6 ms·

World War II never fails to horrify me. The holocaust is only one part of it - the Japanese were brutal in unimaginable ways as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/

World War II never fails to horrify me. The holocaust is only one part of it - the Japanese were brutal in unimaginable ways as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre They killed, raped, tortured, and experimented on living humans (the first time I found out what a vivisection was, I felt my stomach churn). It takes a lot of effort to make an atomic bomb seem humane, and somehow World War II manages to do it.

jbm 14y ago
The act of soldiers hopped up on religion and hiropin (speed) means it is morally justified dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian city? To the extent possible, I will never do business with you or any company you are associated with. You sound like a horrible person.
- benjohnson 14y ago
  I would expect eradicating evil would normally be a violent endeavor.
- mpyne 14y ago
  So if the pilot of the Enola Gay was hopped up on speed when he dropped the bomb, that would make it OK? Either way, inasmuch as it helped to shorten the war, prevent American invasion, and prevent Soviet invasion the atomic bombs actually probably saved Japanese lives overall (civilian and military both). Most notably, news of the second atomic bomb came while the Emperor Hirohito and his cabinet were meeting to discuss what to do about the first, and about the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Even though they received the news of the second bombing earlier that day the cabinet still deadlocked 2-2 on the question of whether to surrender; it was Hirohito himself who had to decide that enough was enough. The Emperor would record his surrender announcement to be played back the next day... in the meantime elements of the Imperial Japanese Army decided to overthrow the government in order to prevent the surrender announcement from being broadcast. Two high-level officials were killed in the process, a senior Army general killed himself rather than stop the coup, and the bravery of some of the palace staff managed to keep the broadcast from falling into the hands of the conspirators. So I'm not sure we'll ever know exactly how much the atomic bomb weighed into that, but it certainly appears to have been more than zero, even though its destructive effect was not significantly more than what was already being experienced by other Japanese cities sustaining wave upon wave of conventional bombing (which relatively few people ever seem to complain about for some reason).
- derleth 14y ago
  The prevention of the potential horrors of the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands justifies the nuclear bombs many times over.
MrBra 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_human_experimentation_on_the_Chinese#Experiments_on_humans_and_biological_warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_human_experimentation_...
saryant 14y ago
I recently visited the Hellfire Pass memorial in Thailand. For those who don't know, Hellfire Pass, also known as Konyu Cutting, was the deadliest and most brutal section of the Japanese Death Railway to Burma for the POWs forced into labor. The memorial, which I highly recommend, includes an audio headset which plays interviews with survivors as you walk through the pass. Their accounts are chilling though certainly not to the level of the Nanking Massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Pass
ithkuil 14y ago
That feeling is part of the problem. It's interesting how we humans find easier to think in terms of "us" and "them" rather than just condemn both. I can understand the argument that dropping the bombs made japan surrender more quickly, and thus saved a lot of american soldier's lives. Most of the people who died in the hiroshima and nagasaki were only responsible of being victims of an oppressing government and state ideology. Furthermore there were a lot of prisoners who died as well, for example 20000 korean prisoners. Not sure though if most of the people would find ethically acceptable to actively murder 250000 random people in order save some from cruelties. I'm sure there can be an endless discussion about this. However, I just wanted to note how easy is overlook completely this when you think in terms of "them". The bomb wasn't dropped on the torturers, the rapists, which in many cases were not held responsible for the crimes they committed. I know that it sounds obvious, but this way of thinking, is the one of the reasons all this atrocities are allowed to start in the first place. By thinking of other people as inherently different from you, they can be thought of as inferior and thus you feel exempted of feeling wrong about the stuff that's being done to them. Humanity has very long history of this behavior, actually it was more common than not (slavery etc). The thing that's peculiar about the WWII is the systematic way, the unstoppable industrial approach and the way that cold heartless "science" gave apparent purpose for nightmares to come true. WWII helped shape the very notion of evil in our age, it's style and motivation.
- shantanubala 14y ago
  > The bomb wasn't dropped on the torturers, the rapists, which in many cases were not held responsible for the crimes they committed. This is the tricky part. I don't remember exact figures, but wasn't Truman's dilemma a choice between invading Japan or dropping the bombs? I don't really see a viable third option, and I don't remember reading about one either. The tragedy is that the Japanese were not given enough time to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. Also, the United States has also done some terrible things "in the name of democracy," but I still think there is a difference in magnitude between installing a dictator in a foreign country and encouraging the systematic murder and rape of civilians. The problem is that these things are on a spectrum - is it not possible to condemn both while admitting that one alternative was better? I obviously don't want anyone to use nuclear weapons, but how should we react when it is the option that results in the least amount of suffering? And as far as saying "them" -- this was out of convenience. It is a pronoun, after all, and I was merely trying to say that elegant solutions are quite hard to find when you're dealing with ugly problems. Sometimes "less ugly" is all you can find.
antonios 14y ago
> It takes a lot of effort to make an atomic bomb seem humane, and somehow World War II manages to do it Apparently not a lot of effort for you.

jbm 14y ago

The act of soldiers hopped up on religion and hiropin (speed) means it is morally justified dropping an atomic bomb on a civilian city? To the extent possible, I will never do business with you or any company you are associated with. You sound like a horrible person.

benjohnson 14y ago
I would expect eradicating evil would normally be a violent endeavor.
mpyne 14y ago
So if the pilot of the Enola Gay was hopped up on speed when he dropped the bomb, that would make it OK? Either way, inasmuch as it helped to shorten the war, prevent American invasion, and prevent Soviet invasion the atomic bombs actually probably saved Japanese lives overall (civilian and military both). Most notably, news of the second atomic bomb came while the Emperor Hirohito and his cabinet were meeting to discuss what to do about the first, and about the Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Even though they received the news of the second bombing earlier that day the cabinet still deadlocked 2-2 on the question of whether to surrender; it was Hirohito himself who had to decide that enough was enough. The Emperor would record his surrender announcement to be played back the next day... in the meantime elements of the Imperial Japanese Army decided to overthrow the government in order to prevent the surrender announcement from being broadcast. Two high-level officials were killed in the process, a senior Army general killed himself rather than stop the coup, and the bravery of some of the palace staff managed to keep the broadcast from falling into the hands of the conspirators. So I'm not sure we'll ever know exactly how much the atomic bomb weighed into that, but it certainly appears to have been more than zero, even though its destructive effect was not significantly more than what was already being experienced by other Japanese cities sustaining wave upon wave of conventional bombing (which relatively few people ever seem to complain about for some reason).
derleth 14y ago
The prevention of the potential horrors of the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands justifies the nuclear bombs many times over.

MrBra 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_human_experimentation_on_the_Chinese#Experiments_on_humans_and_biological_warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_human_experimentation_...

saryant 14y ago

I recently visited the Hellfire Pass memorial in Thailand. For those who don't know, Hellfire Pass, also known as Konyu Cutting, was the deadliest and most brutal section of the Japanese Death Railway to Burma for the POWs forced into labor. The memorial, which I highly recommend, includes an audio headset which plays interviews with survivors as you walk through the pass. Their accounts are chilling though certainly not to the level of the Nanking Massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Pass http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_Pass

ithkuil 14y ago

That feeling is part of the problem. It's interesting how we humans find easier to think in terms of "us" and "them" rather than just condemn both. I can understand the argument that dropping the bombs made japan surrender more quickly, and thus saved a lot of american soldier's lives. Most of the people who died in the hiroshima and nagasaki were only responsible of being victims of an oppressing government and state ideology. Furthermore there were a lot of prisoners who died as well, for example 20000 korean prisoners. Not sure though if most of the people would find ethically acceptable to actively murder 250000 random people in order save some from cruelties. I'm sure there can be an endless discussion about this. However, I just wanted to note how easy is overlook completely this when you think in terms of "them". The bomb wasn't dropped on the torturers, the rapists, which in many cases were not held responsible for the crimes they committed. I know that it sounds obvious, but this way of thinking, is the one of the reasons all this atrocities are allowed to start in the first place. By thinking of other people as inherently different from you, they can be thought of as inferior and thus you feel exempted of feeling wrong about the stuff that's being done to them. Humanity has very long history of this behavior, actually it was more common than not (slavery etc). The thing that's peculiar about the WWII is the systematic way, the unstoppable industrial approach and the way that cold heartless "science" gave apparent purpose for nightmares to come true. WWII helped shape the very notion of evil in our age, it's style and motivation.

shantanubala 14y ago
> The bomb wasn't dropped on the torturers, the rapists, which in many cases were not held responsible for the crimes they committed. This is the tricky part. I don't remember exact figures, but wasn't Truman's dilemma a choice between invading Japan or dropping the bombs? I don't really see a viable third option, and I don't remember reading about one either. The tragedy is that the Japanese were not given enough time to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. Also, the United States has also done some terrible things "in the name of democracy," but I still think there is a difference in magnitude between installing a dictator in a foreign country and encouraging the systematic murder and rape of civilians. The problem is that these things are on a spectrum - is it not possible to condemn both while admitting that one alternative was better? I obviously don't want anyone to use nuclear weapons, but how should we react when it is the option that results in the least amount of suffering? And as far as saying "them" -- this was out of convenience. It is a pronoun, after all, and I was merely trying to say that elegant solutions are quite hard to find when you're dealing with ugly problems. Sometimes "less ugly" is all you can find.

antonios 14y ago

> It takes a lot of effort to make an atomic bomb seem humane, and somehow World War II manages to do it Apparently not a lot of effort for you.