> I have trouble understanding why killing a few hundred thousand civilians in a nuclear attack is in some way qualitatively different in a moral sense from killing a few hundred thousand civilians in firebombings.
There was an evacuation of civilians, during the Vietnam war I believe[1], where the evacuees had to walk a narrow bridge to a boat. One man panicked and started pushing his way through, pushing people into the water.
A military official walked up to the man and shot him in the head.
There were no more paniced pushes by anyone, and everyone was saved.
This doesn't mean that an innocent person panicking is worthy of the death penalty. Would there even have been a mass panic? We'll never know. Would arresting the man have been enough to prevent it? We'll never know.
> The only difference was tactical: now we can and will kill you with even less effort and risk. The US had bombed out most Japanese cities and countless civilians had died in the bombings. The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed as many as many as 200k, easily the same scale as the nuclear bombings.
Exactly. And this is the difference morally as well. The firebombing of Tokyo did not cause surrender. It wasn't until two bombs showed just how effortlessly the US could from now on wage the war that reality could immediately not be denied.
Yes, the main reason for the US to use the bombs instead of many planes with firebombing were to reduce their own military casualties and to show the Soviets what the new world order will be. But in another analogy: A criminal may fight one police officer, but it takes a special kind of criminal to choose to fight an armed SWAT team with only fists.
If I wanted to make excuses for the US I could add that in a total war there are no civilians. Japan's cultural expectation here was that every man, woman, and child would die before surrendering. A wake-up call can effectively shorten the war for both sides. Firebombings were evidently not enough of one.
There was an evacuation of civilians, during the Vietnam war I believe[1], where the evacuees had to walk a narrow bridge to a boat. One man panicked and started pushing his way through, pushing people into the water.
A military official walked up to the man and shot him in the head.
There were no more paniced pushes by anyone, and everyone was saved. This doesn't mean that an innocent person panicking is worthy of the death penalty. Would there even have been a mass panic? We'll never know. Would arresting the man have been enough to prevent it? We'll never know.
> The only difference was tactical: now we can and will kill you with even less effort and risk. The US had bombed out most Japanese cities and countless civilians had died in the bombings. The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed as many as many as 200k, easily the same scale as the nuclear bombings.
Exactly. And this is the difference morally as well. The firebombing of Tokyo did not cause surrender. It wasn't until two bombs showed just how effortlessly the US could from now on wage the war that reality could immediately not be denied.
Yes, the main reason for the US to use the bombs instead of many planes with firebombing were to reduce their own military casualties and to show the Soviets what the new world order will be. But in another analogy: A criminal may fight one police officer, but it takes a special kind of criminal to choose to fight an armed SWAT team with only fists.
If I wanted to make excuses for the US I could add that in a total war there are no civilians. Japan's cultural expectation here was that every man, woman, and child would die before surrendering. A wake-up call can effectively shorten the war for both sides. Firebombings were evidently not enough of one.
Dan Carlin's currently talking about the Japanese side of WWII. I highly recommend his work. https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-supern...
[1] this isn't about the morality of the war in Vietnam.