5 ms·

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 under

by 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.
- CamperBob2 14y ago
  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? The real concern was probably the Soviets. They had already invaded Manchuria and some say they had their eye on Japan. Seems pretty evil to drop an A-bomb as a warning to someone else, but the next few decades of Soviet occupation would have sucked for the Japanese, too. Also, it was probably a good idea to confront the morality of nuclear warfare by dropping a 20 kT bomb. Would Truman have stopped MacArthur from deploying a hundred times that much firepower in Korea, if he hadn't seen the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs for himself?
  - snogglethorpe 14y ago
    Certainly there were multiple factors involved, but from what I've read, both stopping the Soviet advance (by ending the war earlier), and "sending a message" to the Soviets, were very much part of the decision to drop the bombs.
- yesbabyyes 14y ago
  Lest you forget, while installing dictators and facilitating genocide is bad enough, the US also oppressed civilians during the time. Mississippi, for instance, was a police state with apartheid a good 20 years after the end of the war. Americans with Japanese heritage were forcibly removed and put in concentration camps. Suffice to say, your moral high ground is not as clear cut to me, especially when you talk about justifying the atom bomb.
  - shantanubala 14y ago
    I'm not saying the US was always right - I'm saying that having the US win was a better outcome than the other alternatives. Would you agree with that? And I'm not justifying use of the atomic bomb in every scenario, or even saying that it was the best possible outcome, but out of the options available to Truman, it appears to be the one that would have resulted in the least amount of suffering.
- mcantelon 14y ago
killerpopiller 14y ago
the bomb didn't change the outcome of the war. this is a historical established fact: http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-u... the japanese tried several times after the russians invased to surrender (before the drop)
- justin66 14y ago
  Just a friendly suggestion, if you want people to follow your link to "historical established fact" use a URL: 1) that isn't to a movie or TV show 2) that doesn't include "Oliver Stone" in the text
OGinparadise 14y ago
Not sure though if most of the people would find ethically acceptable to actively murder 250000 random people in order save some from cruelties. You already mentioned the US and Japanese military deaths had we had to invade the island. It's also likely that more than 250,000 civilians would have died during that invasion. Largely different people would have died, and Truman had to "play God" but I believe that millions of lives were saved. His options sucked.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  According to Admiral William Daniel Leahy, he highest ranking member of the U.S. military at the time, "the use of [nuclear weapons] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy#Atomic_bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy#Atomic_bomb The nukes were used not to beat the Japanese, but to intimidate the Russians, who had advanced as an industrial force as part of their fight against Germany.
  - OGinparadise 14y ago
    One stone, two birds! If I remember (reading) correctly the Russians were ready to invade them. But the Japanese had the chance to surrender and they didn't. Lots of second guessing now, maybe they gambled on getting better terms...
    - soperj 14y ago
      They actually tried to surrender, the US declined.
  - gruseom 14y ago
    That is an extraordinary piece of evidence. The whole quote is worth reading.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    The only ones who could tell if the Japanese were actually ready to surrender were the Japanese. They refused to surrender after Hiroshima. They refused to surrender after the U.S.S.R. declared war. Finally after Nagasaki their cabinet deadlocked 2-2 on the decision to surrender. The Emperor himself broke the tie by deciding for peace (a decision which brought a minor coup of its own). Adm. Leahy was correct if he was using Western logic and ideals. In fact it was clear since 1943 that Japan would be defeated and had to surrender or eventually lose the war. He's also correct that it was of no material assistance compared to conventional weaponry. There were only so many atomic bombs available and the B-17s rampaging across Japan were certainly doing a fine job as well. The part I don't understand is why he thought atomic bombing a city was barbarous, but firebombing Tokyo was how gentlemen conducted warfare. More Japanese died in a single firebombing raid than died in Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. This raid I mention occurred in March 1945 by the way, not August. In light of that it's hard to claim with a straight face that conventional weapons were forcing Japan to surrender before invasion of the Home Islands. They had every reason to surrender in March if that was their only tripwire to decide to do so.
tomjen3 14y ago
If you have an issue with the nukes, go look up the Tokyo firebombing. Heck go hear the hardcore history podcast on the matter, then you will understand that it is just not that simple.
- ithkuil 14y ago
  The topic wasn't whether nukes are better or worst than other means of killing a comparable amount of civilians, but that our brain is shaped in such a way that we can easily justify that kind of action because "they" did worse, and why this, very natural thing, is dangerous. Personal revenge and punishment has already an interesting amount of counter arguments. But when we begin to lift this issue up to whole populations/ethnic groups, the thing starts to get out of control. Collective guilt and responsibility and punishment were the same actors behind the very atrocities we were condemning and fighting. In the hearts of many people, the Jews deserved what happened to them because they were the alleged cause of their problems and misery (and they needed an enemy, someone to blame). And it was way easier for German people to not feel empathy for all the Jewish neighbors disappearing once they thought of them as "them", as carrying a collective guilt, regardless of individuals. So, I'm not here to discuss who is worse. But sometimes, as I struggle to understand how it's possible have had so many millions of complacent people, assisting, giving power to cruel dictators, sometimes I have a glimpse of how is this feeling, each time I happen to think "well, they deserve it".

by ithkuil 14y ago

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.

CamperBob2 14y ago
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? The real concern was probably the Soviets. They had already invaded Manchuria and some say they had their eye on Japan. Seems pretty evil to drop an A-bomb as a warning to someone else, but the next few decades of Soviet occupation would have sucked for the Japanese, too. Also, it was probably a good idea to confront the morality of nuclear warfare by dropping a 20 kT bomb. Would Truman have stopped MacArthur from deploying a hundred times that much firepower in Korea, if he hadn't seen the effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs for himself?
- snogglethorpe 14y ago
  Certainly there were multiple factors involved, but from what I've read, both stopping the Soviet advance (by ending the war earlier), and "sending a message" to the Soviets, were very much part of the decision to drop the bombs.
yesbabyyes 14y ago
Lest you forget, while installing dictators and facilitating genocide is bad enough, the US also oppressed civilians during the time. Mississippi, for instance, was a police state with apartheid a good 20 years after the end of the war. Americans with Japanese heritage were forcibly removed and put in concentration camps. Suffice to say, your moral high ground is not as clear cut to me, especially when you talk about justifying the atom bomb.
- shantanubala 14y ago
  I'm not saying the US was always right - I'm saying that having the US win was a better outcome than the other alternatives. Would you agree with that? And I'm not justifying use of the atomic bomb in every scenario, or even saying that it was the best possible outcome, but out of the options available to Truman, it appears to be the one that would have resulted in the least amount of suffering.
mcantelon 14y ago

killerpopiller 14y ago

the bomb didn't change the outcome of the war. this is a historical established fact: http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-united-states/home http://www.sho.com/sho/oliver-stones-untold-history-of-the-u... the japanese tried several times after the russians invased to surrender (before the drop)

justin66 14y ago
Just a friendly suggestion, if you want people to follow your link to "historical established fact" use a URL: 1) that isn't to a movie or TV show 2) that doesn't include "Oliver Stone" in the text

OGinparadise 14y ago

Not sure though if most of the people would find ethically acceptable to actively murder 250000 random people in order save some from cruelties. You already mentioned the US and Japanese military deaths had we had to invade the island. It's also likely that more than 250,000 civilians would have died during that invasion. Largely different people would have died, and Truman had to "play God" but I believe that millions of lives were saved. His options sucked.

mcantelon 14y ago
According to Admiral William Daniel Leahy, he highest ranking member of the U.S. military at the time, "the use of [nuclear weapons] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy#Atomic_bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_D._Leahy#Atomic_bomb The nukes were used not to beat the Japanese, but to intimidate the Russians, who had advanced as an industrial force as part of their fight against Germany.
- OGinparadise 14y ago
  One stone, two birds! If I remember (reading) correctly the Russians were ready to invade them. But the Japanese had the chance to surrender and they didn't. Lots of second guessing now, maybe they gambled on getting better terms...
  - soperj 14y ago
    They actually tried to surrender, the US declined.
- gruseom 14y ago
  That is an extraordinary piece of evidence. The whole quote is worth reading.
- mpyne 14y ago
  The only ones who could tell if the Japanese were actually ready to surrender were the Japanese. They refused to surrender after Hiroshima. They refused to surrender after the U.S.S.R. declared war. Finally after Nagasaki their cabinet deadlocked 2-2 on the decision to surrender. The Emperor himself broke the tie by deciding for peace (a decision which brought a minor coup of its own). Adm. Leahy was correct if he was using Western logic and ideals. In fact it was clear since 1943 that Japan would be defeated and had to surrender or eventually lose the war. He's also correct that it was of no material assistance compared to conventional weaponry. There were only so many atomic bombs available and the B-17s rampaging across Japan were certainly doing a fine job as well. The part I don't understand is why he thought atomic bombing a city was barbarous, but firebombing Tokyo was how gentlemen conducted warfare. More Japanese died in a single firebombing raid than died in Dresden, Hiroshima, or Nagasaki. This raid I mention occurred in March 1945 by the way, not August. In light of that it's hard to claim with a straight face that conventional weapons were forcing Japan to surrender before invasion of the Home Islands. They had every reason to surrender in March if that was their only tripwire to decide to do so.

tomjen3 14y ago

If you have an issue with the nukes, go look up the Tokyo firebombing. Heck go hear the hardcore history podcast on the matter, then you will understand that it is just not that simple.

ithkuil 14y ago
The topic wasn't whether nukes are better or worst than other means of killing a comparable amount of civilians, but that our brain is shaped in such a way that we can easily justify that kind of action because "they" did worse, and why this, very natural thing, is dangerous. Personal revenge and punishment has already an interesting amount of counter arguments. But when we begin to lift this issue up to whole populations/ethnic groups, the thing starts to get out of control. Collective guilt and responsibility and punishment were the same actors behind the very atrocities we were condemning and fighting. In the hearts of many people, the Jews deserved what happened to them because they were the alleged cause of their problems and misery (and they needed an enemy, someone to blame). And it was way easier for German people to not feel empathy for all the Jewish neighbors disappearing once they thought of them as "them", as carrying a collective guilt, regardless of individuals. So, I'm not here to discuss who is worse. But sometimes, as I struggle to understand how it's possible have had so many millions of complacent people, assisting, giving power to cruel dictators, sometimes I have a glimpse of how is this feeling, each time I happen to think "well, they deserve it".