6 ms·

American Conservative: Don't Whitewash the Hiroshima Bombing

24 points by RodericDay 9y ago

kartD 9y ago
Hmm... from a cursory glance American conservative seems like a good website, any readers care to comment on the quality of the site?
- RodericDay 9y ago
  I'm very left wing, with my favourite publication being Current Affairs, and American Conservative often has decent stuff. Best takes on the Hamilton musical, curiously enough.
valuearb 9y ago
I don't have any comment on Mosul or what we are doing in the Middle East because it simply doesn't connect. But there is no chance in hell that the two bombings killed more Japanese civilians than the invasion of Japan would have. And an invasion was very likely. Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives.
- RodericDay 9y ago
  The idea that the USA bombed Japan to spare Japanese civilians from a worse fate is just absurd. The underlying logic is extremely controversial, and relies a lot in "othering" the Japanese, and talking about them in terms like "they would fight to the last man, woman, and child" like they were wild dogs or something. A much stronger theory is that Japanese were sacrificed in order to flex muscle against the Soviet Union.
  - mcappleton 9y ago
    Another way to think about it is this. How many American soldiers would be killed in the invasion? The American soldiers who would invade are every bit as innocent as the women and children killed in the A-bomb attacks. Estimates are that Around 500,000 American soldiers would be killed or seriously wounded in an invasion. Every American soldier was an innocent man, defending his country from the Japanese who brutally attacked st Pearl Harbor. Do the lives of these innocent men not matter to you? This perfectly demonstrates what's so screwed up about liberals in America. They would literally rather send many more of their own countrymen to get their arms and legs blown off and killed, rather than kill the enemy. It's sickening, awful and evil how they would gladly sacrifice more of their own innocent fellow Americans to save the wives and children of attackers. Send 500k Americans to get murdered by the japanese, plus their dead, or kill 250k with the a bomb. The choice is clear once you have the facts. Of course maybe you don't think it matters if American soldiers die. Maybe you think it's better that they die than the enemy. Try telling that to the wife of a soldier lost in battle. Try explaining that to a kid who wonders where his dad is. "The Japanese who attacked us at Pearl Harbor and want to kill us are more important to keep alive than your daddy". You see think pictures of the a bomb with horror. And rightly so. But you forget the horrors of Okinawa. The terror of Kamikaze pilots literally suicide bombing the Americans. The a bomb was not only better from a military and casualty standpoint, it was better for Japan in the long run. It completely broke the back of their military empire in a way that not even an invasion could. It was complete and utter defeat that crushed their delusions that they would gain greatness through military strength. That enabled them to move on and rebuild focusing on the right thing, economic power
    - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
      >The American soldiers who would invade are every bit as innocent as the women and children killed in the A-bomb attacks. Only one of those groups strapped a rifle to their back and signed up for action. Think about your words before you type them.
      - mcappleton 9y ago
        How can you even say that? They were peacefully living when the insane Japanese killed thousands of Americans, and were preparing to invade the USA? It was fight or be killed. So if you are defending you homeland, defending yourself from murder, your wives from rape, you are somehow no longer innocent? Your like the witch hunters. If you float your guilty so kill them. If you drown your innocent but dead.
        deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
    - RodericDay 9y ago
      I definitely don't think terrorism is more justified if it saves your own peers' lives. The narrative that it saved Japanese lives is based on wrong premises (they'd never surrender, etc.), but tries to build a persuasive argument that it was for their own good. I can't understand why you think "the american military saved their own lives by killing foreign civlians" is at all a more persuasive justification.
      - mcappleton 9y ago
        Ok so you literally think that it's better to have 500k Americans killed than 250k Japanese, when the Japanese attacked us. And you consider defending yourself terrori sm??? How are the Japanese civilians any more innocent than the Americans? Can you answer this?? No you can't. You are just confused and have no comprehension of how evil Pearl Harbor and the Japanese rulers were. You have obviously never heard of the Bataan death march. I literally think you are a horrible human being. You would rather sacrifice more of your own countrymen to save the wives and children of the attakcers. You are a straight up evil human being. There are no other words to describe it. Thank you for proving to me beyond a doubt that liberals hate this country and would gladly see it burn.
  - Jenya_ 9y ago
    If you want tough choices, ask Japanese to choose between living as they are now (with atomic bombing in the past) or Japan living as a North Korea (but without atomic bombing).
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Even with two atomic bombs and the Russian invasion of Manchuria, Japan still faced an attempted military coup when they considered surrendering. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
    - RodericDay 9y ago
      So what? Imagine if America got bombed and then people used the behavior of poorly understood minority sectors of the country as justification. Man, as an outsider looking in, it seems like the propaganda program surrounding the atomic bomb is astoundingly effective. Everyone regurgitates the same arguments, the fact that its contentious in the history and ethics communities seems to be glossed over completely.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        It's not contentious. The facts are clear. It took an extraordinary turnabout by the Emperor to even consider surrender, and that only happened after the two bombs. Before the bombs the Japanese leaders believed they could force the US to accept a peace where they kept most of the lands they had enslaved. The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't even the most deadly of the war. The US had burned most of Tokyo to the ground and more was coming. Japanese citizens were going to die in masses when the invasion force hit the beach. Either sacrificing themselves in suicide attacks, or being used as human shields.
        RodericDay 9y ago
        The facts are absolutely not clear, it's a hotly debated historical topic, and the fact that you claim it's clear is just a testament to how the American education system chooses to portray its own history to its children.
  - krapp 9y ago
    >A much stronger theory is that Japanese were sacrificed in order to flex muscle against the Soviet Union. I've seen that theory floated but it never made sense to me, and I haven't seen any documentary evidence to support it. I prefer to apply Occam's Razor... which to me suggests the simplest conclusion is that the US bombed Japan hoping to spare American soldiers from the worse fate of an invasion, not the Japanese.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    No one said the US used nukes to spare Japanese civilian deaths. They did it to end the war which was killing thousands of people a day from both sides, and that was before an invasion that would easily kill over a million people. The Japanese leaders still thought they could negotiate an "honorable" surrender that would allow them to keep the lands they had brutally enslaved. They still believed in the Kamikazi, the "Divine Wind" which destroyed the invasion fleet of the worlds most dominant and brutal military machine just before it could brutally subjugate Japan. They thought they could arm children, the elderly, housewives, or turn them into suicide bombers and kill so many of the invaders that the bloodbath would force the US to agree to their terms. US leaders really had no choice. If they tried to wait out the Japanese without using the bomb, the family of every sailor and pilot who died in those many months would be rightfully angry. They'd be out for blood against the entire sitting US government in the next election. Just as the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead US soldiers would be, after finding out the US invaded without using the bomb. By ending the war more quickly with the bomb, US leaders also saved the lives of an immense number of Japanese who were being fired-bombed, shot and starving in huge numbers. General US Grant was renowned for fighting brutal battles of attrition intended to bleed the confederate armies of soldiers, between his forces and theirs his battles created casualties of 350,000 Americans. But before he was given total command of US forces nearly a half million had already been killed. He ended the war after one last bloody year that was costing nearly 200,000 lives a year, and killing civilians by the many thousands.
- doall 9y ago
  > Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives. No, there were alternative ways. Before dropping to the city, you can just drop it to the mountains or along the sea coast to show the power of the bomb. If it doesn't work, do it multiple times in different locations. After that drop it to the military camps. If all doesn't go well drop to the city. Also it didn't have to happen twice in the city, because it was a matter of time for the Japanese government to surrender. It was just an inhuman action to drop two atomic bombs in the city skipping all of these steps.
  - krapp 9y ago
    Here is a Quora answer covering that, that I came across a while ago: https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-first-nuke-an-empty-place-in-Japan-to-show-the-results-of-the-nuclear-bomb-and-wait-for-their-enemies-to-surrender https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-first-nuke-an-empty-p... The tl;dr is that it was suggested, but consensus was that a successful test would only bolster Japan's resolve.
    - doall 9y ago
      I know there was such suggestion, but it still does not cover my full comment. Also "valuearb" says there was no chance, but I say there were alternative ways and indeed there were. Atomic bomb is costly and takes time to produce, but the US just took the easy path and it does not change the inhuman action for the two bombings to the cities.
      - valuearb 9y ago
        You really should read a good history of the war. You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays. You don't understand how committed Japanese military leadership was to fight to the end. You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.
        doall 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

24 points by RodericDay 9y ago

Hmm... from a cursory glance American conservative seems like a good website, any readers care to comment on the quality of the site?

RodericDay 9y ago
I'm very left wing, with my favourite publication being Current Affairs, and American Conservative often has decent stuff. Best takes on the Hamilton musical, curiously enough.

valuearb 9y ago

I don't have any comment on Mosul or what we are doing in the Middle East because it simply doesn't connect. But there is no chance in hell that the two bombings killed more Japanese civilians than the invasion of Japan would have. And an invasion was very likely. Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives.

RodericDay 9y ago
The idea that the USA bombed Japan to spare Japanese civilians from a worse fate is just absurd. The underlying logic is extremely controversial, and relies a lot in "othering" the Japanese, and talking about them in terms like "they would fight to the last man, woman, and child" like they were wild dogs or something. A much stronger theory is that Japanese were sacrificed in order to flex muscle against the Soviet Union.
- mcappleton 9y ago
  Another way to think about it is this. How many American soldiers would be killed in the invasion? The American soldiers who would invade are every bit as innocent as the women and children killed in the A-bomb attacks. Estimates are that Around 500,000 American soldiers would be killed or seriously wounded in an invasion. Every American soldier was an innocent man, defending his country from the Japanese who brutally attacked st Pearl Harbor. Do the lives of these innocent men not matter to you? This perfectly demonstrates what's so screwed up about liberals in America. They would literally rather send many more of their own countrymen to get their arms and legs blown off and killed, rather than kill the enemy. It's sickening, awful and evil how they would gladly sacrifice more of their own innocent fellow Americans to save the wives and children of attackers. Send 500k Americans to get murdered by the japanese, plus their dead, or kill 250k with the a bomb. The choice is clear once you have the facts. Of course maybe you don't think it matters if American soldiers die. Maybe you think it's better that they die than the enemy. Try telling that to the wife of a soldier lost in battle. Try explaining that to a kid who wonders where his dad is. "The Japanese who attacked us at Pearl Harbor and want to kill us are more important to keep alive than your daddy". You see think pictures of the a bomb with horror. And rightly so. But you forget the horrors of Okinawa. The terror of Kamikaze pilots literally suicide bombing the Americans. The a bomb was not only better from a military and casualty standpoint, it was better for Japan in the long run. It completely broke the back of their military empire in a way that not even an invasion could. It was complete and utter defeat that crushed their delusions that they would gain greatness through military strength. That enabled them to move on and rebuild focusing on the right thing, economic power
  - cuckcuckspruce 9y ago
    >The American soldiers who would invade are every bit as innocent as the women and children killed in the A-bomb attacks. Only one of those groups strapped a rifle to their back and signed up for action. Think about your words before you type them.
    - mcappleton 9y ago
      How can you even say that? They were peacefully living when the insane Japanese killed thousands of Americans, and were preparing to invade the USA? It was fight or be killed. So if you are defending you homeland, defending yourself from murder, your wives from rape, you are somehow no longer innocent? Your like the witch hunters. If you float your guilty so kill them. If you drown your innocent but dead.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    I definitely don't think terrorism is more justified if it saves your own peers' lives. The narrative that it saved Japanese lives is based on wrong premises (they'd never surrender, etc.), but tries to build a persuasive argument that it was for their own good. I can't understand why you think "the american military saved their own lives by killing foreign civlians" is at all a more persuasive justification.
    - mcappleton 9y ago
      Ok so you literally think that it's better to have 500k Americans killed than 250k Japanese, when the Japanese attacked us. And you consider defending yourself terrori sm??? How are the Japanese civilians any more innocent than the Americans? Can you answer this?? No you can't. You are just confused and have no comprehension of how evil Pearl Harbor and the Japanese rulers were. You have obviously never heard of the Bataan death march. I literally think you are a horrible human being. You would rather sacrifice more of your own countrymen to save the wives and children of the attakcers. You are a straight up evil human being. There are no other words to describe it. Thank you for proving to me beyond a doubt that liberals hate this country and would gladly see it burn.
- Jenya_ 9y ago
  If you want tough choices, ask Japanese to choose between living as they are now (with atomic bombing in the past) or Japan living as a North Korea (but without atomic bombing).
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Even with two atomic bombs and the Russian invasion of Manchuria, Japan still faced an attempted military coup when they considered surrendering. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan
  - RodericDay 9y ago
    So what? Imagine if America got bombed and then people used the behavior of poorly understood minority sectors of the country as justification. Man, as an outsider looking in, it seems like the propaganda program surrounding the atomic bomb is astoundingly effective. Everyone regurgitates the same arguments, the fact that its contentious in the history and ethics communities seems to be glossed over completely.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      It's not contentious. The facts are clear. It took an extraordinary turnabout by the Emperor to even consider surrender, and that only happened after the two bombs. Before the bombs the Japanese leaders believed they could force the US to accept a peace where they kept most of the lands they had enslaved. The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't even the most deadly of the war. The US had burned most of Tokyo to the ground and more was coming. Japanese citizens were going to die in masses when the invasion force hit the beach. Either sacrificing themselves in suicide attacks, or being used as human shields.
      - RodericDay 9y ago
        The facts are absolutely not clear, it's a hotly debated historical topic, and the fact that you claim it's clear is just a testament to how the American education system chooses to portray its own history to its children.
- krapp 9y ago
  >A much stronger theory is that Japanese were sacrificed in order to flex muscle against the Soviet Union. I've seen that theory floated but it never made sense to me, and I haven't seen any documentary evidence to support it. I prefer to apply Occam's Razor... which to me suggests the simplest conclusion is that the US bombed Japan hoping to spare American soldiers from the worse fate of an invasion, not the Japanese.
- valuearb 9y ago
  No one said the US used nukes to spare Japanese civilian deaths. They did it to end the war which was killing thousands of people a day from both sides, and that was before an invasion that would easily kill over a million people. The Japanese leaders still thought they could negotiate an "honorable" surrender that would allow them to keep the lands they had brutally enslaved. They still believed in the Kamikazi, the "Divine Wind" which destroyed the invasion fleet of the worlds most dominant and brutal military machine just before it could brutally subjugate Japan. They thought they could arm children, the elderly, housewives, or turn them into suicide bombers and kill so many of the invaders that the bloodbath would force the US to agree to their terms. US leaders really had no choice. If they tried to wait out the Japanese without using the bomb, the family of every sailor and pilot who died in those many months would be rightfully angry. They'd be out for blood against the entire sitting US government in the next election. Just as the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead US soldiers would be, after finding out the US invaded without using the bomb. By ending the war more quickly with the bomb, US leaders also saved the lives of an immense number of Japanese who were being fired-bombed, shot and starving in huge numbers. General US Grant was renowned for fighting brutal battles of attrition intended to bleed the confederate armies of soldiers, between his forces and theirs his battles created casualties of 350,000 Americans. But before he was given total command of US forces nearly a half million had already been killed. He ended the war after one last bloody year that was costing nearly 200,000 lives a year, and killing civilians by the many thousands.
doall 9y ago
> Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives. No, there were alternative ways. Before dropping to the city, you can just drop it to the mountains or along the sea coast to show the power of the bomb. If it doesn't work, do it multiple times in different locations. After that drop it to the military camps. If all doesn't go well drop to the city. Also it didn't have to happen twice in the city, because it was a matter of time for the Japanese government to surrender. It was just an inhuman action to drop two atomic bombs in the city skipping all of these steps.
- krapp 9y ago
  Here is a Quora answer covering that, that I came across a while ago: https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-first-nuke-an-empty-place-in-Japan-to-show-the-results-of-the-nuclear-bomb-and-wait-for-their-enemies-to-surrender https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-first-nuke-an-empty-p... The tl;dr is that it was suggested, but consensus was that a successful test would only bolster Japan's resolve.
  - doall 9y ago
    I know there was such suggestion, but it still does not cover my full comment. Also "valuearb" says there was no chance, but I say there were alternative ways and indeed there were. Atomic bomb is costly and takes time to produce, but the US just took the easy path and it does not change the inhuman action for the two bombings to the cities.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      You really should read a good history of the war. You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays. You don't understand how committed Japanese military leadership was to fight to the end. You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.
      - doall 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]