5 ms·

I see how hard we are still trying to rationalize such a despicable act as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "We choose not to destroy cultural value" see

I see how hard we are still trying to rationalize such a despicable act as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "We choose not to destroy cultural value" seems a compassion argument until one realizes that the atomic bomb murdered more civilians that a conventional attack would have killed. To try to justify the attack, to talk about the process, the decisions, removes a very important part of the discussion. And that is the consequences on the civil population. I accept that talking about strategies and politics make sense. But, to remove any human consideration from the discussion only makes us one step closer to repeat the horrific acts of the past. As we have seen so recently, facts do not change people's minds, but feelings do. To talk about the effects on the population, to talk about the suffering will help people to change their minds about using atomic bombs.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> the atomic bomb murdered more civilians that a conventional attack would have killed. That's false. More Tokyo residents died from incendiary bombing. The alternative to the two nuclear bombs was to use 10,000 bombers with napalm to literally incinerate every village and town in Japan. Because of the failure of the Treaty of Versailles in WW1 due to no occupation of Germany, in WW2 the only acceptable outcome was occupation and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. (An exception was made for Japan to keep the Emperor.) The Japanese military were end-of-the-world type leaders, same as in Germany, so no negotiated surrender was possible. And calling the USA murderers after Japan declared war on them is absurd. The Japanese population got off easy compared to their butchery in China, which they still deny (because they have to - there was no honor in their conduct and no excuse.)
slightwinder 6y ago
> until one realizes that the atomic bomb murdered more civilians that a conventional attack would have killed The conventional bombings on Tokyo killed more people than any atomic bomb.
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > The conventional bombings on Tokyo killed more people than any atomic bomb. Tokyo had at the time a population of 1.1 million and 90,000 to 100,000 dead on the bombing of March 10th 1945. Hiroshima had at the time a population of 255,000 and 66,000 dead caused by the atomic bomb. You are right. It would have been way worse if the USA has attacked a more populated area. The situations is no less horrific because it.
  - slightwinder 6y ago
    Speculation. Hiroshima was choosen to demonstrate the max destructive power. If tokyo would have been a better candidate, they probably would have gone with it. And Tokyo is not a city, but a region. It has naturally more population because of it's far bigger area. Whether population at the time was also denser than in hiroshima back then, do you have data for this? Anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter which tool you use. The death toll depends more on the effort and will you put in, than on the bomb you use.
    - fomine3 6y ago
      > Hiroshima was choosen to demonstrate the max destructive power. If tokyo would have been a better candidate, they probably would have gone with it. Tokyo was not chosen because it's too important to nuke. Demonstrate isn't the only criteria.
      - slightwinder 6y ago
        Well, no. Tokyo was already attacked before, and had significant destruction received already. And some cities of tokyo even were on the initial list of targets with strategic value for the atomic bomb. If anything they did not choose it because is was not important enough. In the end they decided the target mainly by effective damage (physical as also psychological), which ruled out already attacked areas and left only a handful cities. Of those hiroshima was the best, because of size and the surrounding mountains, which made the best setup for effective demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb.
thundergolfer 6y ago
The USA, the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb, has a population that has disturbingly not reckoned with this history. From a recent study into USA attitudes to the usage of nuclear weapons in warfare: > Sagan noted, “The most shocking finding of our study is that 60 percent of Americans would approve of killing 2 million Iranian civilians to prevent an invasion of Iran that might kill 20,000 U. S. soldiers. ” I think it's pretty hard to overstate how concerning that study result is. The nuclear bombing of Japan killed 120,000 people. Here, 60% say they'd approve of killing 2,000,000 _civilians_ to save 20,000 U.S combatants. I'd hazard a guess that more Americans are proud of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than are ashamed of it. To not reckon with the horror and the pain of those bombing is to be open to doing the same and worse in the future. With Fascism whipping up in the USA, that survey result becomes even more ominous. 1. https://news.stanford.edu/2017/08/08/americans-weigh-nuclear-war/ https://news.stanford.edu/2017/08/08/americans-weigh-nuclear...
bart_spoon 6y ago
> until one realizes that the atomic bomb murdered more civilians that a conventional attack would have killed. Says who? The firebombing of Tokyo killed just as many civilians as the atom bomb over Hiroshima did (100k+), and is still considered the single most destructive air raid in human history[0]. And that was just Tokyo. Dozens of similar air raids were conducted throughout Japan, to say nothing of the European/Russian fronts. It is not those defending the atom bombs that are removing "any human consideration from the discussion". It is people like yourself who, presumably because you don't know the relevant history, are removing the human consideration by ignoring the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were already being slaughtered. But for some reason killing someone with a napalm filled "conventional" bomb is more acceptable than killing them with an atomic bomb. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

redis_mlc 6y ago

> the atomic bomb murdered more civilians that a conventional attack would have killed. That's false. More Tokyo residents died from incendiary bombing. The alternative to the two nuclear bombs was to use 10,000 bombers with napalm to literally incinerate every village and town in Japan. Because of the failure of the Treaty of Versailles in WW1 due to no occupation of Germany, in WW2 the only acceptable outcome was occupation and unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan. (An exception was made for Japan to keep the Emperor.) The Japanese military were end-of-the-world type leaders, same as in Germany, so no negotiated surrender was possible. And calling the USA murderers after Japan declared war on them is absurd. The Japanese population got off easy compared to their butchery in China, which they still deny (because they have to - there was no honor in their conduct and no excuse.)

slightwinder 6y ago

> until one realizes that the atomic bomb murdered more civilians that a conventional attack would have killed The conventional bombings on Tokyo killed more people than any atomic bomb.

Hokusai 6y ago
> The conventional bombings on Tokyo killed more people than any atomic bomb. Tokyo had at the time a population of 1.1 million and 90,000 to 100,000 dead on the bombing of March 10th 1945. Hiroshima had at the time a population of 255,000 and 66,000 dead caused by the atomic bomb. You are right. It would have been way worse if the USA has attacked a more populated area. The situations is no less horrific because it.
- slightwinder 6y ago
  Speculation. Hiroshima was choosen to demonstrate the max destructive power. If tokyo would have been a better candidate, they probably would have gone with it. And Tokyo is not a city, but a region. It has naturally more population because of it's far bigger area. Whether population at the time was also denser than in hiroshima back then, do you have data for this? Anyway, the point is that it doesn't matter which tool you use. The death toll depends more on the effort and will you put in, than on the bomb you use.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    > Hiroshima was choosen to demonstrate the max destructive power. If tokyo would have been a better candidate, they probably would have gone with it. Tokyo was not chosen because it's too important to nuke. Demonstrate isn't the only criteria.
    - slightwinder 6y ago
      Well, no. Tokyo was already attacked before, and had significant destruction received already. And some cities of tokyo even were on the initial list of targets with strategic value for the atomic bomb. If anything they did not choose it because is was not important enough. In the end they decided the target mainly by effective damage (physical as also psychological), which ruled out already attacked areas and left only a handful cities. Of those hiroshima was the best, because of size and the surrounding mountains, which made the best setup for effective demonstrating the power of the atomic bomb.

thundergolfer 6y ago

The USA, the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb, has a population that has disturbingly not reckoned with this history. From a recent study into USA attitudes to the usage of nuclear weapons in warfare: > Sagan noted, “The most shocking finding of our study is that 60 percent of Americans would approve of killing 2 million Iranian civilians to prevent an invasion of Iran that might kill 20,000 U. S. soldiers. ” I think it's pretty hard to overstate how concerning that study result is. The nuclear bombing of Japan killed 120,000 people. Here, 60% say they'd approve of killing 2,000,000 _civilians_ to save 20,000 U.S combatants. I'd hazard a guess that more Americans are proud of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki than are ashamed of it. To not reckon with the horror and the pain of those bombing is to be open to doing the same and worse in the future. With Fascism whipping up in the USA, that survey result becomes even more ominous. 1. https://news.stanford.edu/2017/08/08/americans-weigh-nuclear-war/ https://news.stanford.edu/2017/08/08/americans-weigh-nuclear...

bart_spoon 6y ago

> until one realizes that the atomic bomb murdered more civilians that a conventional attack would have killed. Says who? The firebombing of Tokyo killed just as many civilians as the atom bomb over Hiroshima did (100k+), and is still considered the single most destructive air raid in human history[0]. And that was just Tokyo. Dozens of similar air raids were conducted throughout Japan, to say nothing of the European/Russian fronts. It is not those defending the atom bombs that are removing "any human consideration from the discussion". It is people like yourself who, presumably because you don't know the relevant history, are removing the human consideration by ignoring the hundreds of thousands of civilians who were already being slaughtered. But for some reason killing someone with a napalm filled "conventional" bomb is more acceptable than killing them with an atomic bomb. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo