An historical ethical question?

Question

During World War II, there was a plan to use poison gas on the Japanese soldiers waiting at Iwo Jima. The US would leak information that it possesed a "death ray" to explain how all the soldiers had died.
President Roosevelt vetoed the idea.
The US and Japan were the only two countries that had not banned the use of poison gas.
20,000 Americans died taking the island.
The Japanese were not expected to win, only to make it horribly expensive (in lives) for the US to win the island. The soldiers had been ordered to kill ten Americans before they died.
Using the above facts and your own experiences, please consider this.
Should the US have used poison gas at Iwo Jima?

Iwo Jima was necessary for the US because Japanese planes were stationed there. These planes would attack our bombers as they returned from missions to Japan. Afterthe US had the island, many of these bombers would make emergency landings on Iwo Jima.
As for fighting wars...please research concentration camps and what teh Japanese did to Chinese civilians before you say going to war is always wrong.

Answer 1

I do not have an ethical problem using whatever means is at our disposal to win in a war such as against the Japanese in WW2. Simply because of the barbarity of the Japanese and the cost in American and allied lives if we did not use whatever would have been effective. Truman used that rationale in nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, where do you draw a line and say this enemy deserves all out consequences but this one gets the kid-gloves treatment. Barry Goldwater lost his bid for the Presidency in large part because the electorate feared he would use atomic weapons against North Vietnam, almost assuring either a Soviet or Red Chinese response.

My wife's grandfather was in WW1 and was gassed while in the trenches in France. He described his experiences to me after I returned from Viet Nam. After hearing him relate his ordeal with Mustard Gas I came to believe that no nation, even those who have been victimized by a brutal enemy should ever use chemical or bacterialogical weapons. They are just too inhumane.

By the same token no nation should ever use nukes under any circumstances either. Not even in retaliation. We have such powerful conventional weapons now that we can obliterate an enemy city without resorting to nukes.

But, I understand the dilemma facing a commander-in-chief when facing the prospect of losing thousands of American soldiers and we have weapons in our arsenal that can defeat the enemy and save our troops lives.

So, I guess I have mixed feelings about it. Against the Japanese in WW2 we would have been justified legally, but I'm not sure ethically. We used the A-bomb and it ended the war. But I'm not sure we couldn't have fire bombed those two cities as we did Tokyo and achieved the same results.

Answer 2

There are too many assumptions when you play the 'What if?' game.
If it is a question of morality, then they shouldn't have tried to take Iwo Jima, and conducted more of a siege war on Japan, since we knew we could outproduce them and put more ships and men in the water. The island-hopping scheme was just an ego trip for MacArthur and his little green men to see if they could keep getting naive young men to die at their command. If we had simply focused on the Chinese front, protecting Australia, and finishing up the European war, then Russia would have been freed up to enter against Japan. Russia had a personal score to settle with Japan, and would have treated them even worse than they did the Germans. Japan surrendered when Russia was ready to attack them, anyway. The Bomb didn't scare them so much as we like to think, since it was completely unbelieveable to them. We probably killed the 20,000 through the production and use of flouride to make nuclear weapons anyway.

Answer 3

War is war. Do what you must do to win. Expect the enemy to do the same.

I believe Harry Truman would have approved the use of gas. If what you say is true, Roosevelt would not have used the Bomb on Japan. This would have lengthen the war. I feel Truman was right when he approved the Bomb, so Roosevelt was wrong by not using gas.

In 2006, current US-Japan relations are as good as with any country in the world. The best possible outcome has to be that in WWII, USA had to win, Japan had to lose.

Answer 4

If i was FDR I would have taken the opportunity to end the war faster, with fewer casulties. We ended up having to kill nearly every last man on Iwo Jima anyway.

Answer 5

Maybe if the first atom bomb had been dropped at Iwo Jima, maybe it would not have been necessary to drop the second one on Nagasaki after the one at Hiroshima.

Answer 6

i really don't believe in war in general, and poison gas just makes it worse, it's really sick firstof all to kill people over ideas, but that doesn't top the way that people actually kill eachother, i can only imagine choking to death , trying to breathe but slowly dying, that to me would be the worst way to die. there's a slogan that circles around the punk rock scene alot, it's perfect to describe how i feel:

fight war, not wars

Answer 7

Yep

Answer 8

no how you fight defines who you are.using poison gas is to random and uncontrolled what if the wind shifts.and if you do use it why lie about it.