8 ms·

Not wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon

by sahila 1y ago

Not wise in what way? You say that likely as an American without caring at all about the people in Iran. The US is the only nation is have used a nuclear weapon and frankly is far more capable of destruction than Iran is even with nukes.

UltraSane 1y ago
[flagged]
- whoknowsidont 1y ago
  Do you have an actual counter-point or are you just immediately going to loop into thought-terminating cliches?
  - UltraSane 1y ago
    [flagged]
ericmay 1y ago
On the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting. Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.
- whoknowsidont 1y ago
  > the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war. There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man. But hey, don't take my word for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... * https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912 https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912
  - ericmay 1y ago
    I’ve read far too many books and spent too much time on this specific topic to have my mind changed by a random YouTube link and a random quote. You are free to choose the narrative that fits your worldview best, I’ve chosen mine based on my own research and learning.
    - whoknowsidont 1y ago
      [flagged]
- kelnos 1y ago
  I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.) Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    I don’t think there’s a particular moral concern and I’m not sure where that meme has arisen from. An atomic bomb is just a bigger bomb than other bombs. There’s nothing special about it besides it being exceptionally large in its destructive capability. If you were firebombed or killed in a human meat wave in Stalingrad you are just as dead as someone killed with big bomb. I think the moral argument about killing more and more Americans or Japanese during an invasion is a fun theoretical discussion, but in a war your people matter and the enemy’s don’t in cases like this where you have two clear nation states engaged in total war. Certainly the circumstances of the wars matter, but in the case of World War II I think it’s rather clear cut, and opinions to the contrary are generally revisionist history meant to continue to make America look like a bad guy in order to cause moral confusion and social division.
    - yencabulator 1y ago
      The difference is in targeting cities. Civilian targets. Let me remind you of the paragraph above: > Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. [...]
- davejagoda 1y ago
  Dwight Eisenhower had a different view (from The White House Years: Mandate for Change: 1953-1956: A Personal Account (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313): The incident took place in 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.
  - ericmay 1y ago
    There are two problems with this. The first problem is that you are using this quote as an appeal to authority. Eisenhower might have written that he thought it wasn’t needed to end the war, but he was just one voice amongst many. The second problem is you’re not reading carefully with historical context. > It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” Japan and its leadership consisted of various factions, ranging from hardliners who wanted to arm every single Japanese citizen and fight to the last child, to those who wanted to surrender and negotiate a peace settlement. Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons to quickly end the war, Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death. The hardliners who brought Japan into war still had enough sway at this juncture to continue the war and planned to do so. When Eisenhower says “it was my belief”, he’s partially right, there in fact were Japanese military and political officials who were trying to end the war in a way that saves face, and protects the honor of the Emperor. But the problem with his belief as stated is that although there were in fact those folks seeking to end the war, they didn’t have control and could not stop the war on their own. Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons, the United States knew the war was going to be won, but what it didn’t know was whether Japan really was going to fight to the last child or sue for peace. Given the American experience at Okinawa many believed the fighting would continue, and that it would be bloody and many lives would be lost. Instead of dealing with all of that uncertainty, they used the bomb. Japan still hadn’t surrendered with some Imperial Army leadership believing the Americans couldn’t posses more than 1 or 2 and so Japan could keep fighting. The US used it again. Hirohito had enough. Japan surrendered. Etc. The politics of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, domestic officials, and the Emperor are quite complicated. There were disagreements and misgivings before war with the United States even took place, and as the war continued there were disagreements even when it seems obvious in retrospect that the United States “didn’t need” to use the atomic weapons. But presenting a single quote from a single man, albeit an important one, as though his disagreement is a coup de grace on a discussion about the usage of atomic weapons to end the war is lazy at the very least, if not downright rude. Instead of dropping a random quote from Eisenhower and being lazy, you should pull up your keyboard and write your original thoughts on the matter, cite your sources where you see fit (I’m not asking for those) and present a coherent argument. As easily as you can produce a quote, so too can that quote be dismissed as just some guy’s opinion. Clearly the President thought differently and used the bombs. I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it. Japan started the war. I’m an American - American lives matter more to me than do the lives of others in the context of World War II, including civilians.

by sahila 1y ago

UltraSane 1y ago

[flagged]

whoknowsidont 1y ago
Do you have an actual counter-point or are you just immediately going to loop into thought-terminating cliches?
- UltraSane 1y ago
  [flagged]

ericmay 1y ago

On the other hand, the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary, and in doing so saved both American and Japanese lives from continued fighting. Though your point about the US being more capable of destruction than Iran is obviously true. China also is more capable of destruction than Iran, as are Israel, Russia (as we see today with their unprovoked invasion of Ukraine), and many others.

whoknowsidont 1y ago
> the US only used atomic weapons to end a devastating war inflicted upon it by a ferocious and fanatical adversary This isn't true at all. You don't need to bomb civilian cities to end a war. The Japanese government, specifically the emperor had already indicated they wanted to negotiate. They were already well aware they couldn't win the war. There is far, far more evidence that the U.S. just couldn't help itself and wanted to demonstrate our/their new weapon: "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." - Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet In true U.S. fashion, we had to create a boogeyman to commit some atrocity in order to achieve absolution for the evil we inflicted upon our fellow man. But hey, don't take my word for it: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... * https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912 https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go?si=cXL4QevdwyYFQ-0i&t=5912
- ericmay 1y ago
  I’ve read far too many books and spent too much time on this specific topic to have my mind changed by a random YouTube link and a random quote. You are free to choose the narrative that fits your worldview best, I’ve chosen mine based on my own research and learning.
  - whoknowsidont 1y ago
    [flagged]
kelnos 1y ago
I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.) Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.
- ericmay 1y ago
  I don’t think there’s a particular moral concern and I’m not sure where that meme has arisen from. An atomic bomb is just a bigger bomb than other bombs. There’s nothing special about it besides it being exceptionally large in its destructive capability. If you were firebombed or killed in a human meat wave in Stalingrad you are just as dead as someone killed with big bomb. I think the moral argument about killing more and more Americans or Japanese during an invasion is a fun theoretical discussion, but in a war your people matter and the enemy’s don’t in cases like this where you have two clear nation states engaged in total war. Certainly the circumstances of the wars matter, but in the case of World War II I think it’s rather clear cut, and opinions to the contrary are generally revisionist history meant to continue to make America look like a bad guy in order to cause moral confusion and social division.
  - yencabulator 1y ago
    The difference is in targeting cities. Civilian targets. Let me remind you of the paragraph above: > Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. [...]
davejagoda 1y ago
Dwight Eisenhower had a different view (from The White House Years: Mandate for Change: 1953-1956: A Personal Account (New York: Doubleday, 1963), pp. 312-313): The incident took place in 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. The Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.
- ericmay 1y ago
  There are two problems with this. The first problem is that you are using this quote as an appeal to authority. Eisenhower might have written that he thought it wasn’t needed to end the war, but he was just one voice amongst many. The second problem is you’re not reading carefully with historical context. > It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face.” Japan and its leadership consisted of various factions, ranging from hardliners who wanted to arm every single Japanese citizen and fight to the last child, to those who wanted to surrender and negotiate a peace settlement. Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons to quickly end the war, Japan planned to continue fighting, and the Japanese Army in particular was preparing the homeland to fight to the death. The hardliners who brought Japan into war still had enough sway at this juncture to continue the war and planned to do so. When Eisenhower says “it was my belief”, he’s partially right, there in fact were Japanese military and political officials who were trying to end the war in a way that saves face, and protects the honor of the Emperor. But the problem with his belief as stated is that although there were in fact those folks seeking to end the war, they didn’t have control and could not stop the war on their own. Prior to the usage of the atomic weapons, the United States knew the war was going to be won, but what it didn’t know was whether Japan really was going to fight to the last child or sue for peace. Given the American experience at Okinawa many believed the fighting would continue, and that it would be bloody and many lives would be lost. Instead of dealing with all of that uncertainty, they used the bomb. Japan still hadn’t surrendered with some Imperial Army leadership believing the Americans couldn’t posses more than 1 or 2 and so Japan could keep fighting. The US used it again. Hirohito had enough. Japan surrendered. Etc. The politics of the Japanese Imperial Army and Navy, domestic officials, and the Emperor are quite complicated. There were disagreements and misgivings before war with the United States even took place, and as the war continued there were disagreements even when it seems obvious in retrospect that the United States “didn’t need” to use the atomic weapons. But presenting a single quote from a single man, albeit an important one, as though his disagreement is a coup de grace on a discussion about the usage of atomic weapons to end the war is lazy at the very least, if not downright rude. Instead of dropping a random quote from Eisenhower and being lazy, you should pull up your keyboard and write your original thoughts on the matter, cite your sources where you see fit (I’m not asking for those) and present a coherent argument. As easily as you can produce a quote, so too can that quote be dismissed as just some guy’s opinion. Clearly the President thought differently and used the bombs. I personally am of the opinion that if using the bombs saved the lives of a few thousand (at least) American soldiers it was worth it. Japan started the war. I’m an American - American lives matter more to me than do the lives of others in the context of World War II, including civilians.