4 ms·

Just ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki

by otikik 1y ago

shagmin 1y ago
Could take this a couple different ways. Aren't those cities flourishing today?
- voidfunc 1y ago
  Sure but it scarred the Japanese culture permanently.
  - anticodon 1y ago
    It seems young Japanese doesn't even know who bombed their country. US controls most of the world media: they can highlight or hide any fact, or inculcate whatever interpretation.
    - Jtsummers 1y ago
      US media doesn't particularly hide the fact of the US bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oppenheimer was released just two years ago, to pick one recent and prominent example of the US not hiding the facts.
  - gregbot 1y ago
    Could you expand on what exactly you mean by “scarring” a culture?
psunavy03 1y ago
Ask the orders of magnitude more of Americans and Japanese people who weren't slaughtered in a ground invasion. Or starved to death in the mass famines a blockade would have caused. And all their descendants. Sometimes wars require the least shitty of a menu of shitty choices.
- teachrdan 1y ago
  There is ample data that says Japan was on the verge of surrendering before the US dropped atom bombs on them. If you doubt it, ask yourself why the US rushed to drop a second bomb only three days after the first. It was in our interest to intimidate the USSR before Japan had a chance to surrender. https://time.com/6297240/atomic-bomb-expert-oppenheimer-interview/ https://time.com/6297240/atomic-bomb-expert-oppenheimer-inte...
  - shakow 1y ago
    > only three days after the first Maybe, just maybe because Japan was so close to surrender that there even was a coup attempt to prevent him from surrendering? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - psunavy03 1y ago
    Literally the exact quote of the historian in the article you're linking: "Any myths about this history you want to debunk or set the record straight on?" "The big one was that the Japanese were ready to surrender and would have surrendered even if we had not dropped those bombs. I think that is a myth. Oppenheimer seems to have believed that the weapon was used against a country that was about to surrender—as he puts it, essentially defeated. The Japanese were essentially defeated—that’s true. Their fleet had been sunk and their cities had been burned. But they were not ready to surrender." "Did the bombs lead to the Japanese surrender on Sep. 2?" "Two atomic bombs forced them to. The dominant reason [the U.S.] used the bomb was to end the war. [The U.S.] thought the only way to end the war was to use these two terrible weapons."
    - FpUser 1y ago
      >"[The U.S.] thought the only way to end the war was to use these two terrible weapons."' Sounds like a good recipe for all current and future wars. /s
stronglikedan 1y ago
the big, obvious distinction is that those weren't tests. "test" implies that what happened to the Marshall Islands should have been prevented.

Just ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki

by otikik 1y ago

Just ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki

shagmin 1y ago

Could take this a couple different ways. Aren't those cities flourishing today?

voidfunc 1y ago
Sure but it scarred the Japanese culture permanently.
- anticodon 1y ago
  It seems young Japanese doesn't even know who bombed their country. US controls most of the world media: they can highlight or hide any fact, or inculcate whatever interpretation.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    US media doesn't particularly hide the fact of the US bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oppenheimer was released just two years ago, to pick one recent and prominent example of the US not hiding the facts.
- gregbot 1y ago
  Could you expand on what exactly you mean by “scarring” a culture?

psunavy03 1y ago

Ask the orders of magnitude more of Americans and Japanese people who weren't slaughtered in a ground invasion. Or starved to death in the mass famines a blockade would have caused. And all their descendants. Sometimes wars require the least shitty of a menu of shitty choices.

teachrdan 1y ago
There is ample data that says Japan was on the verge of surrendering before the US dropped atom bombs on them. If you doubt it, ask yourself why the US rushed to drop a second bomb only three days after the first. It was in our interest to intimidate the USSR before Japan had a chance to surrender. https://time.com/6297240/atomic-bomb-expert-oppenheimer-interview/ https://time.com/6297240/atomic-bomb-expert-oppenheimer-inte...
- shakow 1y ago
  > only three days after the first Maybe, just maybe because Japan was so close to surrender that there even was a coup attempt to prevent him from surrendering? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- psunavy03 1y ago
  Literally the exact quote of the historian in the article you're linking: "Any myths about this history you want to debunk or set the record straight on?" "The big one was that the Japanese were ready to surrender and would have surrendered even if we had not dropped those bombs. I think that is a myth. Oppenheimer seems to have believed that the weapon was used against a country that was about to surrender—as he puts it, essentially defeated. The Japanese were essentially defeated—that’s true. Their fleet had been sunk and their cities had been burned. But they were not ready to surrender." "Did the bombs lead to the Japanese surrender on Sep. 2?" "Two atomic bombs forced them to. The dominant reason [the U.S.] used the bomb was to end the war. [The U.S.] thought the only way to end the war was to use these two terrible weapons."
  - FpUser 1y ago
    >"[The U.S.] thought the only way to end the war was to use these two terrible weapons."' Sounds like a good recipe for all current and future wars. /s

stronglikedan 1y ago

the big, obvious distinction is that those weren't tests. "test" implies that what happened to the Marshall Islands should have been prevented.