8 ms·

I put it to you that dropping multiple nukes was not about avoiding ground war in japan. The US simply wanted to drop the nukes and see the outcome and win the

I put it to you that dropping multiple nukes was not about avoiding ground war in japan. The US simply wanted to drop the nukes and see the outcome and win the war through pure unadulterated terror and fear.

thombat 7y ago
Terror and fear was already present in greater abundance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Meetinghouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Mee... yet five months later Japan maintained an external persona of implacable resistance. For example the subsequent invasion of the Okinawa islands resulted in over 14,000 American deaths. It was reasonable to apprehend that the invasion of the far bigger Japanese home islands would be far more lethal, also for the Japanese population. In the Tokyo raid 96 American airmen were killed, despite the only effective defence being poorly co-ordinated anti-aircraft fire. Given a weapon that claimed the potential to end the war without further American losses it seems unrealistic to expect it not to be used.
krageon 7y ago
Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone dropped a few nukes so Germany would back off a bit quicker. In the end it wasn't exactly pretty, but saying it was just for terror and fear seems like it takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional. We've all been alive long enough to know real life is generally not that simple.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  Please don't. Hiroshima and Nagasaki hosted mostly old retired people and children, and women in a smaller percentage. It hosted no military equipment of any significance, nor strategic locations, nor any significant factory. A large number of people were [ex] fishermen and quite poor. These people had very little power or ability to either support or resist the militaristic elite. They were well in the bottom 20% of literacy, wealth, fitness for war, political influence and specialized skills. Therefore they were mostly innocent. They were wiped away as a show of force and aggressiveness to intimidate other countries including USSR. > They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time The Nazi did it, not "the Germans". And it still does not justify targeting a large number of retirees and children that are contributing nothing to the war effort. > takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional ...
  - krageon 7y ago
    > Please don't. Please don't what? I was offering a different view to the same issues, along with a plea to view complicated situations in the same way that the people subject to them at the time did: As complicated situations. Reducing it to this one-dimensional "everyone was innocent" reasoning is demeaning to the people making those hard decisions. They have to sleep too, and that's hard enough when the situations in question are viewed as they are, let alone when they are oversimplified by people who were only alive after the fact. > It hosted no military equipment of any significance Given that there were a number of "work camps" within spitting distance of those targets, it seems a little disingenuous to claim that there wasn't anything there. And even if that was the case, someone pulled the trigger in the way they did - it behooves us to think about the why of that decision in manner that doesn't reduce them to imperialist caricatures of what they were. That way, we'll never really understand why their decisions were made in the way they were. If we don't understand them, it will be harder to choose to avoid their reasoning ourselves. Even if we eventually arrive at the conclusion that this was entirely the wrong decision, we owe it to every victim (both the people dying and the people doing the killing) to understand the situation properly so what they went through teaches us the right things.
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      > Please don't what? Please don't try to sneak in a justification for genocide and paint it as a necessary evil. > I was offering a different view Your "different view" came with the unwritten implication that the actions of a terrible government justify genocide: >>> Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone dropped a few nukes so Germany would back off a bit quicker. This sentence does not mention a specific military strategy. You are clearly implying that a being an "extremely bad actor" is enough to justify retaliation against unarmed civilians. > we owe it to every victim ... to understand the situation properly ...
      - krageon 7y ago
        I'm not sure what to tell you, except to try to emphasise to you that understanding what other people think (or arguing for the things they might think as a rhetorical device) doesn't "imply" that that is what is right. I don't presume to tell other people that they are flat wrong and they need to think something else and I would appreciate it if you could extend me the same courtesy.

thombat 7y ago

Terror and fear was already present in greater abundance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Meetinghouse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#Operation_Mee... yet five months later Japan maintained an external persona of implacable resistance. For example the subsequent invasion of the Okinawa islands resulted in over 14,000 American deaths. It was reasonable to apprehend that the invasion of the far bigger Japanese home islands would be far more lethal, also for the Japanese population. In the Tokyo raid 96 American airmen were killed, despite the only effective defence being poorly co-ordinated anti-aircraft fire. Given a weapon that claimed the potential to end the war without further American losses it seems unrealistic to expect it not to be used.

krageon 7y ago

Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone dropped a few nukes so Germany would back off a bit quicker. In the end it wasn't exactly pretty, but saying it was just for terror and fear seems like it takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional. We've all been alive long enough to know real life is generally not that simple.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
Please don't. Hiroshima and Nagasaki hosted mostly old retired people and children, and women in a smaller percentage. It hosted no military equipment of any significance, nor strategic locations, nor any significant factory. A large number of people were [ex] fishermen and quite poor. These people had very little power or ability to either support or resist the militaristic elite. They were well in the bottom 20% of literacy, wealth, fitness for war, political influence and specialized skills. Therefore they were mostly innocent. They were wiped away as a show of force and aggressiveness to intimidate other countries including USSR. > They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time The Nazi did it, not "the Germans". And it still does not justify targeting a large number of retirees and children that are contributing nothing to the war effort. > takes a complicated situation and makes it one-dimensional ...
- krageon 7y ago
  > Please don't. Please don't what? I was offering a different view to the same issues, along with a plea to view complicated situations in the same way that the people subject to them at the time did: As complicated situations. Reducing it to this one-dimensional "everyone was innocent" reasoning is demeaning to the people making those hard decisions. They have to sleep too, and that's hard enough when the situations in question are viewed as they are, let alone when they are oversimplified by people who were only alive after the fact. > It hosted no military equipment of any significance Given that there were a number of "work camps" within spitting distance of those targets, it seems a little disingenuous to claim that there wasn't anything there. And even if that was the case, someone pulled the trigger in the way they did - it behooves us to think about the why of that decision in manner that doesn't reduce them to imperialist caricatures of what they were. That way, we'll never really understand why their decisions were made in the way they were. If we don't understand them, it will be harder to choose to avoid their reasoning ourselves. Even if we eventually arrive at the conclusion that this was entirely the wrong decision, we owe it to every victim (both the people dying and the people doing the killing) to understand the situation properly so what they went through teaches us the right things.
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    > Please don't what? Please don't try to sneak in a justification for genocide and paint it as a necessary evil. > I was offering a different view Your "different view" came with the unwritten implication that the actions of a terrible government justify genocide: >>> Japan was an extremely bad actor. They had death camps just like the Germans did at that time. One can imagine that the German victims wished someone dropped a few nukes so Germany would back off a bit quicker. This sentence does not mention a specific military strategy. You are clearly implying that a being an "extremely bad actor" is enough to justify retaliation against unarmed civilians. > we owe it to every victim ... to understand the situation properly ...
    - krageon 7y ago
      I'm not sure what to tell you, except to try to emphasise to you that understanding what other people think (or arguing for the things they might think as a rhetorical device) doesn't "imply" that that is what is right. I don't presume to tell other people that they are flat wrong and they need to think something else and I would appreciate it if you could extend me the same courtesy.