Thanks for the reference to Weber's essay. I believe I've
encountered that before.
I agree that the atomic bombs were unnecessary IF all that was
sought was a Japanese surrender. As Weber pointed out, the
Americans and British were after the "unconditional surrender" of
Japan. Whether the terms of the surrender were eventually the
same is not relevant.
Herein lies the a rather philosophical aspect of "victory" and
"defeat" and its application on Japan. Firstly, Pearl Harbor
was still freshly etched on American minds. It was considered
to be a sudden attack with no declaration of war, giving the
defenders no opportunity to prepare for battle. It was a
departure from the accepted norms of a formal declaration of war.
Secondly, the Japanese also demanded "unconditional
surrender" from its enemies; namely the British over
Singapore.
The rules they were laying down on Japan was its own rules it
laid out at the beginning of the war. The "Victors" offer the
terms; the "vanquished" shall accept the terms. Hence,
from a military-political perspective, Japan's offering of terms is
unacceptable. If Japan chooses to surrender, it will do so
unconditionally and without terms because it is the vanquished, not
the victor. There is no denying that there was a
"satisfaction" of vengeance involved, but those were the rules that
Japan set out with. As far as the U.S. and Britain was
concerned, they were playing within the rules Japan began with.
Hence, until Japan surrenders unconditionally (by its own
rules), the Allies would continue to bomb and escalate the
violence.
Another perspective is that Japan by that time was completely
helpless. It had no way to strike back at the U.S or Britain.
Nor could it take down the bombers that flew over head.
Because they had no power to strike back with, they also had
no leverage or bargaining power against the Allies. However,
despite that the lack of ability to threaten the Allies, it had not
surrendered unconditionally. Hence escalated violence was
viewed to be necessary in order to coerce them down that path.
And to demonstrate the promise of "prompt and utter"
destruction unless they surrendered unconditionally, the atomic
bombs were dropped on Japan, selecting civilian population as
primary targets.
When we look back at the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing, we
criticize it as barbaric and a violation of human rights and the
conduct of war. However, the second World War also marked and
ushered in the era of strategic bombing. Then, the prevalent
thought was that a strategic air force, would be able to bomb the
enemy into submission, targeting military, industrial and civilian
centers to break the enemy's will to fight. That was how
strategic bombing was viewed and used. The atomic bombs were simply
an extension to strategic bombing; a bigger and fiercer bomb.
With the above plausible explanations, I disagree with
Weber's dismissal of the Allies policy of unconditional surrender
as merely a desire for vengeance.
Your points are all valid. And to an extent I do agree with
atomic being a bombing of an extension to the strategic
bombing.
However there was one significant difference. "Normal" bombing
did not target civilian areas. The atomic bomb, whether on purpose
on not, did end up wiping out the entire city. And it's not as
though it's a military city like Eglin AFB/Nellis AFB, or even one
of the Saudi airbases.
You could, on the other hand agree that bombing of Dresden set a
precedent of targeting civilians (some say civilians were not
targeted, I beg to differ).
However, I personally believe that if Japan's "normal" surrender
was rejected, and strategic bombing continued, an unconditional
surrender would come. I do not think all Japanese had a suicidal
tendency and were willing to starve to death.
Take note that I'm not against the use of the atomic bomb. I
don't see it as a "necessary evil". I see it as a strategic weapon,
to be employed when needed. The loss of life has been regrettable,
but if employed well, nuclear weapons will be cheaper than
conventional weapons. It also has the shock effect none other
has.
