6 ms·

First, it was certainly an effort. They had centrifuges, attempts to gather enough uranium, and so forth. That is more than "discussion" and "thought experiment

First, it was certainly an effort. They had centrifuges, attempts to gather enough uranium, and so forth. That is more than "discussion" and "thought experiments" as you call it. Also, I see no point to your ad hominem attack that the article "smacks of guilt-motivated justification". The article presents interesting historical facts, and I don't see it suggesting that dropping the bomb on Japan was justified. Finally, was the Japanese effort to produce a bomb likely to succeed? In retrospect, we know it was definitely not. But you seem, in addition, to be very confident that they knew that fact at the time. Do you have a source for that?

sandworm101 11y ago
(1) Research centrifuges for separating isotopes and a plant capable of creating enough for a bomb are different beasts. The former gives you the knowledge to understand the scope of the later. (2) I don't attack only the article itself, but also its timing in relation to the anniversary. Americans are questioning the actions of their fathers and grandfathers re Japan and WWII. Any opinionated or politicized articles appearing now must be judged in that context. (3) The article ends with the quote "If we'd built the bomb first, of course we would have used it. I'm glad, in some ways, that our facilities were destroyed." That quote is meant to leave the reader with the concept that Japan would have done the same as the US had the situation been reversed. Even more so, it suggests that at least one person in Japan welcomed the bombings. Those are justification arguments that, given the enormity of the context and timing, should be strictly scrutinized.
- brighteyes 11y ago
  1. Even research centrifuges are a lot more than "discussion" or a "thought experiment", the terms that you proposed. Perhaps "research" is a good word for the stage they were in? 2. You're attacking the timing, but the timing makes sense. People are much more interested in the topic now, so it makes sense to publish it now. 3. You seem very eager to guess at the political motivations of the article's author, but not everything is about politics. The quote definitely gets the readers thinking, but (assuming it is accurate, of course) it seems very appropriate for the end of the article. Articles often end on an open question, and it is fascinating to think of what could have happened had history gone differently.
- 13thLetter 11y ago
  "That quote is meant to leave the reader with the concept that Japan would have done the same as the US had the situation been reversed." Do you think they would _not_ have used atomic bombs, if they had them and believed it was militarily necessary? After all, Japan was not exactly known for merciful treatment of civilian populations or opposing enemy forces during World War II. "Those are justification arguments that, given the enormity of the context and timing, should be strictly scrutinized." Strictly scrutinized by whom, and to what end? Furthermore, should an article which raises arguments against dropping the bomb be scrutinized just as strictly? If not, why not?
  - sandworm101 11y ago
    Yes. Any new articles at this time, particularly ones brining forward new or rarely-seen evidence should be put under a magnifying glass. The use of nukes by the US against japan is a backdrop against which all US military decisions are made today.
    - brighteyes 11y ago
      What you're saying is terrifying. You want history and historical debate to be completely politicized, with all authors investigated for having the correct ideological underpinnings. History and science would all grind to a halt if the first thing people would do to every article and paper is to check for political leanings.
      - sandworm101 11y ago
        Not all, only where authors so openly insert modern political views into historical situations. If this were a more detached examination of the Japanese bomb program then I probably would welcome the new information. >History and science would all grind to a halt if the first thing people would do to every article and paper is to check for political leanings. Yes. Given the scope of what's available today re WWII, everything beyond primary sources should be investigated. Nothing should be taken as fact simply because it is written down. If you start accepting facts simply because they are in some online article, you are down the road to the belief that lizard people run the world. Every author's background and political goals are relevant where they inject opinion atop original research.

sandworm101 11y ago

(1) Research centrifuges for separating isotopes and a plant capable of creating enough for a bomb are different beasts. The former gives you the knowledge to understand the scope of the later. (2) I don't attack only the article itself, but also its timing in relation to the anniversary. Americans are questioning the actions of their fathers and grandfathers re Japan and WWII. Any opinionated or politicized articles appearing now must be judged in that context. (3) The article ends with the quote "If we'd built the bomb first, of course we would have used it. I'm glad, in some ways, that our facilities were destroyed." That quote is meant to leave the reader with the concept that Japan would have done the same as the US had the situation been reversed. Even more so, it suggests that at least one person in Japan welcomed the bombings. Those are justification arguments that, given the enormity of the context and timing, should be strictly scrutinized.

brighteyes 11y ago
1. Even research centrifuges are a lot more than "discussion" or a "thought experiment", the terms that you proposed. Perhaps "research" is a good word for the stage they were in? 2. You're attacking the timing, but the timing makes sense. People are much more interested in the topic now, so it makes sense to publish it now. 3. You seem very eager to guess at the political motivations of the article's author, but not everything is about politics. The quote definitely gets the readers thinking, but (assuming it is accurate, of course) it seems very appropriate for the end of the article. Articles often end on an open question, and it is fascinating to think of what could have happened had history gone differently.
13thLetter 11y ago
"That quote is meant to leave the reader with the concept that Japan would have done the same as the US had the situation been reversed." Do you think they would _not_ have used atomic bombs, if they had them and believed it was militarily necessary? After all, Japan was not exactly known for merciful treatment of civilian populations or opposing enemy forces during World War II. "Those are justification arguments that, given the enormity of the context and timing, should be strictly scrutinized." Strictly scrutinized by whom, and to what end? Furthermore, should an article which raises arguments against dropping the bomb be scrutinized just as strictly? If not, why not?
- sandworm101 11y ago
  Yes. Any new articles at this time, particularly ones brining forward new or rarely-seen evidence should be put under a magnifying glass. The use of nukes by the US against japan is a backdrop against which all US military decisions are made today.
  - brighteyes 11y ago
    What you're saying is terrifying. You want history and historical debate to be completely politicized, with all authors investigated for having the correct ideological underpinnings. History and science would all grind to a halt if the first thing people would do to every article and paper is to check for political leanings.
    - sandworm101 11y ago
      Not all, only where authors so openly insert modern political views into historical situations. If this were a more detached examination of the Japanese bomb program then I probably would welcome the new information. >History and science would all grind to a halt if the first thing people would do to every article and paper is to check for political leanings. Yes. Given the scope of what's available today re WWII, everything beyond primary sources should be investigated. Nothing should be taken as fact simply because it is written down. If you start accepting facts simply because they are in some online article, you are down the road to the belief that lizard people run the world. Every author's background and political goals are relevant where they inject opinion atop original research.