4 ms·
They used two because they had two different designs, and they wanted to test them both on real targets. They purposely chose purely civilian targets, in order
by DiogenesKynikos 3y ago
They used two because they had two different designs, and they wanted to test them both on real targets.
They purposely chose purely civilian targets, in order to inflict maximal civilian casualties. If this is not morally wrong, then nothing is.
- XorNot 3y agoHiroshima and Nagasaki were both industrial centres involved in the production of war material. By the technology of the time (precision weapons were half a century away), they were absolutely valid targets.
- DiogenesKynikos 3y agoFirst, by this argument, literally every urban center is a military target. Put another way, it's an argument for total war, in which nothing is off limits, and every "enemy" civilian is fair game. Is that the world you want to live in? Second, the US did not target any specific industrial areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In each case, it targeted the center of town, with the goal of inflicting maximum destruction on the city as a whole.
- XorNot 3y ago> First, by this argument, literally every urban center is a military target. Put another way, it's an argument for total war, in which nothing is off limits, and every "enemy" civilian is fair game. Is that the world you want to live in? Industrial bases, military bases, centers of government: these are all legitimate targets in a time of war and all are built in and around cities. The difference today is we have precision weapons so they can be reasonably targeted accurately, and the side-benefit is that night-vision capability favors night-time strikes which minimizes the number of civilians around. But don't delude yourself into thinking that there's any such thing as a "clean war". It's a war.
- gizajob 3y agoIn your morals perhaps. If you were to run a utilitarian calculus, bombing such a target could deliver the most morally optimal solution. If the war had not have ended, the Japanese could have continued to potentially kill millions. The bomb was a clear and final “you cannot win if you continue to wage war” that they came to accept. The Americans could have as easily dropped it on Tokyo.
- Robotbeat 3y agoNot true. I lean towards it being morally wrong to target civilian areas, but to claim ahistorically that the targets were intentionally purely civilian is false. Being of military importance (military post, arms manufacturing) was a requirement of the choice for both cities. Both had military significance. But it was a tragedy. Even if you think the decision to drop the bomb was defensible, no one’s conscience should be at ease when making such a terrible decision even if you feel like you’re forced by necessity. Which I don’t think was necessarily the case. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2020/08/twists-of-fate-made-nagasaki-a-target-75-years-ago https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisatio...
- DiogenesKynikos 3y agoHiroshima and Nagasaki were not military targets, unless you define every urban center a military target, by virtue of its productive capacity. Once you do that, the entire idea of separating civilian and military targets becomes an absurdity, and you might as well admit that you consider "enemy" civilians to be fair targets. Historically, the major reason why the US targeted Hiroshima and Nagasaki was that the US military wanted to test its two bomb designs on large, pristine urban centers. Attacking pristine targets made measuring the effects of the bombs easier. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been significant military targets, they likely would have been bombed much earlier. In a perverse way, they were chosen because they weren't military targets.