# Hiroshima and suicide bombers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 22, 2005, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876 "2005-09-22T13:48:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/81 "2005-09-24T13:35:44Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > O.K., you lost me here. Are you trying to say we had to nuke them because they might kill themselves if we didn’t? Of course not. However, in addition to all of the other ways that Japanese civilians would have died in a continuation of a conventional invasion and its trappings, there would be this. It is difficult now to have a feel for the mindset of the war in the Pacific. Both adversaries thought of the other as almost an entirely different species and the other species was reprehensible. Racism wasn’t the reason for dropping the A bomb (German cities were subjected to the same area bombing as were the Japanese) but there was plenty of racism on both sides in the Pacific. Criticism of dropping the A bomb on the grounds of civilians killed entirely ignores the civilian casualties resulting from a continuation of the war by conventional means. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/82 "2005-09-24T16:22:44Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Sure you don’t want to change your name to Golden\_Goose88? **I’m** sure that you do not want to make this sort of suggestion in **GD** (and probably not on the SDMB). [/Moderator Mode] ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/83 "2005-09-24T22:58:24Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > Criticism of dropping the A bomb on the grounds of civilians killed entirely ignores the civilian casualties resulting from a continuation of the war by conventional means. I’m not saying there aren’t any good arguments for using the A-bomb, but I find that particular arugment rather specious. Sure, you could say that conventional weapons _combined_ had killed more civilians _up to that point_, but I don’t believe any single use of a conventional weapon killed as many civilians as a single use of an atomic bomb (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong and I’ll gladly retract), and to say that we _would have_ killed more Japanese civilians if we didn’t use the A-bomb is mere speculation. Let’s not kid ourselves; the main reason for using it was to prevent further _American_ casualties. And of course all arguments for using the A-bomb need to be weighed agains the undeniable fact that being the first to use an atomic weapon set a horrible precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Golden\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Golden\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Golden_Goose)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/84 "2005-09-24T23:55:48Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 88 stands for “HH” (since H is 8th letter), and HH stands for “Heil Hitler” . It’s a kind of code sometimes used by neo-nazis. Wow, I didn’t think Lemur’s reference was so sinister. Notice in my arguments that I’ve been condemning ISRAEL and I haven’t said _anything_ about Jews or the Jewish religion. I obviously have nothing against Jewish people…but I do have a problem with ISRAEL. Why can’t people like Lemur differeniate between the two?? I HATE it when someone condemns Israel, they are automatically assumed to be anti-semites or nazi supporters. This seems like the easy way out of an argument (very similar to when people talk against the Iraqi occupation and the neo-cons always calls them unpatriotic, etc.). ---
**Author:** ![Golden\_Goose](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/258eb7/32.png) [@Golden\_Goose](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Golden_Goose)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/85 "2005-09-25T00:02:44Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > 88 stands for “HH” (since H is 8th letter), and HH stands for “Heil Hitler” . It’s a kind of code sometimes used by neo-nazis. Trust me, if Lemur knew my ethnicity he’d know that I’m not a neo-nazi or anything close to that (Hitler would have put me in the concentration camps as well) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/86 "2005-09-25T01:03:24Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > I’m not saying there aren’t any good arguments for using the A-bomb, but I find that particular arugment rather specious. Sure, you could say that conventional weapons _combined_ had killed more civilians _up to that point_, but I don’t believe any single use of a conventional weapon killed as many civilians as a single use of an atomic bomb (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong and I’ll gladly retract), and to say that we _would have_ killed more Japanese civilians if we didn’t use the A-bomb is mere speculation. Let’s not kid ourselves; the main reason for using it was to prevent further _American_ casualties. And of course all arguments for using the A-bomb need to be weighed agains the undeniable fact that being the first to use an atomic weapon set a horrible precedent. I’m not saying that the A bomb should be justified solely on the basis of saving Japanese civilians lives because that wasn’t the main justification at the time. However, it is attacked on that basis and I feel that it should be mentioned that the civilian deaths from the bomb are no different from those resulting from conventional bombing. The idea that just because the A bomb deaths were all at once they somehow are worse than an equal or geater number spread out over several months leaves me cold. I really don’t see the difference. Here is an article on the [bombing of Hamburg](http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/july-aug-03/deats.html). If you can say that being roasted in a firestorm is somehow better than being incinerated instantly then more power to you. Author Kurt Vonnegut was in on the cleanup of Dresden as a POW. He spoke of piling up corpses on the street for disposal and likened them to “jumbo fried grasshoppers.” And yes, the projected deaths from continuing the war by conventional means can’t be proved. However, the history of the firebombing of Japanese cities is hard to ignore. There isn’t much reason to believe that those death rates wouldn’t have continued. The people simply couldn’t have been widely dispersed enough to lower the rates much and still have a cohesive work force to continue the operation of the nation in order to continue their defense. I really think that calling such projections based on known casualty rates during the bombing campaign “mere speculation” is completely unjustifiable. The A bomb was, and is, a terrible weapon and changed the nature of warfare. In fact, for all but the totally mad it made total war along the lines of WWII unthinkable and I’m not sure that’s all bad. I do not believe that Truman or the US need apologize over its use. ---
**Author:** ![unophobia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/41988e/32.png) [@unophobia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unophobia)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/87 "2005-09-25T01:35:01Z")
> [@The New Guy](#): > > I’m not saying there aren’t any good arguments for using the A-bomb, but I find that particular arugment rather specious. Sure, you could say that conventional weapons _combined_ had killed more civilians _up to that point_, but I don’t believe any single use of a conventional weapon killed as many civilians as a single use of an atomic bomb (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong and I’ll gladly retract), and to say that we _would have_ killed more Japanese civilians if we didn’t use the A-bomb is mere speculation. Let’s not kid ourselves; the main reason for using it was to prevent further _American_ casualties. And of course all arguments for using the A-bomb need to be weighed agains the undeniable fact that being the first to use an atomic weapon set a horrible precedent. Before the final Battle of Tokyo–more like the bombing of the island, there was a battle of Okinawa. Took three months to take over this sliver of an island, with massive casualties on both sides, especially Japanese. And most of the casualties were over the last 25-50 sqare miles, even after heavy bombardment. Imagine if there were fighting in that scale over an area 1000 times its size. That was the grim task facing Truman. Not saying whether he was right or wrong, but he was very mindful of Patton’s credo ‘Let the enemy die for his country’, and decided to implement it in the most horrific, brutally efficient way possible. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/88 "2005-09-25T03:08:55Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > The bombing of Hiroshima was one event in the “total war” of WWII: both sides were going to do just about anything to each other in order to win. Of course, each side thought that it’s _cause_ was justified and thus its methods were therefore justified. The enemy was evil because his cause was evil, not because his methods were evil (but of course there was war atrocity propaganda too). Here we have symmetry. I’m not sure I see the symmetry here. Were the Japanese terror bombing American civilians at this point in the war? Did the Japanese ever terror-bomb American civilians after Pearl Harbor? ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/89 "2005-09-25T05:11:13Z")
As to the OP question about the comparison of the A bombing of Hiroshima and suicide bombers, the answer isn’t as clear cut as might be assumed at first thought. As I wrote previously, British Air Chief Marshal Portal proposed night area bombing with the goal of breaking the morale of German civilians which would greatly reduce their effectiveness as the source of logistical support of the Wehrmacht. In October 1940, Portal was appointed as Chief of the Air Staff with the rank of Air Chief Marshal [Portal’s actions](http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Charles_Portal%2C_1st_Viscount_Portal_of_Hungerford) and the background for them. > [@](#): > > In August 1941 he received a report of the relative inefficiency of RAF daytime raids and proposed area bombing by night. To implement his directive he replaced the chief of bomber command, Air Chief Marshal Richard Peirse, with Arthur Harris. The new policy caused 600.000 civilian casualties in Germany and also the loss of 57,142 men in bomber crews due to heavy anti-aircraft fire. > > The coming of area bombardment during the Second World War was an inevitable consequence of the position in Europe at the end of 1942. The British were being defeated on all fronts, and the only effective way they had to strike back at the Axis forces was by air bombardment. However, as Luftwaffe air superiority meant that the RAF’s bombers could only operate over Germany at night, precision bombing was impossible for them. [The purpose of the area bombardment of cities](http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Area_bombardment) was laid out in a British Air Staff paper, dated September 23, 1941: > [@](#): > > The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger. The immediate aim, is therefore, twofold, namely, to produce (i) destruction and (ii) fear of death. This plan was agreed upon by the US and Britain at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943 with the addition of US day bombardment added to the British night attacks. The situation that the US and Britain combined faced in 1943 was the same as the British alone faced in 1941. Aerial bombing was the only possible way to attack Germany and would be for a considerable time. The same method applied to Japan. We couldn’t attack Japan by land or sea at the time so aerial bombing was the only choice. The methods used there were duplicates of those in Europe. In fact, near the end of the war, the B-29 groups stopped most daylight bombing and went to area incendiary bombing at night from about 8-10000 ft. altitude. I think that there is a difference between the WWII strategic bombing campaigns, of which I think the A bombings were a part, and suicide bombers killing of civilians but the difference seems to be so subtle that I have trouble putting my finger on it. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/90 "2005-09-25T07:46:32Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > **The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it.** To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must **make the people conscious of constant personal danger**. Isn’t that what suicide bombers want to achieve too? But of course, it sounds more fancy when a general says it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 8:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/91 "2005-09-25T08:47:35Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I’m not saying that the A bomb should be justified solely on the basis of saving Japanese civilians lives because that wasn’t the main justification at the time. Then we agree. > [@](#): > > The idea that just because the A bomb deaths were all at once they somehow are worse than an equal or geater number spread out over several months leaves me cold. I really don’t see the difference. Again, I’m not saying there aren’t any arguments to support the decision to use the bomb in WWII, but I do believe there’s a difference. While, from what I understand, they weren’t exactly sure how devastating a weapon they had created, they certainly understood that it represented an unprecedented power to destroy that would change the world forever. I do think there’s a difference between causing widespread destruction over months or years vs. doing it in an instant. Besides that, we can’t have known for a fact that Japan would have surrendered even after the second bomb. How many A-bombs _might_ we have dropped? > [@](#): > > Here is an article on the [bombing of Hamburg](http://www.forusa.org/fellowship/july-aug-03/deats.html). If you can say that being roasted in a firestorm is somehow better than being incinerated instantly then more power to you. I visited the A-bomb museum when I was in Nagasaki. They have lots of pictures of the aftermath. Suffice it to say that the people who were incinerated instantly were the _lucky_ ones. Many of the survivors probably would gladly have traded their fate for being roasted in a firestorm. > [@](#): > > Author Kurt Vonnegut was in on the cleanup of Dresden as a POW. He spoke of piling up corpses on the street for disposal and likened them to “jumbo fried grasshoppers.” I’m a big Vonnegut fan. > [@](#): > > And yes, the projected deaths from continuing the war by conventional means can’t be proved. However, the history of the firebombing of Japanese cities is hard to ignore. There isn’t much reason to believe that those death rates wouldn’t have continued. The people simply couldn’t have been widely dispersed enough to lower the rates much and still have a cohesive work force to continue the operation of the nation in order to continue their defense. I really think that calling such projections based on known casualty rates during the bombing campaign “mere speculation” is completely unjustifiable. I don’t think you can say so with that much certainty. You are looking at the situation with 20/20 hindsight, knowing when Japan surrendered. At the time, there was no certainty as to the time differential between when Japan might surrender if things continued the same vs. dropping the A-bomb. I’m not arguing that death rates wouldn’t have continued; I’m saying they didn’t know for a fact how long the _war_ would continue. You cannot state as a certainty that more Japanese would have died were the A-bomb not used. > [@](#): > > The A bomb was, and is, a terrible weapon and changed the nature of warfare. In fact, for all but the totally mad it made total war along the lines of WWII unthinkable and I’m not sure that’s all bad. I do not believe that Truman or the US need apologize over its use. Well we’re getting into a much broader argument now. As I’ve said repeatedly, I acknowledge that there are reasonable arguments to support the decision. I will say this, though - being the first and only nation to ever use a nuclear weapon puts the U.S. in a much less tenable position when it comes to stopping nuclear proliferation in the world. ---
**Author:** ![The\_New\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@The\_New\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_New_Guy)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/92 "2005-09-25T08:50:29Z")
> [@unophobia](#): > > Before the final Battle of Tokyo–more like the bombing of the island, there was a battle of Okinawa. Took three months to take over this sliver of an island, with massive casualties on both sides, especially Japanese. And most of the casualties were over the last 25-50 sqare miles, even after heavy bombardment. Imagine if there were fighting in that scale over an area 1000 times its size. That was the grim task facing Truman. > > Not saying whether he was right or wrong, but he was very mindful of Patton’s credo ‘Let the enemy die for his country’, and decided to implement it in the most horrific, brutally efficient way possible. I don’t disagree with you at all. If you believe me to be saying that I think Truman took the decision lightly, you didn’t understand me. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/93 "2005-09-25T12:52:16Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > I do not believe that Truman or the US need apologize over its use. Do you think states that sponsor suicide bombers need to apologize for it? ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/94 "2005-09-25T13:03:30Z")
> [@David Simmons](#): > > The A bomb was, and is, a terrible weapon and changed the nature of warfare. In fact, for all but the totally mad it made total war along the lines of WWII unthinkable and I’m not sure that’s all bad. But you are judging this with perfect hindsight. The people who dropped the bomb did not know that it would make “total war along the lines of WWII unthinkable”. They just knew that they had an extremely powerful weapon that would kill a lot of civilians and scare Japan into surrender. So, we cannot credit any later benefits of using the bomb to those people. For all we know, 9/11 could have the following future benefits: It made people aware that you cannot simply fight people in their far away lands and expect to live in peace back at home, because some fanatics will bring the war to your homeland. In the long run, that may influence how all countries practice foreign policy in such a way as to make the world a better place. But, can we credit the 9/11 bombers for that? Of course not. They were simply trying to kill as many people as possible while destroying major US landmarks to affect the morale of US citizens. They deserve no “future credit”. Similarly, the people who dropped the bomb deserve no “future credit”. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/95 "2005-09-25T13:57:32Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Do you think states that sponsor suicide bombers need to apologize for it? It would follow that I don’t think they do, wouldn’t it? The whole messy scenario of the decision to use strategic bombing in WWII shows me that war is only the lesser of a whole bunch of evils by a vanishingly small margin. It should only be resorted to in really desperate situations and never gone into thoughtlessly because of what some presumed, and only potential, enemy _might_ do. It is quite difficult to wait to go to war until an enemy is at the very gates and pounding on them if you maintain a large, permanent military force. The Framers appear to have had an aversion to large standing armies. For example, funds to maintain the military have to be reappropiated by every Congress since they can only be good for two years. This gives the Congress the opportunity to say, “How come we’re spending all this money?” Unfortunately it also provides an incentive to use the military so as to justify the appropriations. Of course, in 1789 it took a lot longer than now for an attacking force to reach us, giving us more time to prepare. I think that suicide bombers are an ineffective means to whatever end it is that the sponsors have in mind. On the other hand, the strategic bombing of WWII was also ineffective in achieving its aims. The postwar analysis of the effectiveness of strategic bombing showed that pretty clearly. However, you can only use the methods that you can think of and for which have the resources. These are all complexities for which I have no answer. After all I can’t be expected to think of everything.\ > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by David Simmons > > The A bomb was, and is, a terrible weapon and changed the nature of warfare. In fact, for all but the totally mad it made total war along the lines of WWII unthinkable and I’m not sure that’s all bad. > > But you are judging this with perfect hindsight. The people who dropped the bomb did not know that it would make “total war along the lines of WWII unthinkable”. > > They just knew that they had an extremely powerful weapon that would kill a lot of civilians and scare Japan into surrender. > > So, we cannot credit any later benefits of using the bomb to those people. I wasn’t intending to give the WWII leaders any credit for this. Merely pointing it out as one consequence. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by David Simmons > > > > “The ultimate aim of an attack on a town area is to break the morale of the population which occupies it. To ensure this, we must achieve two things: first, we must make the town physically uninhabitable and, secondly, we must make the people conscious of constant personal danger.” > > Isn’t that what suicide bombers want to achieve too? > > But of course, it sounds more fancy when a general says it. Air Chief Marshall which is way, way up there above a mere General. You misunderstand me. I wasn’t citing Portal’s plan with approval. With 20-20 hidsight it is possible to assess the whole WWII strategic air campaign as a costly blunder on the part of the leadership. At the start daylight raids were impossible to maintain because of losses of bombers to defenses. This was also true of our 8th AF until someone invented droppable fuel tanks. And even then merely bombing cities to scare people and keep thim awake didn’t dimish German war production. Finally, near the end of the war all air attacks by the US were against transportation facilites and that was effective. It doesn’t make any difference how much materiel or how large an army you have. If you can’t move them to where they are needed you might as well not have them. ---
**Author:** ![unophobia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/41988e/32.png) [@unophobia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/unophobia)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2005, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/96 "2005-09-25T15:04:15Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > They just knew that they had an extremely powerful weapon that would kill a lot of civilians and scare Japan into surrender. > > So, we cannot credit any later benefits of using the bomb to those people. The scariest part of it: The Japanese were mostly not scared at all, even after the 2 nukes. The generals were squabbling about responses, including going total kamikaze against the US fleet. Hirohito thankfully put an end to the madness. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2005, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876/97 "2005-09-26T19:32:23Z")
> [@I Love Me](#): > > I’m not sure I see the symmetry here. Were the Japanese terror bombing American civilians at this point in the war? Did the Japanese ever terror-bomb American civilians after Pearl Harbor? The symmetry lies in both sides being engaged in a conflict in which they are willing to do anything to the other side to win. Japan would have bombed the US had it been able. But my original argument is more general and is not limited to this particular case. Either way, I say that civilian bombing is morally wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hiroshima-and-suicide-bombers/322876.md?page=4)