4 ms·

I didn't say the military didn't see the utility of the atomic bomb, I said the military saw no military utility in hiroshima and nagasaki. There is a differenc

I didn't say the military didn't see the utility of the atomic bomb, I said the military saw no military utility in hiroshima and nagasaki. There is a difference between using the bomb to kill soldiers and to destroy/irradiate and kill civilians. Just like there is a a military utility of the gun to kill enemy soldiers, but no military utility to shooting children. For example, a concentration camp to keep enemy soldiers is far different than a concentration camp to keep jewish, japanese american, etc civilians ( fathers, mothers and children ). And it's odd that you bring up macarthur since we know for a fact that he was against hiroshima and nagasaki. "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." https://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/countdown-to-hiroshima-fo_b_3707531.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitchell/countdown-to-hi...

ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> I said the military saw no military utility in hiroshima and nagasaki How do you reconcile that with the commonly held historical view? Or is that merely your own personal opinion? "Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army 第2総軍 (日本軍) with responsibility for most of western Japan including Kyushu as well as a depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It was a good radar target and it was such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills that were likely to produce a focusing effect that would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers, it was not a good incendiary target. It was classified as an AA(Prime)Target. It had a military garrison of about 40,000 men. Hiroshima was the primary target for the August 6 attack, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternatives. Far from being an innocent city full of civilians, the garrison of 40,000 soldiers were doing calisthenics when the bomb exploded and were in fact the largest single group of casualties in the city. Nagasaki was a major industrial city making torpedoes and ammunition. Mitsubishi Steel, Orikami Ordinance Works and a large engine works dominated the production in the city in addition of a large garrison. There were also a major dockyard used for the transport of men and materials to the north. It, too, was a high priority target but was a secondary target that was only hit if the primary target was too cloud covered for a visual drop on the primary." https://www.quora.com/Did-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-have-military-significance-or-were-they-purely-civilian-targets https://www.quora.com/Did-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-have-milita...
- porpoisely 8y ago
  Firstly, there is a world of difference because a munitions factory within a city being a viable target and the whole city itself being a target. Are you seriously justifying the destruction of hundreds of elementary schools, hospitals, shops, etc just because a city has a port? Following your logic, every city is a military target. And why limit it to just a city. Why not the state or province. A military factory is in a state. So should everyone in the state be killed? Why not expand it to the entire country. A country has a military factory. Is everyone in the country guilty? Secondly, by August of 1945, Japan had been starved of food and resources for years. So whatever industry they had was nonexistent. So even if you are able to justify nuking an entire city just to take out a factory, you still can't justify hiroshima or nagasaki because they was no industry to speak of in August of 1945. Whether you like it or not, hiroshima and nagasaki are no different than auschwitz and dachau. Indefensible war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's amazing the lengths we'll go to justify genocide. Also, it is not a commonly held historical view. It's a commonly held propaganda that we've been forcefed since childhood. And it's not my opinion. It's the opinion of General MacArthur, the commander of the entire pacific theater. It is also the opinion of Eisenhower, Marshall, Nimitz and every major military leader.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

> I said the military saw no military utility in hiroshima and nagasaki How do you reconcile that with the commonly held historical view? Or is that merely your own personal opinion? "Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the 2nd General Army 第2総軍 (日本軍) with responsibility for most of western Japan including Kyushu as well as a depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It was a good radar target and it was such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills that were likely to produce a focusing effect that would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers, it was not a good incendiary target. It was classified as an AA(Prime)Target. It had a military garrison of about 40,000 men. Hiroshima was the primary target for the August 6 attack, with Kokura and Nagasaki as alternatives. Far from being an innocent city full of civilians, the garrison of 40,000 soldiers were doing calisthenics when the bomb exploded and were in fact the largest single group of casualties in the city. Nagasaki was a major industrial city making torpedoes and ammunition. Mitsubishi Steel, Orikami Ordinance Works and a large engine works dominated the production in the city in addition of a large garrison. There were also a major dockyard used for the transport of men and materials to the north. It, too, was a high priority target but was a secondary target that was only hit if the primary target was too cloud covered for a visual drop on the primary." https://www.quora.com/Did-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-have-military-significance-or-were-they-purely-civilian-targets https://www.quora.com/Did-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-have-milita...

porpoisely 8y ago
Firstly, there is a world of difference because a munitions factory within a city being a viable target and the whole city itself being a target. Are you seriously justifying the destruction of hundreds of elementary schools, hospitals, shops, etc just because a city has a port? Following your logic, every city is a military target. And why limit it to just a city. Why not the state or province. A military factory is in a state. So should everyone in the state be killed? Why not expand it to the entire country. A country has a military factory. Is everyone in the country guilty? Secondly, by August of 1945, Japan had been starved of food and resources for years. So whatever industry they had was nonexistent. So even if you are able to justify nuking an entire city just to take out a factory, you still can't justify hiroshima or nagasaki because they was no industry to speak of in August of 1945. Whether you like it or not, hiroshima and nagasaki are no different than auschwitz and dachau. Indefensible war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's amazing the lengths we'll go to justify genocide. Also, it is not a commonly held historical view. It's a commonly held propaganda that we've been forcefed since childhood. And it's not my opinion. It's the opinion of General MacArthur, the commander of the entire pacific theater. It is also the opinion of Eisenhower, Marshall, Nimitz and every major military leader.