4 ms·

Here's the rub with that argument though, Japan was not a great power in 1945. Indeed there were few enough targets left to drop the bomb on which had not alrea

by cmdkeen 11y ago

Here's the rub with that argument though, Japan was not a great power in 1945. Indeed there were few enough targets left to drop the bomb on which had not already been devastated by conventional bombing. What Japan still had was a warrior / religious culture that would have no problem fighting to the end, as had been demonstrated on island after island. Even had Japan been persuaded to surrender without a total victory Germany post 1918 and the "stab in the back" theory that arose served as a reminder that militaristic cultures can rise again. The dropping of the bombs fundamentally challenged that mindset. It ushered in a weapon that no force of arms, no military culture, no level self-sacrifice or ultimate effort could stop. It enabled the occupation and subjugation of Japan without having to stage an invasion. Atomic weapons then and now are things which are essentially impossible to fit into a legal / moral framework - other than to view them as the ultimate insurance policy against humanity's darkest nature. They keep us as a species in check. Organised religion didn't stop war, so humanity created it's own biblical flood, and fortunately has never had to unleash it.

darkerside 11y ago
> What Japan still had was a warrior / religious culture that would have no problem fighting to the end I really don't buy that. It smacks of dehumanization and propaganda. I can't answer whether waging conventional war on Japan to the end would have been too costly a decision, but let's not excuse ourselves and say it's because the extreme nature of their cultural values makes it necessary.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  It is absolutely about extreme cultural values. Some times extreme cultural values are good things, sometimes not. Some cultures fight to the death, others do not. The overwhelming evidence was that the body count, on both sides, of an invasion of Japan would have far surpassed that of the dropping of the bombs. To be fair to you I am not singling out Japanese culture in this scenario. The World Wars, and history in general, are replete with cultural significance, from cultures that abandon a sense of self in attack or defence, or both, to those which view themselves as culturally superior such that occupation is preferable to annihilation. None is better or worse than the other, but the idea that different cultures manifest different responses to the same stimuli cannot be controversial, and that therefore how different cultures are treated by others is necessary.
  - darkerside 11y ago
    You're making a values judgement on how hard a nation and people should fight to defend themselves. And whatever Japan's stance at the start of the war, they were certainly defending their homeland at the end of it. I'm not saying that the calculation of lives was incorrect. All I'm saying is that the "evil culture" reasoning is designed to rationalize to the masses, and it's a distortion of reality. I don't disagree that cultural values can be problematic. I just think it was a bullshit excuse in this particular case.
smegel 11y ago
> Here's the rub with that argument though, Japan was not a great power in 1945 Well there is an active (and unresolved) historical debate about whether the bombs were justified, but Japan had been a powerful Empire that defeated the UK in Asia and gave the US a run for it's money. It is not comparable to a bunch of rebels however you frame it. > other than to view them as the ultimate insurance policy against humanity's darkest nature Or just an instrument of global stability. How many times would the cold war have gone hot if it wasn't for the fact it would have led to nuclear Armageddon?
dTal 11y ago
It's not really fair to call Germany pre-WW1 a "militaristic culture", although the Allies (as the victors) did convince themselves of this - if anything, it was this entirely unfair scapegoating that (eventually) made Germany into a "militaristic culture".

by cmdkeen 11y ago

darkerside 11y ago

> What Japan still had was a warrior / religious culture that would have no problem fighting to the end I really don't buy that. It smacks of dehumanization and propaganda. I can't answer whether waging conventional war on Japan to the end would have been too costly a decision, but let's not excuse ourselves and say it's because the extreme nature of their cultural values makes it necessary.

cmdkeen 11y ago
It is absolutely about extreme cultural values. Some times extreme cultural values are good things, sometimes not. Some cultures fight to the death, others do not. The overwhelming evidence was that the body count, on both sides, of an invasion of Japan would have far surpassed that of the dropping of the bombs. To be fair to you I am not singling out Japanese culture in this scenario. The World Wars, and history in general, are replete with cultural significance, from cultures that abandon a sense of self in attack or defence, or both, to those which view themselves as culturally superior such that occupation is preferable to annihilation. None is better or worse than the other, but the idea that different cultures manifest different responses to the same stimuli cannot be controversial, and that therefore how different cultures are treated by others is necessary.
- darkerside 11y ago
  You're making a values judgement on how hard a nation and people should fight to defend themselves. And whatever Japan's stance at the start of the war, they were certainly defending their homeland at the end of it. I'm not saying that the calculation of lives was incorrect. All I'm saying is that the "evil culture" reasoning is designed to rationalize to the masses, and it's a distortion of reality. I don't disagree that cultural values can be problematic. I just think it was a bullshit excuse in this particular case.

smegel 11y ago

> Here's the rub with that argument though, Japan was not a great power in 1945 Well there is an active (and unresolved) historical debate about whether the bombs were justified, but Japan had been a powerful Empire that defeated the UK in Asia and gave the US a run for it's money. It is not comparable to a bunch of rebels however you frame it. > other than to view them as the ultimate insurance policy against humanity's darkest nature Or just an instrument of global stability. How many times would the cold war have gone hot if it wasn't for the fact it would have led to nuclear Armageddon?

dTal 11y ago

It's not really fair to call Germany pre-WW1 a "militaristic culture", although the Allies (as the victors) did convince themselves of this - if anything, it was this entirely unfair scapegoating that (eventually) made Germany into a "militaristic culture".