3 ms·

Why? That atrocities were common during the war doesn't make nuking civilian targets acceptable.

PaulHoule 5y ago
(1) Because it's part of a general hatchet job against nuclear energy (2) It erases history. Really crazy stuff went down during the Korean war and people don't know about it. If the Japanese had spent 1% of the effort making amends for their crimes against China and other Asian countries that's gone into hand wringing over Hiroshima things would be very different in Asia today. It's nearly forgotten that the U.S. was slow to demobilize after WWII because it thought war against the Soviet Union was likely, and it was just as much a goal to intimidate the Soviets as it was to intimidate the Japanese.
nradov 5y ago
Those weren't civilian targets. Both cities contained military facilities and factories.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Yes, I'm aware of the doublespeak used to justify bombing major civilian population centers. I still would object to being bombed merely for living in a city, so object to bombing others for the same reason.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Please tell me how the US should have reacted to how they would have won the war while considering your moral principles. Please explain this when you make comments like that. And please also explain how many additional US soldiers (not to mention soldiers and civilians in China and other Asian nations) would you think acceptable to fight the war according to your moral principles. If for example the Nazi put a single German child into the guard house of the synthetic fuel production facility, would you not destroy it? Its easy to be critical, but please actually explain what your moral principles would have been and how you would have applied them. And can you make a credible case that these principles would have lead to less overall suffering. I am gently curious what your logic is and what alternative strategy you would advocate.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      >Please tell me how the US should have reacted to how they would have won the war while considering your moral principles. They could bomb military targets, not civilian populations. Yes, Tokyo contained some military facilities, that doesn't justify firebombing the entire city. The entire doctrine of "bomb the civilians into war weariness" has not been found to be successful, and even in 1944 there were already examples showing that. It more often causes the bombed to rally together against a common enemy, like London in the Blitz or what still effects North Korea today. Your example of one child in a synthetic fuel facility is ridiculous. I understand that some civilian workers of factories will unfortunately be victims, and that bombs will miss their targets. That's not comparable to wide scale firebombing or nuking the population.
      - codechad 5y ago
        > They could bomb military targets, not civilian populations. Yes, Tokyo contained some military facilities, that doesn't justify firebombing the entire city. I guess history disagrees with you.
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        I'd say it agrees with me, we firebombed Tokyo and the war didn't end.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        codechad 5y ago
      - panick21_ 5y ago
        Production was distributed threw the cities in Japan, that's a simple fact. And they did target military target when they had good target. After attacks on city on we can literally see production output going down. There is an argument that in Germany some of the attacks on cities were counter-productive and a more intense focus on certain industrial areas would have been more beneficial. But those were also better guarded. Even so, economic historian Adam Tooze book shows pretty well that air attacks did have large economic attacks.
BeFlatXIII 5y ago
How is dropping a nuke any less acceptable than a firebombing run? It's the same number of dead civilians in both cases, yet nuclear weapons are the ones that get all the pushback.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  Neither are acceptable, I was not trying to argue that one was morally superior just that the presence of one dies not justify the second.

(1) Because it's part of a general hatchet job against nuclear energy (2) It erases history. Really crazy stuff went down during the Korean war and people don't know about it. If the Japanese had spent 1% of the effort making amends for their crimes against China and other Asian countries that's gone into hand wringing over Hiroshima things would be very different in Asia today. It's nearly forgotten that the U.S. was slow to demobilize after WWII because it thought war against the Soviet Union was likely, and it was just as much a goal to intimidate the Soviets as it was to intimidate the Japanese.

nradov 5y ago

Those weren't civilian targets. Both cities contained military facilities and factories.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Yes, I'm aware of the doublespeak used to justify bombing major civilian population centers. I still would object to being bombed merely for living in a city, so object to bombing others for the same reason.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Please tell me how the US should have reacted to how they would have won the war while considering your moral principles. Please explain this when you make comments like that. And please also explain how many additional US soldiers (not to mention soldiers and civilians in China and other Asian nations) would you think acceptable to fight the war according to your moral principles. If for example the Nazi put a single German child into the guard house of the synthetic fuel production facility, would you not destroy it? Its easy to be critical, but please actually explain what your moral principles would have been and how you would have applied them. And can you make a credible case that these principles would have lead to less overall suffering. I am gently curious what your logic is and what alternative strategy you would advocate.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    >Please tell me how the US should have reacted to how they would have won the war while considering your moral principles. They could bomb military targets, not civilian populations. Yes, Tokyo contained some military facilities, that doesn't justify firebombing the entire city. The entire doctrine of "bomb the civilians into war weariness" has not been found to be successful, and even in 1944 there were already examples showing that. It more often causes the bombed to rally together against a common enemy, like London in the Blitz or what still effects North Korea today. Your example of one child in a synthetic fuel facility is ridiculous. I understand that some civilian workers of factories will unfortunately be victims, and that bombs will miss their targets. That's not comparable to wide scale firebombing or nuking the population.
    - codechad 5y ago
      > They could bomb military targets, not civilian populations. Yes, Tokyo contained some military facilities, that doesn't justify firebombing the entire city. I guess history disagrees with you.
      - boomboomsubban 5y ago
        I'd say it agrees with me, we firebombed Tokyo and the war didn't end.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        codechad 5y ago
    - panick21_ 5y ago
      Production was distributed threw the cities in Japan, that's a simple fact. And they did target military target when they had good target. After attacks on city on we can literally see production output going down. There is an argument that in Germany some of the attacks on cities were counter-productive and a more intense focus on certain industrial areas would have been more beneficial. But those were also better guarded. Even so, economic historian Adam Tooze book shows pretty well that air attacks did have large economic attacks.

BeFlatXIII 5y ago

How is dropping a nuke any less acceptable than a firebombing run? It's the same number of dead civilians in both cases, yet nuclear weapons are the ones that get all the pushback.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
Neither are acceptable, I was not trying to argue that one was morally superior just that the presence of one dies not justify the second.