This one comes up a lot. The simple answer being that the Trinity bomb test took place AFTER Nazi Germany surrendered. Some debate this. Some also argue that we’re it ready- we wouldn’t have used the bomb on Germany anyway. We can’t really say. There was a very strong racism towards the Japanese- regardless of them being an enemy. That is true. It’s also true that while Italians and Irish and other Europeans faced racism in America, and sometimes still do- we can’t really compare racism against Asians, against “blacks” or “Latinos” or islanders, or ethnic Europeans or the Jewish in America. The roots and circumstances and expressions and effects of those different feelings and what cane of them is different for each.
But what I can say is this: Germany didn’t make a good target for the bomb regardless. We had a good idea what the bombs would do- but not a complete picture. With Europe being full of allies and neutral parties in close proximity, with allied troops and anti axis forces on the ground- there would already be a big difference to Japan, where not only did we have no troops or allied troops- but effectively no known sympathetic and organized militant resistance to the enemy.
More so- we knew the people of Japan to be indoctrinated and literally, from knowledge of the time- to believe their emperor a living god. We knew they had orders to fight to the last or kill them selves- civilians included- and had seen and been traumatized by watching soldiers and civilians do so.
Japan was also an island- or series of islands anyway- far away from any allied countries or non enemy nations- and thusly not going to pose the danger of any peoples of friendly countries or neutral parties citizens being effected by the bomb.
Now- it’s not all patriotism and practicality. Another big difference with Japan was that they still had many buildings made in the traditional style of Japan- paper and wood. The allies had already fire bombed Japan causing massive casualties. The terrain of the targets selected was near as optimal as practical to magnify the shock wave of the blast. In other words- to some degree it is almost certain the decision to bomb Japan wasn’t just about WW2- but it was about making the largest spectacle, the most horrible demonstration of our new weapon; so the world could see and fear its power- in a way- a move to end the Third World War before it started. Who would start such a war again if they knew that such a weapon could simply be dropped on them and such consequences could befall them too?
Is that right? Debatable. Overall I’m going to say it was not morally unambiguous or in sum total “good.” The idea of making so many suffer so horribly to POTENTIALLY save the suffering of potentially more later is... morally complex but it doesn’t sit with me as “good,” perhaps “good intentioned” or pragmatic- but not “good.”
To race- would we have dropped the bombs on a country other than Japan, or a non Asian country even if it met the other criteria as Japan did? Debatable. My gut tells me that we’d have been more reluctant too if anything. The Japanese were willing to surrender before the second bomb fell- they had merely argued against UNCONDITIONAL surrender and made requests as to preserving the government that the allies- America- found unacceptable. Did have have to drop the bomb on them? Did we have to drop 2? We can argue and discuss this to no end. Second guess and make calls with the benefit of hind sight and time at peace; and without those alive at the time for us to question and get first hand accounts beyond what is recorded. We can reinterpret the history or question the validity of record- but too much tike has passed and so much was done behind closed doors at the time that it’s all debatable at this point.
Unquestionably, the bombing of Japan was a horrible tragedy. Unquestionably, it caused great suffering and should be viewed as an action that future generations should seek to avoid at all costs. Unquestionably- it is one of the moments that defined our modern world. There’s no telling what the world would look like if things had been different- but most any reasonable accounts would have us living in an almost unrecognizable world. The shock and outrage to this day over the effects of the world seeing what atomic weapons could do to humans is likely one of the primary things that has so far kept us from using atomic weapons on each other.
War is hell. War can show slivers of the best parts of humanity- but mostly will show the worst of us and the worst we are capable of. Bad things happen in war. The Imperial Japanese were racist too. They believed Americans and other non Japanese to be subhuman. What they did to the Chinese- Rape, torture, mass murder, puppet regimes and sick experiments- even cutting open pregnant women... what they did to the Koreans... stripping them of their rights, even trying to erase their culture and history and language and their very genes.... torture and rape and murder and brutal oppression that ended up with the division of a country that lasted to this day...
The Japanese government, their soldiers, their hands weren’t clean. We shouldn’t kill civilians- but WW2 was a “total war.” Indiscriminate. It doesn’t make us better than them that we did what they did, even if we didn’t kill anywhere near as many of their civilians as they did in China or Korea. Hell- they sent balloons with bombs to America. Some even landed. But they didn’t care who got blown up- as long as their balloons hit.
We could say that America would not have used the bomb on Germany if we had it- but we can also say Japan likely would have used it on America or China if THEY had it. It’s speculative either way. In the end- bad things happen in war. Everyone does bad things. No one ends up being squeaky clean Boy Scouts. When survival is on the line humans do what we must. How do we weigh what was done to us by them against what was done to them by us, or what was done by them to others, or even what was done by America to American Japanese? We can’t. It’s all bad shit. But it happened. America has apologized for the suffering caused- doesn’t take it away- but we were in a war we didn’t start. We finished it.
That’s all there is to it. The bomb wasn’t ready to bomb Germany, we didn’t need to bomb Germany; they surrendered to the allies and if they hadn’t- the Russians would have mopped them off the map anyway and made all of Germany into part of the USSR most likely. Germany wasn’t as tactical a target. Japan was. Japan didn’t surrender. Japan didn’t listen to our warnings. We bombed Japan. Now the world is what it is today.
Nice bit of cogitation there. I was re-reading a series, Troy Rising, and some of the aliens were arguing about whether we were on the whole a peaceful or violent race. One of the arguments for peaceful was that we place all sorts a laws on what you can do in a war. What is considered legal or illegal. What is considered a bad war and what is a good war. Now we all know there is no thing as a good war. War is inherently bad, as you've stated. It occurred to me that that is in fact the reason for the rules. We can be and are rather horrible and a war lets people find new ways to be horrible. We make rules not because we are inherently peaceful but because we know we can be so nasty and are trying to mitigate that factor.
I think that’s well said. It’s an interesting thought experiment you raise- I wonder if it can be said:
Humans are imperfect but we KNOW we are imperfect. We do not always live up to our ideals- but the fact we have ideals- the fact that we at least TRY to do better than our natures- is something worth some consideration? We have the freedom to be as horrible as we want.
I think it’s a virtue of humanity that we TRY to be better. People who don’t try or want to be “better” people seldom become “better people.” On the whole we don’t revel in our basal natures even if we flirt with and entertain them in ways. We’ve built a society where by and large- war is even terrible and costly to the “victor,” and for the most part is reserved as a last resort by sensible leaders.
Humans are imperfect but we KNOW we are imperfect. We do not always live up to our ideals- but the fact we have ideals- the fact that we at least TRY to do better than our natures- is something worth some consideration? We have the freedom to be as horrible as we want.