6 ms·

This is one of the all time greatest examples of non-fiction writing. It’s strange and a little disappointing to see people debating the morality and merits of

This is one of the all time greatest examples of non-fiction writing. It’s strange and a little disappointing to see people debating the morality and merits of warfare in the shadow of this epic achievement of long-form story telling. The point of this story is to make the experience human, but many comments here revert to the kind of academic finger-wagging that is a prerequisite for bringing out the worst in civilizations.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kbutler 8y ago
Yes, "the point of this story is to make the experience human", so that we can feel and discuss "the morality and merits of warfare". Discussion of the writing itself, divorced from the actual substance, would be "academic finger-wagging".
- chrissam 8y ago
  Your argument boils down to "everything is political". I understand that some people think this -- but I don't. I believe the goal of this writing is to convey to the reader the scale of the bombings and some fraction of their effects on the populace. A secondary aim is to evoke emotion in the reader. I think that's it, I don't see a political aim. It's facile to say "war is immoral". Inasmuch as anything is immoral, war certainly is. But it's unclear to me how we ought to apply that axiom because it's unclear to me that the world would be better off today if the US hadn't entered the war, or the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped, or if the Allied policy had been something other than pursuit of unconditional surrender.
  - Recurecur 8y ago
    > It's facile to say "war is immoral". Inasmuch as anything is immoral, war certainly is. But it's unclear to me how we ought to apply that axiom because it's unclear to me that the world would be better off today if the US hadn't entered the war, or the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped, or if the Allied policy had been something other than pursuit of unconditional surrender. Nuclear weapons would have been developed whether or not the US developed them. Thankfully, it was the US, and not Germany or Japan - either of those countries would have used them indiscriminately. Since the development of nuclear weapons, they have been the greatest force for peace in world history. We had two horrific world wars in the space of just 25 years. Now, we're almost 75 years past 1945 without one. Fingers crossed that sanity prevails and the major powers continue to be dissuaded by MAD.
  - kbutler 8y ago
    No, I'm just saying that the subject is more important than the writing. I don't think the author is advocating a particular viewpoint, but I think the author wants us to seek understanding, and that includes discussion. The penultimate paragraph even includes people's opinions on the morality of the event. It invites discussion, without necessarily directing it. Something of a lost art in today's world.
- nihonde 8y ago
  In my experience, things look quite different at the human scale. From a distance, you lose the complexities of real experiences of real people. I’ve been to the museum at Nagasaki, but even that felt less immediate and visceral than the linked New Yorker story.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

kbutler 8y ago

Yes, "the point of this story is to make the experience human", so that we can feel and discuss "the morality and merits of warfare". Discussion of the writing itself, divorced from the actual substance, would be "academic finger-wagging".

chrissam 8y ago
Your argument boils down to "everything is political". I understand that some people think this -- but I don't. I believe the goal of this writing is to convey to the reader the scale of the bombings and some fraction of their effects on the populace. A secondary aim is to evoke emotion in the reader. I think that's it, I don't see a political aim. It's facile to say "war is immoral". Inasmuch as anything is immoral, war certainly is. But it's unclear to me how we ought to apply that axiom because it's unclear to me that the world would be better off today if the US hadn't entered the war, or the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped, or if the Allied policy had been something other than pursuit of unconditional surrender.
- Recurecur 8y ago
  > It's facile to say "war is immoral". Inasmuch as anything is immoral, war certainly is. But it's unclear to me how we ought to apply that axiom because it's unclear to me that the world would be better off today if the US hadn't entered the war, or the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped, or if the Allied policy had been something other than pursuit of unconditional surrender. Nuclear weapons would have been developed whether or not the US developed them. Thankfully, it was the US, and not Germany or Japan - either of those countries would have used them indiscriminately. Since the development of nuclear weapons, they have been the greatest force for peace in world history. We had two horrific world wars in the space of just 25 years. Now, we're almost 75 years past 1945 without one. Fingers crossed that sanity prevails and the major powers continue to be dissuaded by MAD.
- kbutler 8y ago
  No, I'm just saying that the subject is more important than the writing. I don't think the author is advocating a particular viewpoint, but I think the author wants us to seek understanding, and that includes discussion. The penultimate paragraph even includes people's opinions on the morality of the event. It invites discussion, without necessarily directing it. Something of a lost art in today's world.
nihonde 8y ago
In my experience, things look quite different at the human scale. From a distance, you lose the complexities of real experiences of real people. I’ve been to the museum at Nagasaki, but even that felt less immediate and visceral than the linked New Yorker story.