39 ms·

Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo

290 points by danielskogly 2y ago

lode 2y ago
This is the organisation that has won the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize: https://www.ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/ https://www.ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/
oldpersonintx 2y ago
[dead]
ignoramous 2y ago
[flagged]
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Japan's national security policy is hypocritical given that it relies solely on the US nuclear umbrella for security despite disavowing anything to do with nuclear weapons, but unfortunately reality is not ideality. Ukraine is the perfect example of what actually happens when a country discards its nuclear arsenal. So yes, Japan is absolutely hypocritical and the Nobel Peace Prize has been the most vapid of all the Nobel Prizes, but for once this Peace Prize is actually trying to say something meaningful in an ever violent human world.
  - makeitdouble 2y ago
    As a matter of fact Japan has no other choice than being under US protection. I can't imagine a chain of event that would lead the US to get out of Japan volunteerly [0], nor Japan being able to kick the US out forcibly. It's just outside of the realm of possibility right now. [0] they won't even move out of Okinawa as the whole island loathes the US base and gives the middle finger to their own gov to get them out.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > Ukraine is the perfect example of what actually happens when a country discards its nuclear arsenal. That's silly. Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal. Ukraine had nuclear weapons on their soil, but they were managed, and controlled by forces loyal to Moscow. Had forces loyal to Kyiv tried to force their way into the silos they would have been repelled and a war would have broken out there and then. Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal as much as Turkey has a nuclear arsenal because the USA stores nuclear warheads in Incirlik.
    - myrmidon 2y ago
      I agree that Ukraine was not a nuclear power even while they had warheads on their territory after the USSR fell apart, but I believe it was very feasible for them to become one. Posession is nine tenths of the law, after all-- it would've been quite possible to just lock down a few silos and refuse to hand the weapons over. Russia as a state was highly disrupted at that point, and would've had a hard time opposing this effectively. I'm not disputing that this would've been a very costly move for an already poor nation (in potential economical sanctions and also maintenance of the arsenal itself). Maybe the external political/economical pressure resulting from this would've ripped Ukraine apart some other way. But I'm highly confident that Russia would not have risked annexing territory from an country with a few nuclear ICBM silos. No need even to have full control/launch capability, as long as there is sufficient doubt (on Russias side).
- baybal2 2y ago
  [dead]
- KK7NIL 2y ago
  Depleted uranium ammunition is not a type of nuclear weapon since its method of dealing damage is kinetic, not a nuclear reaction. Ironically enough you calling these "nuclear weapons" only serves to confuse people and soften the nuclear taboo.
  - kgwgk 2y ago
    They are clearly atomic weapons - they are made of atoms.
  - ignoramous 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
    - KK7NIL 2y ago
      Stop. You know very well that depleted uranium rounds are neither nuclear weapons nor dirty bombs and claiming so only creates confusion. The US' military usage of DU (not just in ammunition but also armor) has been controversial and you're free to critique it, but that's not what you're doing. Instead you lied and created these fictional "nuclear weapons" that the US is supposedly spreading everywhere, which is just not true.
      - ignoramous 2y ago
        > nor dirty bombs Tell that too kids in Iraq and Serbia suffering from deformities. https://www.icbuw.eu/en/the-problem/scientific-data/ https://www.icbuw.eu/en/the-problem/scientific-data/ > created these fictional "nuclear weapons" that the US is supposedly spreading everywhere In the current war in ME there's unverified accusation of US allies using EU (enriched uranium) weapons. Time will tell. https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/is--israel--using-small-nuclear-weapons-in-gaza-and-south-le https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/is--israel-... > depleted uranium are neither nuclear OK. I guess, you could say these weapons are enabled by the nuclear energy / weapons industry.
matt123456789 2y ago
An excellent choice.
abe94 2y ago
One of my friends grandmothers was an atomic bomb survivor - she was just a baby when the bomb hit and was blind the rest of her life. One thing I was surprised by was the number of survivors and also that there was at least one person who survived both bombs [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi
- lqet 2y ago
  > A resident of Nagasaki, Yamaguchi was in Hiroshima on business for his employer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries when the city was bombed at 8:15 AM, on 6 August 1945. He returned to Nagasaki the following day and, despite his wounds, returned to work on 9 August, the day of the second atomic bombing. That morning, while he was being told by his supervisor that he was "crazy" after describing how one bomb had destroyed the city, the Nagasaki bomb detonated.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > That morning, while he was being told by his supervisor that he was "crazy" after describing how one bomb had destroyed the city, the Nagasaki bomb detonated. That is one way to win an argument. Not that anyone would prefer that "win".
- zczc 2y ago
  The Wikipedia article says there were at least 165 survivors of both bombings: "[Yamaguchi] was invited to take part in a 2006 documentary about 165 double A-bomb survivors".
- jsrcout 2y ago
  I, too, was shocked to learn this. I only learned about it fairly recently, from my older brother who read a book from the school library on it as a child: Nine Who Survived Hiroshima & Nagasaki Hardcover – January 1, 1957 https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Who-Survived-Hiroshima-Nagasaki/dp/B001JUY3FI https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Who-Survived-Hiroshima-Nagasaki/...
walthamstow 2y ago
I visited the Hiroshima museum last year. They've got a set of stone steps, a person was sat there when the bomb went off and they were simply vaporised. The stone steps bear the residue of the person, almost like a shadow.
- novolunt 2y ago
  [dead]
- kachapopopow 2y ago
  The atomic bombs weren't close enough to vaporize anyone since they were detonated in the air, what you see is disintegration which is a little bit different and instead of turning the human body into what could be considered "nothing" the materials are torn apart and get embedded into the surrounding environment. Some vaporization did occur, but only on plants and the skin tissue of humans.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > instead of turning the human body into what could be considered "nothing" You can't turn material into "nothing". At best you can turn it into equivalent amount of energy if you collide it with antimatter. That being said I don't really feel the difference between "vaporisation" and "disintegration". In both cases you stop being biology and start being physics in a subjective instant. (at least from the perspective of your own central nervous system, which has not enough time to even detect that something has happened) In both cases you go from a living, breathing, laughing, thinking human being into contaminants in the air or surfaces around you. What do you feel is the difference between "vaporisation" and "disintegration"? Is it about how big your largest continuous chunk is? Where do you draw the line?
    - fragmede 2y ago
      the specific definition is that vaporization turns solids and liquids into gas or plasma, while disintegration means being broken into pieces. the difference between a gas and a solid, and also fine solids suspended in a gas, is fairly well defined.
roschdal 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dang 2y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
  - roschdal 2y ago
    This comment is simply stating historical facts. It's not unsubstantive. The actions of the US military in this particular case are relevant to this story. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II caused an estimated 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 74,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, according to some sources.
    - dang 2y ago
      Your comment was (1) obvious, (2) inflammatory because of the context and the fact that it added zero extra information, and (3) snarky because of the internet trope you added ("our friendly reminder"). That means it was both unsubstantive and flamebait, even though it mentioned a fact. Also, your account has been posting comments like this a lot, where by "like this" I mean low-information and high-inflammation. This is not what HN is for and undermines what it is for, so it you could please stop this, we'd appreciate it. You're still welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course, but it you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules (such as avoiding snark and flamebait), we'd appreciate it.
pyrale 2y ago
I have no issue with this laureate, but it is sad that the comittee could not find someone deserving that is working on a more current conflict. I guess this is not a positive outlook for the current state international conflicts.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- thimabi 2y ago
  At a time when Russia threatens the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Israel and Iran escalate tensions, North Korea tests missiles and warheads… it is hard not to relate the award to these circumstances. Perhaps the committee thought it was best to express its opinion on current conflicts indirectly, as it has done so in the past.
  - pyrale 2y ago
    > Perhaps the committee thought it was best to express its opinion on current conflicts indirectly, as it has done so in the past. I do agree, and this is my point: this particular committee expressing concern rather than celebrating success is a source of lament to me.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  I'm just glad it looks like a legitimately given out award this time, instead of giving it to e.g. Peres, Arafat, Obama, Aung San Suu Kyi, etc.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Obama is by far the most vapid recipient of the award, but I wonder if he is also the best representative for the lack of peace given his legacy of "Yes we can, (but we don't)." The reason we seemingly can't have peace is because we deliberately refuse it.
thimabi 2y ago
Congratulations to Nihon Hidankyo! As said in the announcement, even 80 years after those bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we still need to highlight the dangers of nuclear weapons. The threat and use of such weapons is still allowed by customary international law. Maybe movements like this will help change this sad fact. There has been progress in this direction. However, of course, nuclear-weapon states have been vehemently opposed to that, although they are obliged to negotiate a general and complete nuclear disarmament.
- gus_massa 2y ago
  "Customary international law" is written by countries that can win a huge wae that are countries that have nuclear weapons, so they will not forbid themself the use of nuclear weapons.
  - thimabi 2y ago
    As the name says, customary international law is not written. It arises from international practices that have become so widespread that states begin to recognize they have a legal obligation to continue them (opinio juris). Current literature says that the non-usage of nuclear weapons has become a widespread international practice, but that the resistance of nuclear powers has prevented the formation of an “opinio juris” thus far. What is at stake is whether an international custom can be formed despite the opposition of certain states — as long as several other states acknowledge the custom.
    - exmadscientist 2y ago
      Doesn't the history of war in the twentieth century (because we've got to start somewhere) suggest that "international law" means absolutely fucking nothing at fucking all when it comes to major wars? Why bother? What are you going to do to enforce it, invade the guy who just nuked/invaded you/your friends?
    - gus_massa 2y ago
      But the several other states must have nuclear weapons to enforce the custom on a rogue country with nuclear weapons.
thrownawaysz 2y ago
If I were a gambling man I'd put some money on a chinese professor getting the economics Nobel Prize
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  You might want to consider a little more carefully before putting money down. There is no economics Nobel Prize.
  - thrownawaysz 2y ago
    "Although not one of the five Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel's will in 1895, it is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics, and is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation. Winners of the Prize in Economic Sciences are chosen in a similar manner as and announced alongside the Nobel Prize recipients, and receive the Prize in Economic Sciences at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony"
    - justinclift 2y ago
      Where's that from?
mppm 2y ago
This is indeed a very timely award. I sometimes feel like the world has forgotten that nuclear weapons still exist and are still on hair-trigger alert to obliterate major cities. Maybe the end of atmospheric testing and the success of (now defunct) weapons reduction treaties has blunted public perception to the ongoing threat that they represent, and to the need to tread carefully where nuclear powers are involved.
- vasco 2y ago
  If I put a hammer over your head that can fall any minute you'll be worrying, but if you're born with the hammer over your head and your parents before you as well, it becomes less of a thing.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    On an individual level, we all have a variety of hammers over our heads. Cancer has killed far more people prematurely than nuclear weapons. Something like 500,000 people a year are murdered. Traffic/bicycle/pedestrian accidents also kill more than nuclear weapons. Even compared to a once-in-a-century nuclear war that perhaps kills a billion people, cancer will kill roughly a billion in the next century anyway. So, for the rational/selfish person, the nuclear threat isn't worth worrying about.
    - thimabi 2y ago
      That depends on where you live. There are people right now in certain places who are terrified of the nuclear threat.
    - smokel 2y ago
      Extrapolating from two samples to "once-in-a-century" does not strike me as rational.
    - faggotbreath 2y ago
      [flagged]
contrarian1234 2y ago
It's a bit unclear to me why you need an organization that advocates against nuclear weapons. I'd argue the “nuclear taboo” is just the product of.. I don't just seeing one nuclear test video? It doesn't take the cataloging of witness testimony to see it's terror (though that may be important in its own right) I'm not intimately familiar with Japanese self-perceptions - but from the outside it seems like post-WW2 the country really leaned into a view that "nuclear weapons are terrible" to the point of distraction - instead of a more self-reflective "nationalism is terrible" or something along those lines. There seems to be much less anxiety about preventing getting into a similar situations that triggered WW2: neo-colonial military bullying and domination of neighbors, xenaphobic oppression of ethnic groups, sycophantic following of cultural leaders etc. and an intense worry about the more tangeable use of nuclear weapons - which I'd argue is something that even if it were to come to pass would almost certainly never involve the Japanese people. I wonder how this seeming diversion of public attention is perceived in Japan itself. As I understand it, the anti-nationalist narrative was repressed due to anti-communist agendas of the occupation forces (ex: freeing of nationalist war criminals) Would be curious to hear from anyone Japanese on the topic
- nabla9 2y ago
  The general human tendency to focus on single short term events seems to be the main cause. Let's compare using Wikipedia as a source: Atomic bombings in Japan: 50,000–246,000 casualties. Air Raids in Japan: 241,000–900,000 killed, 213,000–1,300,000 wounded, 8,500,000 rendered homeless. Mass killings of large civilian populations should not happen. I don't personally see nuclear weapons as worse than incendiary bombs or artillery. It's the number of casualties that makes it horrible.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    I agree. I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Park or whatever it's called in English numerous times, but I can't say I've been anymore moved by it than any other demonstration of human brutality. I can't register a difference between a nuclear bomb and, say, a GBU-12 Paveway conventional bomb. They both destroy and kill brutally, the magnitude is irrelevant and it would be great if we never have to use either of them.
tgv 2y ago
In "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Rhodes, a poignant point was made, originating from people like Bohr, who were definitely on the peaceful side: without demonstrating the effect of the atomic bomb, the "nuclear taboo" would not have come into existence, and the first large conflict between nuclear powers would have seen a terrible outcome. The use of the bomb was inevitable, so it was sadly better to use it in a restricted war, before the US and the CCCP would use them against each other and the rest of the world.
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  That might have been a better argument if the USSR[0] had had the bomb in 1945[1]? Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw#t=15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw#t=15s [0] first test: 29.08.1949 [1] a year in which the US and USSR were, however tenuously, still allied
  - cbolton 2y ago
    Does it matter? It was probably obvious to the scientists working on the bomb that other countries would get it too sooner or later, including countries at odds with each other.
    - 082349872349872 2y ago
      I don't know. Could Hirohito (Suzuki, etc.) have been convinced by bombs dropped elsewhere? (our physicists were able to back-of-the-envelope; should their physicists have needed hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths to calculate what an A-bomb could do?) So I think it's not obvious (multiple books have been written on the subject) what could or should have been done or not done back then; now, from my point of view, those cards have been dealt, for good or for ill.
      - tgv 2y ago
        Hirohito was apparently convinced after the bomb on Hiroshima, the cabinet and military staff still wanted to fight on after the bomb on Nagasaki. They even tried to block his radio speech. Personally, I think it was tragic, but there was not much choice. Forcing Japan to its knees by conventional means would have been a prolonged bloodbath (with the Soviets getting in the game as well), with probably a higher death toll.
WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago
Not sure if that organisation is making progress, sounds like a smoke bomb, to please people who care about these meaningless rewards https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3852169/joint-statement-of-the-security-consultative-committee-22/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/385216...
bigcat12345678 2y ago
[flagged]
kaon_ 2y ago
At home I have a book telling stories of Dutch WW2 survivors still living today. One of them was an eye witness account of the Hiroshima bomb. He was a POW and worked in a quarry or mine on the outskirts of town. He saw a single plane fly over. A bomb dropped with a parachute attached. Moments later he was flung to the back of the quarry and the city was gone. I would never have guessed there were eyewitnesses like this, let alone coutrymen of mine.
- LeonM 2y ago
  Which book is it?
- Metacelsus 2y ago
  Little Boy didn't have a parachute. Maybe he was mis-remembering that.
  - dogben 2y ago
    There were instruments dropped by parachute.
    - tephra 2y ago
      IIRC those were dropped by a second plane accompanying the Enola Gay.
- cchi_co 2y ago
  [dead]
- trescenzi 2y ago
  The book Hiroshima by John Hersey has many accounts like this. It’s a short read and follows six people and covers the first year after the bombing. I’d highly recommend reading it if such accounts are interesting to you.
  - tirumaraiselvan 2y ago
jojobas 2y ago
Nuclear weapons are not used not because they are morally unacceptable, but rather because of MAD and their limited efficiency when used against armies. If you wanted to give a Nobel Prize to someone for preventing nuclear wars, give it to Nuclear Winter researchers and military analysts.
- js8 2y ago
  You mean like the small guns, right? They are not being used not because society deems it morally unacceptable, but because the gun owners are afraid they will be counterattacked with guns. I just had an argument about madness that is MAD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41776112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41776112 Actually, it would be interesting if someone researched the relationship between gun culture and acceptance of MAD. Both on national (cultural) and individual level.
  - jojobas 2y ago
    People whose prediction skills are so bad as to use a gun without a good reason tend not to get in charge of nuclear weapons. And yes guns are used as a deterrent a lot more than they are used to shoot to kill. MAD is everything that held it all together during the Cuban missile crisis. Later countries agreed not to pursue ABM so as to keep the deterrent. Your snark is misplaced.
psychoslave 2y ago
Nice to see they do somehow recognize the whole association of people and not push to much about a single person. But the committee is trapped with the rules that push for this ridiculous individual centric point of view which is so out of touch with measurable realities considering what forces actually come at play to anything with large social impact. Also on a side note: >the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen. Well, first thing, this is a quite restrictive anthropocentric and restrictive POV for what count for a weapon. Putting appart all things that triggered previous mass extinction as they might not really fit the expectation of weapon and "ever witnessed as implied agent", ok. But let's consider European invasion of America: while this was not intended and per design, it somehow greatly leveraged on bacteriological weapons. Currently humanity is also at war with biodiversity, and the scale is massive and worldwide, using a large panel of tools. Of course we are more prone to empathy to our fellow humans, and nuclear weapons are abominations.
belter 2y ago
Tsutomu Yamaguchi survived both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi
- LightBug1 2y ago
  a.k.a. Tsutomu "Wolverine" Yamaguchi
Strawberry76 2y ago
A good one this year. Some past recipients, not so good...
cynicalpeace 2y ago
Phenomenal choice. While 80 years is nice- it's a blip on the timescale of history. I personally think we're a button click away from going back to the stone age. I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on. I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers are extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency.
- walrushunter 2y ago
  Yeah, we should just stop all wars. Great idea! How has nobody thought of this before???
- mordae 2y ago
  Stone age? Hardly. More like 18th century. I am more worried that we do not have that many attempts at rebuilding, because coal and oil are finite. OTOH a slower 2nd iteration might actually work better than this one.
  - cynicalpeace 2y ago
    "I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on." Far more important than 18th century vs stone age debate is the fact that there are people in charge that would lead us down either path.
    - verisimi 2y ago
      > there are people in charge that would lead us down either path Must you follow?
      - cynicalpeace 2y ago
        Would love not to. But I'm not the decider whether we head down the path of nuclear armageddon.
  - bonzini 2y ago
melasadra 2y ago
As some other commenters have pointed out: It is lamentable that the focus is almost always on the atomic bombing itself instead of why it came to that point at all. Many Asian countries feel scant sympathy toward Japan. From Indonesia to Malaysia to the Philipipines or even worse and for much longer, in Korea and China. In each of these countries the Japanese perpetrated massacre, forced labour, gang rape and forced prostitution in the millions. Even European women who were stranded in their former colonies were not spared. In fact their diaries are the foremost historical sources. Their brutality is such that the hatred towards colonialist European nations were ameliorated and pretty much forgotten these days. It's sickening to me that outside East and Southeast Asia itself, most of the world only remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima when it comes to casualties in the Pacific theatre of WW2. This sympathy felt even more misplaced considering even to this very day, unlike Germany, Japanese historiograpy deliberately downplays Japan brutality during occupation or that there was any aggression on their part at all. Most Japanese college mates in the US that I've talked to were not even aware that Japan occupied my country for years resulting in millions of casualties.
- yread 2y ago
  There are also well-maintained shrines (like Yasukuni) to the Japanese war criminals frequented even by high-level politicians (former PM went there, current ministers went there). Imagine that in current Germany!
  - glandium 2y ago
    The Yasukuni situation is more complex than "the shrine for war criminals". A lot more people are enshrined there, the war criminals are a tiny fraction (and were only added in 1978, while the shrine was established 109 years earlier). To give you an example of an important and less controversial figure enshrined there: Sakamoto Ryōma. There are 2+ millions souls enshrined there.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Foreignborn 2y ago
artursapek 2y ago
[flagged]
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  That’s because he is manipulating you with scare tactics, much like virtually every other topic. Great Depression 2! Dog eaters! Rapists! Every other sentence is an appeal to fear.
  - artursapek 2y ago
    Not really. I can see through his nonsense like the Haitians comment was hilarious. But if I’m choosing between a politician that says nuclear war is a high existential risk and talks about ending wars, and his opponents who seem to get off on prolonging them, I have no problem making that choice.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      It’s very sad to voice support for a man you believe is actively lying to you and your peers. That, to me, feels like hatred for your own politically affiliates even.
      - artursapek 2y ago
        You're right. Biden and Harris never lie. I'll support them.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  Genuinely interested: if Trump talking nukes is 'one of the reasons (for liking him), what are the others, and do they include his talking about soldiers and generals?
  - artursapek 2y ago
    He wants a secure border, and to end the wars in the east. You don't support those things?
matthewfelgate 2y ago
[flagged]
- gus_massa 2y ago
  What about right wing dictatorships backed by the CIA?
  - wtcactus 2y ago
    Is there any right wing dictatorship backed by CIA that has nuclear weapons?
- aguaviva 2y ago
  while Iran has them, Present tense, you say?
- dang 2y ago
  Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling and flamebait? We've had to ask you this before! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - matthewfelgate 2y ago
    What's name calling?
    - dang 2y ago
      Pejorative labels like "dumbest ever" and "idiotic". From the guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - matthewfelgate 2y ago
        OK I've redone my post.
kdhusakdjhsadkj 2y ago
[flagged]
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  The risk is that if you start bombing Iranian nuclear facilities that they immediately start manufacturing a nuclear bomb.
  - yard2010 2y ago
    Start..?
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Current intelligence believes Iran is not actively building a bomb, although the time to do so is very short if they choose to.
  - kdhusakdjhsadkj 2y ago
    and how exactly will they be able to do so without any nuclear facilities?
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      You cannot guarantee success on knocking them out. You cannot guarantee other countries won’t make the situation vastly more complicated.
- mihaaly 2y ago
  I believe the west cares that much to pretent that they have doubt about interfering drastically in the life of heterogeneous and diverse view people grouped together geographically and called country. Showing that they respect independence and self governance. A rigteous self image to cloak cowardnes towards risky acts you know. Also global assholes cover each other's ass and there are quite a few of them.
- bbb651 2y ago
Timari 2y ago
I watched the film “Threads” last night, anyone in any doubt about the horrific consequences of a nuclear exchange should watch it. The speed at which society falls apart is simply terrifying. Those poor souls unlucky to be in a war zone will understand better than I ever will. The world needs a new order.
tomp 2y ago
[flagged]
- thimabi 2y ago
  Nuclear weapons have not prevented major world powers from engaging in proxy wars. As we can see today in the Middle East, proxy wars can make things dangerous and more likely to lead to an unwanted escalation. Mutually assured destruction works best when the number of involved parties is limited. If every state were to have a warhead of its own, many risks would increase: those of miscalculation, nuclear proliferation to non-state actors, etc.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  What if a fanatical leader has them? Castro said he would have nuked the US if he could and didn't care if Cuba gets destroyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg
  - protomolecule 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      Not at all. A fanatic wouldn't feign it, they'd do it. Self destruction be damned.
      - protomolecule 2y ago
        So why mention Castro?
        2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Because the person I responded to said that if everyone has nukes we are safer because of MAD but if Castro had nukes he would have used them! Fanatical leaders don't give a damn about MAD
satvikpendem 2y ago
I recently went to the Hiroshima museum. I had originally thought that people simply vaporized when the bomb hit, but that is not the case. The museum shows how people's skin simply sloughed off and some were holding parts in their hands as they walked around to find their loved ones. But the worst part was radiation poisoning. Many that did not initially get hit and burned directly went towards the center of the city to find their families and over the course of days, months and years, they almost always died a slow, painful death, with their teeth falling out and their skin and organs becoming necrotic. Truly, everyone should visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki at some point, if only to understand what true horrors nuclear weapons create. And those are only atomic weapons of the 1940s, the hydrogen bombs we have today that fuse instead of fiss are orders of magnitude more powerful, but at least those under their effects (near the epicenter) will die a quick vaporized death instantaneously.
- mppm 2y ago
  As an addition (and correction) to this, powerful thermonuclear weapons don't vaporize anyone either. They are targeted for high-altitude airbursts and kill through a combination of burns and building collapse, plus secondary fires, infection and breakdown of emergency services. The majority of the victims would not die an instant death. For more information: https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    There are multiple lethal effects from nuclear weapons, and a person inside the 100 million Celsius fireball itself (TK-radius), yes, will be vapourised. Fireball size depends on weapon yield. For a 1 MT weapon, the radius is roughly 870m, at 5 MT ~1010m, at 150 KT, about 250m. Most US nuclear weapons yield between 600 to 2,200 KT (0.6 to 2.2 MT). Whether or not individuals are within the fireball radius depends on the height of detonation, parameters of the nuclear explosion itself (shaped nuclear charges are theoretically possible, though I'm not aware whether any present weapons are designed as such), and of course the local population density. Outside the fireball, the principle lethal mechanism is the shock wave, though thermal pulse can still provide severe burns, and initial and fallout radiation can also be lethal, though over longer periods (hours, days, weeks, or more). Effects generally fall with the inverse cube law. Larger weapons also experience an inverse cube effect, such that a one thousandfold increase in weapon yield delivers only a tenfold increase in effects at a given distance. People may be vapourised, though most within a blast effect area will likely not. They may however be severely burned if directly exposed to the thermal pulse. Near in, other lethal effects, which may be delayed by a few seconds, principally from the blast wave, should predominate. Air-burst attacks would likely decrease vapourisation. Penetrating / shaped charges would have markedly different and highly directional effects. Major Kong would not have felt a thing.
cchi_co 2y ago
[dead]
Simon_ORourke 2y ago
[flagged]
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Of course the reminder of the impact there and the ongoing risk is nice but is this really a relevant and current choice? Why not last year? Why not ten years ago? What success have they even had? Considering where we are right now. This isn't a group making an impact on the ground anywhere right now. Many of the winners in recent years have been civil & human rights activists in real fights on the ground in their countries/regions. The public will take the reminder but mostly shrug the news off.
- istjohn 2y ago
  This discussion proves the importance. We are so far from properly appreciating the horror of nuclear weapons. One would think that after nearly eighty years Americans would be able to apprehend our crimes against the innocents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with clear vision.
AlbertCory 2y ago
The chances of a nuclear bomb being used in the next 30 years is at least 90%. That's an opinion so don't ask for a link. Why? Purely because of the combinatorial math of proliferation, and the likelihood of either an accident or a crazy person getting control of a bomb. I wish it weren't so, but eventually your luck runs out.
hruzgar 2y ago
So US has nuclear bombs, but japan is somehow not allowed to make their own? Seems like controlled oppression to me
- khuey 2y ago
  Japan is free to withdraw from the NPT at any time.
retrocryptid 2y ago
i'm confused. what does Hidankyo have to do with large language models?
hit8run 2y ago
[flagged]
- hsavit1 2y ago
  yeah the peace prize has completely lost any credibility that it may have had.
deanCommie 2y ago
The Hiroshimia/Nagasaki situation is one of the best examples I can think of with plenty of evidence of the "history is written by the winners" concept. It has been justified repeatedly over the years both in terms of relativism ("The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people, yet isn't so controversial"), and in terms of hypotheticals becoming certainties ("The empire was never going to surrender without a massive fight. The US anticipated unprecedented losses from an invasion of the main island, and is still giving out purple hearts printed in anticipation of this invasion") In the end the historical narrative was that dropping the bombs was necessary to end the war, as written by the winners. The reality is that we just don't know what would've happened if the US waited. Japan was not an active threat any longer. What was? The Soviet Union that would've certainly "helped" invade Japan, and would've also demanded to carve it up post-war the way they did with Germany. From evaluating the overall evidence it seems pretty clear that this is what was driving the urgency to drop the bomb, not once, but twice. The irony is that it's entirely possible that for the population of Japan this ended up a better outcome than having half of it face the "East Germany" scenario for the next 40 years. And while the "blight" of having actually used nuclear weapons to kill civilians may be on the US forever as the only nation to have done so, the horrors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki almost certainly helped prevent nuclear weapon usage throughout the cold war. If they were never tried, it's almost certain that either the US or the USSR would've been itchy to be the first in some future engagement, and then who knows what would've happened. So the truth is messy. My position is that the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings were NOT necessary to end WW2 and did not reduce the overall bloodshed within THAT conflict. But this action counterintuitively helped improve Japan's prosperity over the rest of the 20th century and may have reduced the likelihood of an actual nuclear war over the rest of the Cold War.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- js8 2y ago
  Your last paragraph makes a terrible moral argument: Yeah, maybe I am waging a war today, but's in the interest of the future peace! I don't think your hypothetical assumption that 20th century peace could not be made without using nukes in WW2 is valid. Why not even turn it up and say that future peace from nuclear weapons is impossible without living through the global thermonuclear war? Clearly, most people can imagine dangers of that, so they are perfectly capable of imagining dangers of only 2 nukes being used, without them actually being used.
hereme888 2y ago
[flagged]
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  I don't think that negates the work that these organizations do. The degree to which nuclear weapons are developed and proliferated is not binary.
- parl_match 2y ago
  > Also, those bombs saved a lot of lives. I know many will disagree, but it's true. This is a hotly, perhaps one of the most hotly contended, modern questions of World War II. To say what you said so blithely betrays your ignorance on the subject. General modern consensus suggests that the first is up for debate for various reasons, but that the second one really didn't do much to change the Japanese government's course. Regardless if you disagree with that above statement or not, positioning your uninformed opinion as fact is a bad look.
  - historyartifucj 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - aegypti 2y ago
    A specific strain of 20th century revisionism considers their use questionable in academia, it isn’t remotely a consensus (outside JP) and it certainly isn’t modern.
    - parl_match 2y ago
      It's not a "specific strain", it's an overwhelming consensus that "both weren't necessary". There are, of course, people who take hard lines that "both were necessary", but they are in the minority. At this point the argument has shifted to "was the bombing of Nagasaki necessary to end the war" with the common thought agreeing more or less that some initial large show of force was necessary.
- 2y ago
matthewfelgate 2y ago
- Liberal democracies should have Nuclear Weapons. - Dictatorships and Communists countries shouldn't.
pajeets 2y ago
What makes me really angry are the NPCs that constantly try to justify the bombing and that it was "painless". When I visited Hiroshima and I read about what had happened, I realized our history books were egregiously nonchalant about quite possibly the worst acts of crime against humanity. Now that it appears the world is once again creeping towards nuclear stand-off this time with a very large non-zero chance that a country pushed towards existential crisis will not hesitate to detonate a nuclear device, it makes the people justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuking as completely deranged. I urge y'all to visit Hiroshima and see first hand the horrors of nuclear terrorism. When you attack civilians directly, its terrorism no matter what side of the fence you are on.
- matthewfelgate 2y ago
  Not than many people died.
known 2y ago
[dead]

290 points by danielskogly 2y ago

lode 2y ago

This is the organisation that has won the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize: https://www.ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/ https://www.ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/

oldpersonintx 2y ago

[dead]

ignoramous 2y ago

[flagged]

Dalewyn 2y ago
Japan's national security policy is hypocritical given that it relies solely on the US nuclear umbrella for security despite disavowing anything to do with nuclear weapons, but unfortunately reality is not ideality. Ukraine is the perfect example of what actually happens when a country discards its nuclear arsenal. So yes, Japan is absolutely hypocritical and the Nobel Peace Prize has been the most vapid of all the Nobel Prizes, but for once this Peace Prize is actually trying to say something meaningful in an ever violent human world.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  As a matter of fact Japan has no other choice than being under US protection. I can't imagine a chain of event that would lead the US to get out of Japan volunteerly [0], nor Japan being able to kick the US out forcibly. It's just outside of the realm of possibility right now. [0] they won't even move out of Okinawa as the whole island loathes the US base and gives the middle finger to their own gov to get them out.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > Ukraine is the perfect example of what actually happens when a country discards its nuclear arsenal. That's silly. Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal. Ukraine had nuclear weapons on their soil, but they were managed, and controlled by forces loyal to Moscow. Had forces loyal to Kyiv tried to force their way into the silos they would have been repelled and a war would have broken out there and then. Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal as much as Turkey has a nuclear arsenal because the USA stores nuclear warheads in Incirlik.
  - myrmidon 2y ago
    I agree that Ukraine was not a nuclear power even while they had warheads on their territory after the USSR fell apart, but I believe it was very feasible for them to become one. Posession is nine tenths of the law, after all-- it would've been quite possible to just lock down a few silos and refuse to hand the weapons over. Russia as a state was highly disrupted at that point, and would've had a hard time opposing this effectively. I'm not disputing that this would've been a very costly move for an already poor nation (in potential economical sanctions and also maintenance of the arsenal itself). Maybe the external political/economical pressure resulting from this would've ripped Ukraine apart some other way. But I'm highly confident that Russia would not have risked annexing territory from an country with a few nuclear ICBM silos. No need even to have full control/launch capability, as long as there is sufficient doubt (on Russias side).
baybal2 2y ago
[dead]
KK7NIL 2y ago
Depleted uranium ammunition is not a type of nuclear weapon since its method of dealing damage is kinetic, not a nuclear reaction. Ironically enough you calling these "nuclear weapons" only serves to confuse people and soften the nuclear taboo.
- kgwgk 2y ago
  They are clearly atomic weapons - they are made of atoms.
- ignoramous 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
  - KK7NIL 2y ago
    Stop. You know very well that depleted uranium rounds are neither nuclear weapons nor dirty bombs and claiming so only creates confusion. The US' military usage of DU (not just in ammunition but also armor) has been controversial and you're free to critique it, but that's not what you're doing. Instead you lied and created these fictional "nuclear weapons" that the US is supposedly spreading everywhere, which is just not true.
    - ignoramous 2y ago
      > nor dirty bombs Tell that too kids in Iraq and Serbia suffering from deformities. https://www.icbuw.eu/en/the-problem/scientific-data/ https://www.icbuw.eu/en/the-problem/scientific-data/ > created these fictional "nuclear weapons" that the US is supposedly spreading everywhere In the current war in ME there's unverified accusation of US allies using EU (enriched uranium) weapons. Time will tell. https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/is--israel--using-small-nuclear-weapons-in-gaza-and-south-le https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/is--israel-... > depleted uranium are neither nuclear OK. I guess, you could say these weapons are enabled by the nuclear energy / weapons industry.

matt123456789 2y ago

An excellent choice.

abe94 2y ago

One of my friends grandmothers was an atomic bomb survivor - she was just a baby when the bomb hit and was blind the rest of her life. One thing I was surprised by was the number of survivors and also that there was at least one person who survived both bombs [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

lqet 2y ago
> A resident of Nagasaki, Yamaguchi was in Hiroshima on business for his employer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries when the city was bombed at 8:15 AM, on 6 August 1945. He returned to Nagasaki the following day and, despite his wounds, returned to work on 9 August, the day of the second atomic bombing. That morning, while he was being told by his supervisor that he was "crazy" after describing how one bomb had destroyed the city, the Nagasaki bomb detonated.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > That morning, while he was being told by his supervisor that he was "crazy" after describing how one bomb had destroyed the city, the Nagasaki bomb detonated. That is one way to win an argument. Not that anyone would prefer that "win".
zczc 2y ago
The Wikipedia article says there were at least 165 survivors of both bombings: "[Yamaguchi] was invited to take part in a 2006 documentary about 165 double A-bomb survivors".
jsrcout 2y ago
I, too, was shocked to learn this. I only learned about it fairly recently, from my older brother who read a book from the school library on it as a child: Nine Who Survived Hiroshima & Nagasaki Hardcover – January 1, 1957 https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Who-Survived-Hiroshima-Nagasaki/dp/B001JUY3FI https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Who-Survived-Hiroshima-Nagasaki/...

walthamstow 2y ago

I visited the Hiroshima museum last year. They've got a set of stone steps, a person was sat there when the bomb went off and they were simply vaporised. The stone steps bear the residue of the person, almost like a shadow.

novolunt 2y ago
[dead]
kachapopopow 2y ago
The atomic bombs weren't close enough to vaporize anyone since they were detonated in the air, what you see is disintegration which is a little bit different and instead of turning the human body into what could be considered "nothing" the materials are torn apart and get embedded into the surrounding environment. Some vaporization did occur, but only on plants and the skin tissue of humans.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > instead of turning the human body into what could be considered "nothing" You can't turn material into "nothing". At best you can turn it into equivalent amount of energy if you collide it with antimatter. That being said I don't really feel the difference between "vaporisation" and "disintegration". In both cases you stop being biology and start being physics in a subjective instant. (at least from the perspective of your own central nervous system, which has not enough time to even detect that something has happened) In both cases you go from a living, breathing, laughing, thinking human being into contaminants in the air or surfaces around you. What do you feel is the difference between "vaporisation" and "disintegration"? Is it about how big your largest continuous chunk is? Where do you draw the line?
  - fragmede 2y ago
    the specific definition is that vaporization turns solids and liquids into gas or plasma, while disintegration means being broken into pieces. the difference between a gas and a solid, and also fine solids suspended in a gas, is fairly well defined.

roschdal 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dang 2y ago
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments and flamebait? You've unfortunately been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- roschdal 2y ago
  This comment is simply stating historical facts. It's not unsubstantive. The actions of the US military in this particular case are relevant to this story. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II caused an estimated 140,000 deaths in Hiroshima and 74,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, according to some sources.
  - dang 2y ago
    Your comment was (1) obvious, (2) inflammatory because of the context and the fact that it added zero extra information, and (3) snarky because of the internet trope you added ("our friendly reminder"). That means it was both unsubstantive and flamebait, even though it mentioned a fact. Also, your account has been posting comments like this a lot, where by "like this" I mean low-information and high-inflammation. This is not what HN is for and undermines what it is for, so it you could please stop this, we'd appreciate it. You're still welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course, but it you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules (such as avoiding snark and flamebait), we'd appreciate it.

pyrale 2y ago

I have no issue with this laureate, but it is sad that the comittee could not find someone deserving that is working on a more current conflict. I guess this is not a positive outlook for the current state international conflicts.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thimabi 2y ago
At a time when Russia threatens the use of nuclear weapons in Ukraine, Israel and Iran escalate tensions, North Korea tests missiles and warheads… it is hard not to relate the award to these circumstances. Perhaps the committee thought it was best to express its opinion on current conflicts indirectly, as it has done so in the past.
- pyrale 2y ago
  > Perhaps the committee thought it was best to express its opinion on current conflicts indirectly, as it has done so in the past. I do agree, and this is my point: this particular committee expressing concern rather than celebrating success is a source of lament to me.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
I'm just glad it looks like a legitimately given out award this time, instead of giving it to e.g. Peres, Arafat, Obama, Aung San Suu Kyi, etc.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Obama is by far the most vapid recipient of the award, but I wonder if he is also the best representative for the lack of peace given his legacy of "Yes we can, (but we don't)." The reason we seemingly can't have peace is because we deliberately refuse it.

thimabi 2y ago

Congratulations to Nihon Hidankyo! As said in the announcement, even 80 years after those bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we still need to highlight the dangers of nuclear weapons. The threat and use of such weapons is still allowed by customary international law. Maybe movements like this will help change this sad fact. There has been progress in this direction. However, of course, nuclear-weapon states have been vehemently opposed to that, although they are obliged to negotiate a general and complete nuclear disarmament.

gus_massa 2y ago
"Customary international law" is written by countries that can win a huge wae that are countries that have nuclear weapons, so they will not forbid themself the use of nuclear weapons.
- thimabi 2y ago
  As the name says, customary international law is not written. It arises from international practices that have become so widespread that states begin to recognize they have a legal obligation to continue them (opinio juris). Current literature says that the non-usage of nuclear weapons has become a widespread international practice, but that the resistance of nuclear powers has prevented the formation of an “opinio juris” thus far. What is at stake is whether an international custom can be formed despite the opposition of certain states — as long as several other states acknowledge the custom.
  - exmadscientist 2y ago
    Doesn't the history of war in the twentieth century (because we've got to start somewhere) suggest that "international law" means absolutely fucking nothing at fucking all when it comes to major wars? Why bother? What are you going to do to enforce it, invade the guy who just nuked/invaded you/your friends?
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    But the several other states must have nuclear weapons to enforce the custom on a rogue country with nuclear weapons.

thrownawaysz 2y ago

If I were a gambling man I'd put some money on a chinese professor getting the economics Nobel Prize

thaumasiotes 2y ago
You might want to consider a little more carefully before putting money down. There is no economics Nobel Prize.
- thrownawaysz 2y ago
  "Although not one of the five Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel's will in 1895, it is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics, and is administered and referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel Foundation. Winners of the Prize in Economic Sciences are chosen in a similar manner as and announced alongside the Nobel Prize recipients, and receive the Prize in Economic Sciences at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony"
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Where's that from?

mppm 2y ago

This is indeed a very timely award. I sometimes feel like the world has forgotten that nuclear weapons still exist and are still on hair-trigger alert to obliterate major cities. Maybe the end of atmospheric testing and the success of (now defunct) weapons reduction treaties has blunted public perception to the ongoing threat that they represent, and to the need to tread carefully where nuclear powers are involved.

vasco 2y ago
If I put a hammer over your head that can fall any minute you'll be worrying, but if you're born with the hammer over your head and your parents before you as well, it becomes less of a thing.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  On an individual level, we all have a variety of hammers over our heads. Cancer has killed far more people prematurely than nuclear weapons. Something like 500,000 people a year are murdered. Traffic/bicycle/pedestrian accidents also kill more than nuclear weapons. Even compared to a once-in-a-century nuclear war that perhaps kills a billion people, cancer will kill roughly a billion in the next century anyway. So, for the rational/selfish person, the nuclear threat isn't worth worrying about.
  - thimabi 2y ago
    That depends on where you live. There are people right now in certain places who are terrified of the nuclear threat.
  - smokel 2y ago
    Extrapolating from two samples to "once-in-a-century" does not strike me as rational.
  - faggotbreath 2y ago
    [flagged]

contrarian1234 2y ago

It's a bit unclear to me why you need an organization that advocates against nuclear weapons. I'd argue the “nuclear taboo” is just the product of.. I don't just seeing one nuclear test video? It doesn't take the cataloging of witness testimony to see it's terror (though that may be important in its own right) I'm not intimately familiar with Japanese self-perceptions - but from the outside it seems like post-WW2 the country really leaned into a view that "nuclear weapons are terrible" to the point of distraction - instead of a more self-reflective "nationalism is terrible" or something along those lines. There seems to be much less anxiety about preventing getting into a similar situations that triggered WW2: neo-colonial military bullying and domination of neighbors, xenaphobic oppression of ethnic groups, sycophantic following of cultural leaders etc. and an intense worry about the more tangeable use of nuclear weapons - which I'd argue is something that even if it were to come to pass would almost certainly never involve the Japanese people. I wonder how this seeming diversion of public attention is perceived in Japan itself. As I understand it, the anti-nationalist narrative was repressed due to anti-communist agendas of the occupation forces (ex: freeing of nationalist war criminals) Would be curious to hear from anyone Japanese on the topic

nabla9 2y ago
The general human tendency to focus on single short term events seems to be the main cause. Let's compare using Wikipedia as a source: Atomic bombings in Japan: 50,000–246,000 casualties. Air Raids in Japan: 241,000–900,000 killed, 213,000–1,300,000 wounded, 8,500,000 rendered homeless. Mass killings of large civilian populations should not happen. I don't personally see nuclear weapons as worse than incendiary bombs or artillery. It's the number of casualties that makes it horrible.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  I agree. I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Park or whatever it's called in English numerous times, but I can't say I've been anymore moved by it than any other demonstration of human brutality. I can't register a difference between a nuclear bomb and, say, a GBU-12 Paveway conventional bomb. They both destroy and kill brutally, the magnitude is irrelevant and it would be great if we never have to use either of them.

tgv 2y ago

In "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Rhodes, a poignant point was made, originating from people like Bohr, who were definitely on the peaceful side: without demonstrating the effect of the atomic bomb, the "nuclear taboo" would not have come into existence, and the first large conflict between nuclear powers would have seen a terrible outcome. The use of the bomb was inevitable, so it was sadly better to use it in a restricted war, before the US and the CCCP would use them against each other and the rest of the world.

082349872349872 2y ago
That might have been a better argument if the USSR[0] had had the bomb in 1945[1]? Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw#t=15s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw#t=15s [0] first test: 29.08.1949 [1] a year in which the US and USSR were, however tenuously, still allied
- cbolton 2y ago
  Does it matter? It was probably obvious to the scientists working on the bomb that other countries would get it too sooner or later, including countries at odds with each other.
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    I don't know. Could Hirohito (Suzuki, etc.) have been convinced by bombs dropped elsewhere? (our physicists were able to back-of-the-envelope; should their physicists have needed hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths to calculate what an A-bomb could do?) So I think it's not obvious (multiple books have been written on the subject) what could or should have been done or not done back then; now, from my point of view, those cards have been dealt, for good or for ill.
    - tgv 2y ago
      Hirohito was apparently convinced after the bomb on Hiroshima, the cabinet and military staff still wanted to fight on after the bomb on Nagasaki. They even tried to block his radio speech. Personally, I think it was tragic, but there was not much choice. Forcing Japan to its knees by conventional means would have been a prolonged bloodbath (with the Soviets getting in the game as well), with probably a higher death toll.

WhereIsTheTruth 2y ago

Not sure if that organisation is making progress, sounds like a smoke bomb, to please people who care about these meaningless rewards https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3852169/joint-statement-of-the-security-consultative-committee-22/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/385216...

bigcat12345678 2y ago

[flagged]

kaon_ 2y ago

At home I have a book telling stories of Dutch WW2 survivors still living today. One of them was an eye witness account of the Hiroshima bomb. He was a POW and worked in a quarry or mine on the outskirts of town. He saw a single plane fly over. A bomb dropped with a parachute attached. Moments later he was flung to the back of the quarry and the city was gone. I would never have guessed there were eyewitnesses like this, let alone coutrymen of mine.

LeonM 2y ago
Which book is it?
Metacelsus 2y ago
Little Boy didn't have a parachute. Maybe he was mis-remembering that.
- dogben 2y ago
  There were instruments dropped by parachute.
  - tephra 2y ago
    IIRC those were dropped by a second plane accompanying the Enola Gay.
cchi_co 2y ago
[dead]
trescenzi 2y ago
The book Hiroshima by John Hersey has many accounts like this. It’s a short read and follows six people and covers the first year after the bombing. I’d highly recommend reading it if such accounts are interesting to you.
- tirumaraiselvan 2y ago

jojobas 2y ago

Nuclear weapons are not used not because they are morally unacceptable, but rather because of MAD and their limited efficiency when used against armies. If you wanted to give a Nobel Prize to someone for preventing nuclear wars, give it to Nuclear Winter researchers and military analysts.

js8 2y ago
You mean like the small guns, right? They are not being used not because society deems it morally unacceptable, but because the gun owners are afraid they will be counterattacked with guns. I just had an argument about madness that is MAD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41776112 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41776112 Actually, it would be interesting if someone researched the relationship between gun culture and acceptance of MAD. Both on national (cultural) and individual level.
- jojobas 2y ago
  People whose prediction skills are so bad as to use a gun without a good reason tend not to get in charge of nuclear weapons. And yes guns are used as a deterrent a lot more than they are used to shoot to kill. MAD is everything that held it all together during the Cuban missile crisis. Later countries agreed not to pursue ABM so as to keep the deterrent. Your snark is misplaced.

psychoslave 2y ago

Nice to see they do somehow recognize the whole association of people and not push to much about a single person. But the committee is trapped with the rules that push for this ridiculous individual centric point of view which is so out of touch with measurable realities considering what forces actually come at play to anything with large social impact. Also on a side note: >the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen. Well, first thing, this is a quite restrictive anthropocentric and restrictive POV for what count for a weapon. Putting appart all things that triggered previous mass extinction as they might not really fit the expectation of weapon and "ever witnessed as implied agent", ok. But let's consider European invasion of America: while this was not intended and per design, it somehow greatly leveraged on bacteriological weapons. Currently humanity is also at war with biodiversity, and the scale is massive and worldwide, using a large panel of tools. Of course we are more prone to empathy to our fellow humans, and nuclear weapons are abominations.

belter 2y ago

Tsutomu Yamaguchi survived both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi

LightBug1 2y ago
a.k.a. Tsutomu "Wolverine" Yamaguchi

Strawberry76 2y ago

A good one this year. Some past recipients, not so good...

cynicalpeace 2y ago

Phenomenal choice. While 80 years is nice- it's a blip on the timescale of history. I personally think we're a button click away from going back to the stone age. I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on. I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on other heavenly bodies. And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers are extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency.

walrushunter 2y ago
Yeah, we should just stop all wars. Great idea! How has nobody thought of this before???
mordae 2y ago
Stone age? Hardly. More like 18th century. I am more worried that we do not have that many attempts at rebuilding, because coal and oil are finite. OTOH a slower 2nd iteration might actually work better than this one.
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  "I know others will disagree, but it's not something you wanna take a gamble on." Far more important than 18th century vs stone age debate is the fact that there are people in charge that would lead us down either path.
  - verisimi 2y ago
    > there are people in charge that would lead us down either path Must you follow?
    - cynicalpeace 2y ago
      Would love not to. But I'm not the decider whether we head down the path of nuclear armageddon.
- bonzini 2y ago

melasadra 2y ago

As some other commenters have pointed out: It is lamentable that the focus is almost always on the atomic bombing itself instead of why it came to that point at all. Many Asian countries feel scant sympathy toward Japan. From Indonesia to Malaysia to the Philipipines or even worse and for much longer, in Korea and China. In each of these countries the Japanese perpetrated massacre, forced labour, gang rape and forced prostitution in the millions. Even European women who were stranded in their former colonies were not spared. In fact their diaries are the foremost historical sources. Their brutality is such that the hatred towards colonialist European nations were ameliorated and pretty much forgotten these days. It's sickening to me that outside East and Southeast Asia itself, most of the world only remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima when it comes to casualties in the Pacific theatre of WW2. This sympathy felt even more misplaced considering even to this very day, unlike Germany, Japanese historiograpy deliberately downplays Japan brutality during occupation or that there was any aggression on their part at all. Most Japanese college mates in the US that I've talked to were not even aware that Japan occupied my country for years resulting in millions of casualties.

yread 2y ago
There are also well-maintained shrines (like Yasukuni) to the Japanese war criminals frequented even by high-level politicians (former PM went there, current ministers went there). Imagine that in current Germany!
- glandium 2y ago
  The Yasukuni situation is more complex than "the shrine for war criminals". A lot more people are enshrined there, the war criminals are a tiny fraction (and were only added in 1978, while the shrine was established 109 years earlier). To give you an example of an important and less controversial figure enshrined there: Sakamoto Ryōma. There are 2+ millions souls enshrined there.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
Foreignborn 2y ago

artursapek 2y ago

[flagged]

jncfhnb 2y ago
That’s because he is manipulating you with scare tactics, much like virtually every other topic. Great Depression 2! Dog eaters! Rapists! Every other sentence is an appeal to fear.
- artursapek 2y ago
  Not really. I can see through his nonsense like the Haitians comment was hilarious. But if I’m choosing between a politician that says nuclear war is a high existential risk and talks about ending wars, and his opponents who seem to get off on prolonging them, I have no problem making that choice.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    It’s very sad to voice support for a man you believe is actively lying to you and your peers. That, to me, feels like hatred for your own politically affiliates even.
    - artursapek 2y ago
      You're right. Biden and Harris never lie. I'll support them.
Ylpertnodi 2y ago
Genuinely interested: if Trump talking nukes is 'one of the reasons (for liking him), what are the others, and do they include his talking about soldiers and generals?
- artursapek 2y ago
  He wants a secure border, and to end the wars in the east. You don't support those things?

matthewfelgate 2y ago

[flagged]

gus_massa 2y ago
What about right wing dictatorships backed by the CIA?
- wtcactus 2y ago
  Is there any right wing dictatorship backed by CIA that has nuclear weapons?
aguaviva 2y ago
while Iran has them, Present tense, you say?
dang 2y ago
Can you please make your substantive points without name-calling and flamebait? We've had to ask you this before! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- matthewfelgate 2y ago
  What's name calling?
  - dang 2y ago
    Pejorative labels like "dumbest ever" and "idiotic". From the guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - matthewfelgate 2y ago
      OK I've redone my post.

kdhusakdjhsadkj 2y ago

[flagged]

jncfhnb 2y ago
The risk is that if you start bombing Iranian nuclear facilities that they immediately start manufacturing a nuclear bomb.
- yard2010 2y ago
  Start..?
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Current intelligence believes Iran is not actively building a bomb, although the time to do so is very short if they choose to.
- kdhusakdjhsadkj 2y ago
  and how exactly will they be able to do so without any nuclear facilities?
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    You cannot guarantee success on knocking them out. You cannot guarantee other countries won’t make the situation vastly more complicated.
mihaaly 2y ago
I believe the west cares that much to pretent that they have doubt about interfering drastically in the life of heterogeneous and diverse view people grouped together geographically and called country. Showing that they respect independence and self governance. A rigteous self image to cloak cowardnes towards risky acts you know. Also global assholes cover each other's ass and there are quite a few of them.
bbb651 2y ago

Timari 2y ago

I watched the film “Threads” last night, anyone in any doubt about the horrific consequences of a nuclear exchange should watch it. The speed at which society falls apart is simply terrifying. Those poor souls unlucky to be in a war zone will understand better than I ever will. The world needs a new order.

tomp 2y ago

[flagged]

thimabi 2y ago
Nuclear weapons have not prevented major world powers from engaging in proxy wars. As we can see today in the Middle East, proxy wars can make things dangerous and more likely to lead to an unwanted escalation. Mutually assured destruction works best when the number of involved parties is limited. If every state were to have a warhead of its own, many risks would increase: those of miscalculation, nuclear proliferation to non-state actors, etc.
2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
What if a fanatical leader has them? Castro said he would have nuked the US if he could and didn't care if Cuba gets destroyed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg
- protomolecule 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    Not at all. A fanatic wouldn't feign it, they'd do it. Self destruction be damned.
    - protomolecule 2y ago
      So why mention Castro?
      - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
        Because the person I responded to said that if everyone has nukes we are safer because of MAD but if Castro had nukes he would have used them! Fanatical leaders don't give a damn about MAD

satvikpendem 2y ago

I recently went to the Hiroshima museum. I had originally thought that people simply vaporized when the bomb hit, but that is not the case. The museum shows how people's skin simply sloughed off and some were holding parts in their hands as they walked around to find their loved ones. But the worst part was radiation poisoning. Many that did not initially get hit and burned directly went towards the center of the city to find their families and over the course of days, months and years, they almost always died a slow, painful death, with their teeth falling out and their skin and organs becoming necrotic. Truly, everyone should visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki at some point, if only to understand what true horrors nuclear weapons create. And those are only atomic weapons of the 1940s, the hydrogen bombs we have today that fuse instead of fiss are orders of magnitude more powerful, but at least those under their effects (near the epicenter) will die a quick vaporized death instantaneously.

mppm 2y ago
As an addition (and correction) to this, powerful thermonuclear weapons don't vaporize anyone either. They are targeted for high-altitude airbursts and kill through a combination of burns and building collapse, plus secondary fires, infection and breakdown of emergency services. The majority of the victims would not die an instant death. For more information: https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  There are multiple lethal effects from nuclear weapons, and a person inside the 100 million Celsius fireball itself (TK-radius), yes, will be vapourised. Fireball size depends on weapon yield. For a 1 MT weapon, the radius is roughly 870m, at 5 MT ~1010m, at 150 KT, about 250m. Most US nuclear weapons yield between 600 to 2,200 KT (0.6 to 2.2 MT). Whether or not individuals are within the fireball radius depends on the height of detonation, parameters of the nuclear explosion itself (shaped nuclear charges are theoretically possible, though I'm not aware whether any present weapons are designed as such), and of course the local population density. Outside the fireball, the principle lethal mechanism is the shock wave, though thermal pulse can still provide severe burns, and initial and fallout radiation can also be lethal, though over longer periods (hours, days, weeks, or more). Effects generally fall with the inverse cube law. Larger weapons also experience an inverse cube effect, such that a one thousandfold increase in weapon yield delivers only a tenfold increase in effects at a given distance. People may be vapourised, though most within a blast effect area will likely not. They may however be severely burned if directly exposed to the thermal pulse. Near in, other lethal effects, which may be delayed by a few seconds, principally from the blast wave, should predominate. Air-burst attacks would likely decrease vapourisation. Penetrating / shaped charges would have markedly different and highly directional effects. Major Kong would not have felt a thing.

cchi_co 2y ago

[dead]

Simon_ORourke 2y ago

[flagged]

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Of course the reminder of the impact there and the ongoing risk is nice but is this really a relevant and current choice? Why not last year? Why not ten years ago? What success have they even had? Considering where we are right now. This isn't a group making an impact on the ground anywhere right now. Many of the winners in recent years have been civil & human rights activists in real fights on the ground in their countries/regions. The public will take the reminder but mostly shrug the news off.

istjohn 2y ago
This discussion proves the importance. We are so far from properly appreciating the horror of nuclear weapons. One would think that after nearly eighty years Americans would be able to apprehend our crimes against the innocents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with clear vision.

AlbertCory 2y ago

The chances of a nuclear bomb being used in the next 30 years is at least 90%. That's an opinion so don't ask for a link. Why? Purely because of the combinatorial math of proliferation, and the likelihood of either an accident or a crazy person getting control of a bomb. I wish it weren't so, but eventually your luck runs out.

hruzgar 2y ago

So US has nuclear bombs, but japan is somehow not allowed to make their own? Seems like controlled oppression to me

khuey 2y ago
Japan is free to withdraw from the NPT at any time.

retrocryptid 2y ago

i'm confused. what does Hidankyo have to do with large language models?

hit8run 2y ago

[flagged]

hsavit1 2y ago
yeah the peace prize has completely lost any credibility that it may have had.

deanCommie 2y ago

The Hiroshimia/Nagasaki situation is one of the best examples I can think of with plenty of evidence of the "history is written by the winners" concept. It has been justified repeatedly over the years both in terms of relativism ("The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people, yet isn't so controversial"), and in terms of hypotheticals becoming certainties ("The empire was never going to surrender without a massive fight. The US anticipated unprecedented losses from an invasion of the main island, and is still giving out purple hearts printed in anticipation of this invasion") In the end the historical narrative was that dropping the bombs was necessary to end the war, as written by the winners. The reality is that we just don't know what would've happened if the US waited. Japan was not an active threat any longer. What was? The Soviet Union that would've certainly "helped" invade Japan, and would've also demanded to carve it up post-war the way they did with Germany. From evaluating the overall evidence it seems pretty clear that this is what was driving the urgency to drop the bomb, not once, but twice. The irony is that it's entirely possible that for the population of Japan this ended up a better outcome than having half of it face the "East Germany" scenario for the next 40 years. And while the "blight" of having actually used nuclear weapons to kill civilians may be on the US forever as the only nation to have done so, the horrors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki almost certainly helped prevent nuclear weapon usage throughout the cold war. If they were never tried, it's almost certain that either the US or the USSR would've been itchy to be the first in some future engagement, and then who knows what would've happened. So the truth is messy. My position is that the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings were NOT necessary to end WW2 and did not reduce the overall bloodshed within THAT conflict. But this action counterintuitively helped improve Japan's prosperity over the rest of the 20th century and may have reduced the likelihood of an actual nuclear war over the rest of the Cold War.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
js8 2y ago
Your last paragraph makes a terrible moral argument: Yeah, maybe I am waging a war today, but's in the interest of the future peace! I don't think your hypothetical assumption that 20th century peace could not be made without using nukes in WW2 is valid. Why not even turn it up and say that future peace from nuclear weapons is impossible without living through the global thermonuclear war? Clearly, most people can imagine dangers of that, so they are perfectly capable of imagining dangers of only 2 nukes being used, without them actually being used.

hereme888 2y ago

[flagged]

bastawhiz 2y ago
I don't think that negates the work that these organizations do. The degree to which nuclear weapons are developed and proliferated is not binary.
parl_match 2y ago
> Also, those bombs saved a lot of lives. I know many will disagree, but it's true. This is a hotly, perhaps one of the most hotly contended, modern questions of World War II. To say what you said so blithely betrays your ignorance on the subject. General modern consensus suggests that the first is up for debate for various reasons, but that the second one really didn't do much to change the Japanese government's course. Regardless if you disagree with that above statement or not, positioning your uninformed opinion as fact is a bad look.
- historyartifucj 2y ago
  [flagged]
- aegypti 2y ago
  A specific strain of 20th century revisionism considers their use questionable in academia, it isn’t remotely a consensus (outside JP) and it certainly isn’t modern.
  - parl_match 2y ago
    It's not a "specific strain", it's an overwhelming consensus that "both weren't necessary". There are, of course, people who take hard lines that "both were necessary", but they are in the minority. At this point the argument has shifted to "was the bombing of Nagasaki necessary to end the war" with the common thought agreeing more or less that some initial large show of force was necessary.
2y ago

matthewfelgate 2y ago

- Liberal democracies should have Nuclear Weapons. - Dictatorships and Communists countries shouldn't.

pajeets 2y ago

What makes me really angry are the NPCs that constantly try to justify the bombing and that it was "painless". When I visited Hiroshima and I read about what had happened, I realized our history books were egregiously nonchalant about quite possibly the worst acts of crime against humanity. Now that it appears the world is once again creeping towards nuclear stand-off this time with a very large non-zero chance that a country pushed towards existential crisis will not hesitate to detonate a nuclear device, it makes the people justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuking as completely deranged. I urge y'all to visit Hiroshima and see first hand the horrors of nuclear terrorism. When you attack civilians directly, its terrorism no matter what side of the fence you are on.

matthewfelgate 2y ago
Not than many people died.

known 2y ago

[dead]