsty maniac on the throne of some nation somewhere.


So true.


----------



## Edward (Dec 28, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> So are you making the argument that God's Holy War to put His people into the promised land of Canaan is normative for either ancient or modern warfare? Surely you understand the uniqueness of this particular war in both time and redemptive history?


You challenged for scripture. I gave you some that discusses how to deal with God hating idolaters in warfare. 

Now, I'll challenge you: Can you come up with any scriptural that says only combatants can be killed.


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 28, 2021)

Taylor said:


> They are not normative, no, but they could show that killing civilians in war is not _inherently_ unethical.



Yes, under divine mandate in that time and place in redemptive history which I don't think any other nation can claim (although many have tried).

From what I have seen in documentaries is that the firebombing of Dresden was meant to be an act of terror against the populace. Burning mass amounts of civilians for terror to break German public support - Is that righteous?

The reason I am pushing back on this is because often our governments use all kinds of propaganda to elicit public support for sinful actions under the guise of righteousness. Most recently, I think of the drone strikes that have killed thousands of civilians all in the name of protecting the homeland in the war on terror. Look at this latest example during the Afghan withdrawal when an aid worker gets droned for loading bottles of water in his car even though intelligence said civilians were likely in the area. First thing we hear out of the propaganda machine headed by General Milley was "righteous strike."

It all sounds so patriotic and noble until the facts start rolling in and then we start to see how totally depraved our own government is yet Americans seem to have a tough time coming to grips with the sinfulness in our own midst.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Taylor (Dec 28, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Yes, under divine mandate in that time and place in redemptive history which I don't think any other nation can claim (although many have tried).
> 
> From what I have seen in documentaries is that the firebombing of Dresden was meant to be an act of terror against the populace. Burning mass amounts of civilians for terror to break German public support - Is that righteous?
> 
> ...


Frankly, I don't disagree with you at all, brother. Again, I'm not trying to argue for the ethical legitimacy of the A-bombs; I'm just thinking out loud with you. You raise good points.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor (Dec 28, 2021)

Also, @TheInquirer, congratulations on reaching the 500 post mark and becoming a Puritan Board "Sophomore."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 28, 2021)

> Now, I'll challenge you: Can you come up with any scriptural that says only combatants can be killed.



I'll grant you the exception of the Holy War in that time and place in human history as God clearly revealed that He was bringing judgment on all the Canaanites. Where else in human warfare has God revealed that non-combatants are under the ban of holy war? You provided an example that was unique in time and history and as Taylor and I discussed, clearly not normative for warfare.

Here is biblical support:

When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it. 11 And if it responds to you peaceably and it opens to you, then all the people who are found in it shall do forced labor for you and shall serve you. 12 But if it makes no peace with you, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it. 13 *And when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword, 14 but the women and the little ones, the livestock, and everything else in the city, all its spoil, you shall take as plunder for yourselves*. And you shall enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not cities of the nations here. 16 But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, 17 but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded, 18 that they may not teach you to do according to all their abominable practices that they have done for their gods, and so you sin against the Lord your God.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Dt 20:10–18.

Notice the different requirements for the cities in the land of Canaan vs the cities outside of Canaan. Outside of Canaan, males could be killed (they were considered combatants at that time) but the women and children were to be spared. 

The biblical principle is this - Thou shalt not murder. 

Do you really want to argue that any person on the other side of a war is fair game and can be justifiably killed? Do you think the command against murder does not apply in times of war? If it does apply, how do you distinguish between lawful and unlawful killing? I use the principle of self-defense. Combatants trying to kill you are fair game. Non-combatants are not. Are you really fine with America (or any country) killing women and children non-combatants in a war zone? Would you justify dumping napalm on a bunch of Vietnamese farmers merely because their labor fed the enemy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 83r17h (Dec 28, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Do you really want to argue that any person on the other side of a war is fair game and can be justifiably killed?



I don't know of anyone who argues in favor of this. There are several levels in the military that we use to discuss just behavior in war. One of the principles is actually to limit casualties. However, limiting casualties has priorities. One action may cause more casualties than another, but that other action with less casualties must be repeated so many times for the same effect, that it has more total casualties in the end. Knowing this, you must prioritize which casualties you accept. Let me interject and be clear here: this does not mean that a course automatically is just strictly based on numerical decisions. Another factor which should be considered is what side the casualties are on. It is not unjust to prefer a course of action where the enemy suffers more casualties than you (again, this does _not _mean that every course with that result is automatically just). 

There are other factors too. Just War Theory can get somewhat complicated. Level of technological precision also is a factor. Let's say you're in WWII, and trying to hit an anti-aircraft gun with a bomb. That's a pretty hard task, because the bombs aren't very precise. So you need to drop a lot of bombs. If you can drop bigger bombs, it makes the job easier as well. This makes the size of the bomb a factor. 

The combatant/noncombatant line can also become blurry. I know of situations in the Middle East, where under the rules of engagement if a person has no weapon, they are not a combatant and cannot be attacked in any sense at that point. Well, some enemies would take advantage of this. They'd shoot a rocket and kill some US soldiers, then toss down the weapon and throw their hands up. Now they're not a combatant. The remaining soldiers couldn't do anything to them. Is that an extreme case? Maybe - but still shows the difficulty of trying to precisely label different boxes of combatant and noncombatant. Now that also gets affected by intelligence. If you go to bomb factories in a city that are producing weapons, and the factories are entirely dark - is it wrong to suppose that there are no civilians in the factories? No - you are warranted in making that supposition. Does that mean that it is true? Nope, there could be tons of noncombatants in there. But you can only make a decision based on the information available to you, because we are not omniscient. 

So I think it is more complicated than some of the objections I see here (and some of the affirmations). At the end of the day, from what I know, I think the dropping of the bombs in WWII is justifiable under Just War Theory. I don't know all the details. I do know that JWT is complicated. On a related question, I don't think that launching an ICBM at a civilian target with a nuclear warhead is justifiable (I think the use of nukes is in some cases, but not at civilian targets). But the question which needs to be addressed with WWII is whether or not those cities were truly civilian targets, or strategic/military targets. From what I know, they were military targets (a modern analogy might be the equivalence of a military base to a town - many military bases in the US have their own zip code, demonstrating that functionally they act as small towns - or at least try to). I also believe that there was a warning of the bombing, that allowed evacuation of noncombatants. So given the options, it seems like the use of the bombs was actually intended to (and did achieve) a closer obedience to the 6th commandment in that casualties were minimized in bringing the war to a conclusion. I'm happy to hear challenges to that, but it seems like an objection should address it from the perspective of JWT, and lay out what the "more just" course of action would have been. 

But this conversation drives me to look back into JWT more deeply, since it's been awhile since I specifically studied it. Speaking of: any book recommendations on the topic? I have a few on my shelf, but I think they're all secular sources.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Herald (Dec 28, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> I also believe strongly in self-defense but self-defense is always attacking the attacker and not non-combatants. I believe arguing that killing x civilians is justified since it saved x lives is a pragmatic argument rather than a biblical one. Could we not have destroyed those military targets without nuclear weapons? Were nuclear weapons an absolute "must" for self-defense?


The non-combatant issue was a foreign concept in the Japanese psyche. Douglas MacArthur understood this when he assumed command after the Japanese surrendered. There was still a very real possibility of a bloody guerrilla war if the American occupation of Japan did not go well. The point was already made that Japan would mobilize every person able to bear arms to fight an allied invasion of the Japanese main islands. This is what allied troops had to look forward to. And as if to make the point clearer, the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, and their "to-the-last-man" defense of Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa were precursors of what the Allies would face. This does not even take into account the brutal slaughter of Chinese civilians by the Japanese army prior to the United States involvement in the war. 

Armed with this knowledge, the United States was not making a pragmatic decision on whether to use nuclear weapons. Past Japanese atrocities turned pragmatism into certainty among United States and Allied commanders. None of this lessens the devastation that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 2


----------



## Andrew35 (Dec 28, 2021)

Huh. There are fewer unambiguous "yeses" in the poll than I would have thought. I wonder if this reflects a subtle shift in the popular war narrative.


----------



## bookslover (Dec 29, 2021)

Herald said:


> The non-combatant issue was a foreign concept in the Japanese psyche. Douglas MacArthur understood this when he assumed command after the Japanese surrendered. There was still a very real possibility of a bloody guerrilla war if the American occupation of Japan did not go well. The point was already made that Japan would mobilize every person able to bear arms to fight an allied invasion of the Japanese main islands. This is what allied troops had to look forward to. And as if to make the point clearer, the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, and their "to-the-last-man" defense of Iwo Jima, Saipan, and Okinawa were precursors of what the Allies would face. This does not even take into account the brutal slaughter of Chinese civilians by the Japanese army prior to the United States involvement in the war.
> 
> Armed with this knowledge, the United States was not making a pragmatic decision on whether to use nuclear weapons. Past Japanese atrocities turned pragmatism into certainty among United States and Allied commanders. None of this lessens the devastation that took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



Not to mention the Japanese military mindset of those times that came up with the concept of the kamikaze pilot - pilots getting into their planes and ramming them into American military ships to either damage or destroy them, and killing themselves in the process. No other nation engaged in that in either theater of the war, as far as I'm aware.

And the cruelty Japanese troops meted out to the POWs on the Bataan Death March.


----------



## Charles Johnson (Dec 29, 2021)

For what it's worth, Augustine seemed to think destruction of civilians was allowed by the laws of war, according to City of God Book 1.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 3


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 29, 2021)

Taylor said:


> Agreed, but that will never happen this side of Christ’s return. Until then, war is as inevitable as human sin, because there will always be a bloodthirsty maniac on the throne of some nation somewhere.


Isaiah 2:4? Micah 4:3?


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 29, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> Isaiah 2:4? Micah 4:3?


Matthew Henry on Micah 4:3 (emphasis mine):



> This is the mystery which God by the prophet here shows us, and he says the very same in the Mic. 4:1-3 of this chapter which another prophet said by the word of the Lord at the same time (Isa. 2:2-4), that _out of the mouth of these two witnesses_ these promises might be established; and very precious promises they are, relating to the gospel-church, which have been in part accomplished, and will be yet more and more, for he is faithful that has promised...
> 
> VII. That a disposition to mutual peace and love shall be the happy effect of the setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah: _They shall beat their swords into plough-shares_; that is, angry passionate men, that have been fierce and furious, shall be wonderfully sweetened, and made mild and meek, Titus 3:2, 3. Those who, before their conversion, did injuries, and would bear none, after their conversion can bear injuries, but will do none. As far as the gospel prevails it makes men peaceable, for such is _the wisdom from above_; it is _gentle and easy to be entreated_; and if nations were but leavened by it, there would be universal peace. When Christ was born there was universal peace in the Roman empire; those that were first brought into the gospel church were all of _one heart and of one soul_ (Acts 4:32); and it was observed of the primitive Christians how well _they loved one another_. *In heaven this will have its full accomplishment*.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 29, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> Matthew Henry on Micah 4:3 (emphasis mine):


I dont want to derail this thread, but not sure what this quote from Henry proves. I was only pointing out that there is scripture to support the view that there will be world peace at some point _before_ Christ returns. Henry doesn't refute that.


----------



## pgwolv (Dec 29, 2021)

Scottish Presbyterian said:


> I dont want to derail this thread, but not sure what this quote from Henry proves. I was only pointing out that there is scripture to support the view that there will be world peace at some point _before_ Christ returns. Henry doesn't refute that.


I guess you're referring to "When Christ was born there was universal peace in the Roman empire." I overlooked that, sorry.


----------



## Scottish Presbyterian (Dec 29, 2021)

pgwolv said:


> I guess you're referring to "When Christ was born there was universal peace in the Roman empire." I overlooked that, sorry.


No, actually I think Henry is missing the point there, but as I said, I don't want to derail this thread.


----------



## Rome2Geneva (Dec 29, 2021)

I voted: no. I take issue with the argument that many American soldiers would have lost their lives had we not dropped the bomb. The threat of dying in battle is in the nature of being in the military. You don't use the excuse of saving military lives as a justification for knowingly targeting civilians.

I saw an interview once with one of the pilots of the Enola Gay. He seemed quite pleased with himself when reminiscing on the 100s of thousands of civilians he vaporized. I recall feeling sick listening to him.

I know of nothing in Scripture that would justify this act as normative in war.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Dec 29, 2021)

Why Nagasaki? Hiroshima was an important military center to be sure, but not Nagasaki. Nagasaki was the most Christianized ( yeah, Catholic) city in all of Japan with essentially no military importance at all. 

You'll read old articles that it was the weather that made them change targets. Maybe. Is it possible that some demonic force was at work to try and destroy the oldest and most significant Christian presence in Japan? Since 1549 there were Christians, many of them brutally murdered over the centuries. 

I read an old book a while ago with first hand accounts of the bomb and afterwards......lots of priests and doctors and survivors. It was brutal beyond imagining and so many of the dead were Christian. There is no comparison with OT extermination of pagan cities. 

Why didn't we drop it on top of the Emperor's palace? Why of all the cities did our military choose ( as a backup) the most Christianized place in the entire nation? What was really going on in the unseen spiritual realm?


----------



## pmachapman (Dec 29, 2021)

Dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a war crime by the Allied forces against their own men and the Japanese people.

I have visited Nagasaki, and seen what remains of ground zero - the bomb was dropped directly on top of a prison camp filled with Allied soldiers. The Allied forces were notified where all of the prison camps were, and yet chose to ignore this information.

You could argue that Nagasaki was the secondary target (if memory serves me correctly, a city near Fukuoka was the primary but obscured by cloud), so this was by circumstance, and this was still a strategic port/industrial city (offshore coal mines, ship building), so it wasn't a completely civilian city.

However, I find this especially appalling, as this was the second bomb to be dropped - something I do not believe was necessary, and yet was done as a horrible experiment - note that a different type of bomb was used for each event ("little boy" and "fat man").

In addition, the Allies did not subject Hiroshima or Nagasaki to a lot of bombing prior in the war compared to other industrial centres - these cities felt they had got off comparatively lightly: further proof that this experiment was pre-meditated. The Allied Brass wanted to see what would happen if the atomic bomb was unleashed on populated and built up areas - something they could not test in the Nevada desert.

If the desire was a show of force, to threaten the Japanese military to back down "or else", they could have bombed anywhere else - already burned out Tokyo, a previously bombed industrial centre, even bombing Mt Fuji would have shown the Japanese the destructive power of the atom with minimal casualties, forcing capitulation.

I do think that solely bombing Hiroshima caused fewer fatalities for both Japanese and Allied forces than the planned all-out invasion, but for the reasons outlined above I think the death toll could have been reduced, and I especially think the bombing of Nagasaki was completely unjustified, as it was a pre-meditated experiment over and above its strategic military value.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager (Dec 29, 2021)

There is another angle to look at this and it ties into our concept of federal headship.

If we can believe that all of mankind falls because of Adam's sin, and that all the elect are saved because of Christ's work, it is not much of a stretch for me to similarly impute the sins of the nation onto the citizens themselves, or at least to acknowledge some kind of federal representation or connection. The citizens of Japan, _in some sense_, deserved destruction because of the actions of their leaders. And yes, I would argue the same about our western countries of today, which daily commit atrocities that are hidden from the public view.


----------



## Edward (Dec 29, 2021)

bookslover said:


> And the cruelty Japanese troops meted out to the POWs on the Bataan Death March.


Tame compared to some of the things that they did. Cannibalism of prisoners. Sometimes they killed the prisoners before butchering them and dining; sometimes they started cutting off parts for dinner from the still living prisoners. 

When it came to raping female prisioners, the Japanese could keep up with the Soviets. 

Slaughtering patients, doctors, and nurses at captured hospitals. Compared to the Japanse, the SS was downright honorable St. Elizabeth's at the battle of Arnheim. The Japanese were inhuman beasts at Alexandra Hospital in Singapore.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 4


----------



## Edward (Dec 29, 2021)

pmachapman said:


> the bomb was dropped directly on top of a prison camp filled with Allied soldiers. The Allied forces were notified where all of the prison camps were, and yet chose to ignore this information.
> 
> You could argue that Nagasaki was the secondary target (if memory serves me correctly, a city near Fukuoka was the primary but obscured by cloud),


Let's mix some facts into that. 

First, the primary target was Kokura. Nagasaki was the secondary. Kokura was obscured by a mix of clouds and smoke - some from a nearby raid which had occured earlier, some from a factory intentionally generating smoke. 

The bomb itself landed about 2 miles from the actual target point. (The epicenter was a tennis court, not a filled prison camp.)

And let's talk about that so-called "prison camp filled with Allied soldiers". POWs killed in the bombing included one Brit and seven Dutch POWs. On the other hand, one American and 24 Australians survived. Must have been a really tiny camp on that tennis court. 



pmachapman said:


> Dropping the bomb on Nagasaki was a war crime


As I noted in an earlier post, Nagasaki had less than half as many deaths as the firebomb raid on Tokyo 5 months earlier.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 5


----------



## chuckd (Dec 30, 2021)

A couple of random thoughts.

When the U.S. declared war on Japan, what did they declare war on? The Emperor? It’s military? The entire population? It’s land?

If an American soldier walked down the streets of Nagasaki, how would its civilians greet him?

All civilians are potential militia, but that doesn’t mean we can kill them indiscriminately.


----------



## KMK (Dec 30, 2021)

I think it is more accurate to say the US (not the Allies) dropped the bomb. Due to a secret agreement between Roosevelt and Churchill, the US had to ask for Britain's consent, but not Russia's. Truman's diary reveals that he casually mentioned a new bomb to Stalin at Potsdam, but gave no specifics, nor asked for consent.


----------



## KMK (Dec 30, 2021)

And I admire Truman's decision, BTW. World wars kill a lot of people. That's why they are to be avoided.


----------



## De Jager (Dec 30, 2021)

One can also point out that Japan started the whole deal with an unprovoked attack.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Dec 30, 2021)

De Jager said:


> One can also point out that Japan started the whole deal with an unprovoked attack.



Well, it debatable as to whether or not it was "unprovoked". Different people put different definitions or thresholds on what exactly counts as a "provocation". The US was heavily sanctioning Japan and enacting embargoes because of Japan's moves in China etc.

Did these things merit a sneak attack against Pearl Harbor? I wouldn't say so, but the US wasn't just off in the corner minding its own business and then got attacked for no reason at all.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 30, 2021)

I used to think that neither bomb was morally justifiable. It's a lot more complicated, however, than the simple principle of not attacking civilians, which I think is an excellent principle for just war theory. Some responses that complicate this have already been made (imprecise technology, leaflets dropped, etc.). I don't think it is a just argument to go from fewer US military casualties straight to a justified bomb. I do think it is more cogent to go from _fewer Japanese civilian_ casualties to the bomb. The Japanese did not believe in just war theory. It is all very well for one side to adhere to it as best they can. From what I have seen, the US tried to do that. But it is almost certain that millions of Japanese civilians would have died in a homeland invasion of Japan. The Japanese of the day were much like Muslim radicals in using civilians as shields. The Japanese knew about our just way theory, and, in effect, used their civilians as shields for the military, instead of the other way around, as is proper. How to end the war, then? The bomb presented itself as the way to end the war quickest. Even Nagasaki, then, could have an argument about it that goes like this: "Japan, this is what will happen to your civilians on a much larger scale if you don't surrender." This is the kind of language Japan understood at the time, and it was convincing. It is a tragic testimony to the viciousness of human sin that such things happened. But to blame the US for war crimes on this issue does not take into account the completely different approach to war that Japan had from the US. 

I think a fair number of people have hinted at the problem of nuke versus conventional bombs, which, in the case of Tokyo and Dresden, did more damage in the aggregate than the nukes did, but people tend to put the atomic bomb in a completely separate category from all other bombs, because just one of them can cause so much destruction. We need to stop putting the atom bomb in a completely separate category than conventional weapons, even if the world does not do this. Just because it is more powerful does not mean it is a completely different question than conventional bombing, especially when considering the lack of precision in WW2.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Dec 30, 2021)

It could be argued that Japanese atrocities in China alone deserved an atomic bomb.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Dec 30, 2021)

If one wants to talk about Allied war crimes in World War II, one could get more traction out of the British terror bombing of Germany or the US mustard gas in Italy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 30, 2021)

Plenty has been said about the so-called pragmatism of avoiding further casualties, and that civilian deaths are preferably avoided in war.

Is it possible that that is a simplistic Western approach to the topic? Try looking at things from the perspective of the subjects of the Japanese Empire. Consider that the bombs put a swift end to an evil régime.

The Chinese suffered unspeakable horrors under the Japanese. The Rape of Nanking is a famous incident, and hardly an isolated one. Countless Koreans were enslaved by the Japanese. Promised well-paying factory jobs, they were sent to prison islands and were often never given any wages. Young girls (Korean as well as Chinese, Filipina, and others) were forced into sex slavery to serve the Japanese soldiers on the Chinese front. In Korea itself, once an independent kingdom, but reduced in 1910 to the Japanese province of Cho-sen, press freedom was tightly restricted, and, in the 1930s, even the Korean language was curtailed, to the point that every Korean was required to speak Japanese in schools. They were also made to worship the Emperor. I’ll add that Korean Christians (mostly in the area of modern Pyeongyang) were persecuted for refusing to worship the Emperor. Anyone who stood up to the Japanese colonial government was likely to be tortured and killed.

There was of course a lively Korean independence movement, and a provisional government-in-exile in China. However, the Japanese were simply too strong; had the bombs not been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Korea’s liberation from brutal colonial occupation would never have been achieved.

Korea celebrates its independence day on August 15th, six days after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 30, 2021)

My grandmother was German. She lived and suffered through World War II. Her own sister was raped by a Russian soldier.

Oma used to say that Germany got what it deserved. They wandered far from God, they put themselves under wicked leaders, and they suffered the consequences.

I do wonder what Japanese Christians might say about the nuclear bombs.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Dec 30, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> once an independent kingdom


One of the Korean princes was on the senior military staff at Nagasaki. He didn't survive. 

Maybe it's time to talk about the Japanese atomic bomb program, since the heavy water facility was located in Korea 

(Interistingly, the separator facility in Tokyo was destroyed in the March firebomb raid, disrupting the atomic bomb program. 

Evidence isn't clear on whether the Japanese were actually able to assemble and test an atomic bomb in Korea; government officials dispute contemporary published reports, and the Soviets blocked access to the area. So determining how far the Japs got with their program depends on whether you trust news reports from the mid-1940s or more recent Department of Energy sources.


----------



## Edward (Dec 30, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> Japanese Christians


A rather scarce commodity, that.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 30, 2021)

Edward said:


> One of the Korean princes was on the senior military staff at Nagasaki. He didn't survive.


I did not know that. I just looked him up. Yi U. 

Well before 1945, the Korean royals had been absorbed into Japanese the imperial family. The last king of Joseon was Sunjong, a Japanese puppet installed in place of his somewhat more stalwart father. (The Japanese deposed him anyway in 1910, favouring more direct colonial rule.) Sunjong was married to a Japanese princess. Their marriage was said to be a happy one, in spite of its apparently political purpose. Their descendants today live in America.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Morgan (Dec 30, 2021)

Being in the military, I would say that 99% of what is done cannot be justified biblically much less an atomic bomb. Trying to justify civilian deaths by "possible" greater numbers of deaths if it had not been done is not the answer either. I was lost when I was in the military, my views are totally different now. Many things that go on in our military, especially during war, are not common knowledge. There is very little I can justify biblically. I know a guy that kept a ring (meant to write necklace) of human appendages during Vietnam, yes, he had pictures of it. War just allows depraved men to be more depraved. Is a military necessary? I think so but there is s much evil and sin involved in all of it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## pmachapman (Dec 31, 2021)

Edward said:


> Must have been a really tiny camp on that tennis court.


Apologies if my facts were wrong, I am working of my memory of a visit there several years ago. I walked around the leveled camp and remember walking to the marker for the epicenter. I don't remember it being 2 miles but I am sure Google has a better memory than me.

I stand by my statement that the second bomb dropping was unnecessary and done primarily for experimental purposes rather than strategic.

Visiting the bomb museum was one of the most sobering experiences I have ever done. You end your museum tour with a map showing the number of nukes in every country. Only two or three countries had their numbers scratched out and incremented. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover those countries.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 31, 2021)

pmachapman said:


> Apologies if my facts were wrong, I am working of my memory of a visit there several years ago. I walked around the leveled camp and remember walking to the marker for the epicenter. I don't remember it being 2 miles but I am sure Google has a better memory than me.
> 
> I stand by my statement that the second bomb dropping was unnecessary and done primarily for experimental purposes rather than strategic.
> 
> Visiting the bomb museum was one of the most sobering experiences I have ever done. You end your museum tour with a map showing the number of nukes in every country. Only two or three countries had their numbers scratched out and incremented. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover those countries.


Is it possible that there’s some bias on display at that museum? The Japanese government has made a point of exaggerating their people’s victimhood. Most Japanese today have no idea of the atrocities committed in the name of the Japanese Empire.

Reactions: Like 6 | Informative 2


----------



## Edward (Dec 31, 2021)

pmachapman said:


> I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover those countries.


South Africa under white leadership dismantled its bombs. I would expect that Israel has expanded its capacity. 

Question - do you also believe what you were taught in school?


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 31, 2021)

It is telling that much of the public debate didn't develop until after the war generation started passing away.* Those engaged in the war wanted to stop it. Right then. People who served in the Pacific (like my father in law) were convinced the Japanese would not stop fighting because the Kamikaze attacks demonstrated a culture that would fight to the death. They also knew that the Japanese readily blended civilian with military, such as when they approached "fishing" vessels that suddenly opened fire. They also knew that getting a foothold on any island (and Japan is a bunch of islands) required sending waves of men into meat grinders. (Think about repeating Normandy on a smaller scale again and again.) What's most telling is that Japan did not stop the war after the first bomb. * I realize the scientists debated the potential use of these weapons.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## pmachapman (Dec 31, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> Is it possible that there’s some bias on display at that museum? The Japanese government has made a point of exaggerating their people’s victimhood. Most Japanese today have no idea of the atrocities committed in the name of the Japanese Empire.


There is a bias - to me one imposed by the Allied occupation, rather than from the Japanese govt. The feeling I got from the museum was not one of Japanese victimhood, but human despair and warning.

EDIT: And yes you are right that there is little recognition or apology for the atrocities committed during the war (at least as far as my experience is concerned), although that museum was not a place for those things to be discussed. I unfortunately am yet to visit the Tokyo Imperial War Museum, so cannot comment on how the war is officially portrayed by the Japanese govt.

The Allied occupation effected many forced changes in Japanese culture and law during the re-education, one interesting enough was a law banning any form of mandatory medical procedure (I assume because of Unit 731), a law which has made the news recently. There has always been kickback in parts of Japanese society against the post-war changes - when I was there, I saw a "patriotic truck" driving around flying flags and playing songs from the war to the effect of "kick out the foreigners". I even bought an Iron Cross from a rather proud old man in a Tokyo flea market for a couple of dollars as he waxed glowingly about his side in the war.



Edward said:


> Question - do you also believe what you were taught in school?


Depends. My minor was in History at University, however since becoming a Christian after graduating 15+ years ago, I have spent most of my time re-evaluating and critiquing what I learned.

I have spoken to German and Japanese men to hear their side of what went on in the war, gone through my wife's grandfather's disturbing personal photos of Dachau as he went about resettling the prisoners, and listened to my grandfathers' explaining all the lies in the history books regarding the Allied side in both wars, backed by their own witness and evidence. I now know why they never talked about it until much later in life.

I am currently going through my wife's grandfather's papers (he was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the war and afterwards was appointed to the UNRRA), and have discovered that many of the problems and current events that are flowering now were germinated in the war/post-war period. Some people and organisations play the long game.



jwithnell said:


> They also knew that getting a foothold on any island (and Japan is a bunch of islands) required sending waves of men into meat grinders.


I fully agree. Meat grinders for both sides - and so I think that atomic weaponry was immediately more humane for the Japanese than an invasion. I argue only that it could have been used more humanely and potentially achieved the same outcome.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Edward (Dec 31, 2021)

Trench warfare in World War I was a war crime for which many of the European generals should have been executed.


----------



## pmachapman (Dec 31, 2021)

Edward said:


> Trench warfare in World War I was a war crime for which many of the European generals should have been executed.


Yes, my paternal grandfather was 14 when he went to the Somme with the Durham Light Infantry (via an altered birth certificate), and after emigrating to Canada was perma-banned from the Royal Canadian Legion for stating the General Haig should have been tried as a war criminal. It humbled me as a snotty teenager to think that my grandfather underwent far worse than I was at that age.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Dec 31, 2021)

Edward said:


> Trench warfare in World War I was a war crime for which many of the European generals should have been executed.



When I was watching a film about Winston Churchill, my mum came into the room and remarked, "Granda said he should have been hung for what he did to the men." I presumed he said that owing to the debacle at Gallipoli. Only several years later did I find out that he had fought at Gallipoli.


----------



## TheInquirer (Dec 31, 2021)

It might be helpful to get a better idea of what nuclear blasts do to people to put some more concrete on the concept. The Infographic Show just released a horrific video with the gory details - 



 or if you don't like that there is plenty other resources. Now imagine the flesh melting off of kids, them screaming in uncontrollable pain, or the horrendous suffering of drinking contaminated water that burns you from the inside out. 

Yeah some of the Japanese soldiers were monsters. But Japanese kids??

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 31, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> Yeah some of the Japanese soldiers were monsters. But Japanese kids??


Civilian deaths, including the deaths of children, are a consequence of war, and in WWII Japan was clearly an aggressor. One could argue that Japan’s leaders brought this on their own people, or, perhaps, that even though the atomic bombs demonstrate an excessive use of force, the United States is not squarely to blame.

I have from my grandparents a lengthy catalogue of atrocities committed by the Allies, which were then largely erased by Allied propaganda. Still I say that the German goverment, and the German people, brought the war, and the accompanying death, suffering, and destruction, on themselves.

No one is arguing that suffering and death of civilians are desirable. But, in war, some civilian deaths - even deaths of children - are somewhat inevitable.

I do not justify the atomic bombs. I am not decided on whether their use was morally permissible. The effects certainly were horrific, but the result _was_ a very swift end to a costly war, and the fall of an evil régime. That is not a pragmatic “We stopped more probable deaths.” The end of the Japanese Empire halted evil on a massive scale. The Japanese needed to be stopped, and fast.

Focusing on civilian deaths obscures the issue, and misdirects the blame.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Morgan (Dec 31, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> It might be helpful to get a better idea of what nuclear blasts do to people to put some more concrete on the concept. The Infographic Show just released a horrific video with the gory details -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not sure how the killing of any non combatant can be justified biblically. I had a CNWDI (critical nuclear weapons design information) clearance in the military so I saw pictures of radiation poisoning and heard accounts of it during my nuclear training. This is just one aspect of the horrific and sinful things that occur during war and within the military, I could give more examples but I will not. I cannot recommend any Christian that is not mature and firm in their faith to enter our military, I have seen what it can do to the weak and lost.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Morgan (Dec 31, 2021)

Tom Hart said:


> Civilian deaths, including the deaths of children, are a consequence of war, and in WWII Japan was clearly an aggressor. One could argue that Japan’s leaders brought this on their own people, or, perhaps, that even though the atomic bombs demonstrate an excessive use of force, the United States is not squarely to blame.
> 
> I have from my grandparents a lengthy catalogue of atrocities committed by the Allies, which were then largely erased by Allied propaganda. Still I say that the German goverment, and the German people, brought the war, and the accompanying death, suffering, and destruction, on themselves.
> 
> ...


Are you speaking from a world perspective or biblical? Maybe there are things I can learn from those here on how any non combatant death is justified biblically. Just because death is inevitable does not make it morally correct from a Christian perspective from anything I have ever run across in scripture but perhaps I will be corrected.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 31, 2021)

Morgan said:


> Are you speaking from a world perspective or biblical? Maybe there are things I can learn from those here on how any non combatant death is justified biblically. Just because death is inevitable does not make it morally correct from a Christian perspective from anything I have ever run across in scripture but perhaps I will be corrected.


I am not justifying the deaths of civilians. I said they are practically unavoidable. People get caught in the crossfire. It matters who started firing to begin with, and why.


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 31, 2021)

Morgan said:


> Just because death is inevitable does not make it morally correct from a Christian perspective from anything I have ever run across in scripture


This raises an important question. If civilian deaths are practically unavoidable, and they are still morally wrong, then is it not the case that war must necessarily be avoided?


----------



## Tom Hart (Dec 31, 2021)

pmachapman said:


> There is a bias - to me one imposed by the Allied occupation, rather than from the Japanese govt. The feeling I got from the museum was not one of Japanese victimhood, but human despair and warning.


You might want to make yourself familiar with the content of Japanese history textbooks. There’s plenty said on the subject of the atomic bombs. Nothing of Nanking or the countless sex slaves abused by the Japanese soldiers.

Frankly, I wouldn’t trust the facts presented by the Japanese government. The nationalist propaganda is laid on a bit thick over there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

