5 ms·

It strikes fear into me that these folks are loading a device that is design to kill thousands of lives, the madness in this thing call war.

creativityhurts 12y ago
Especially when you read things like "The device's alignment was checked over by eye and hand."
sillysaurus3 12y ago
Actually, the purpose of the bomb was to save many thousands more lives than it ended. An invasion of Japan would've cost an enormous number of lives. It would've also had a catastrophic effect on the civilian population, because they were being told that the American troops were there to enslave them. It has even been said that the propaganda being told to the Japanese civilians included the idea that the troops would kill and cannibalize their families. I'm not sure whether that latter part is true, but what is true is that the civilians were extremely incentivized to be as hostile as possible to any American invasion army, even to the extent of whole families committing suicide out of fear of being enslaved or tortured, as on Okinawa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa Simultaneously, 42,000–150,000 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, a significant proportion of the local population. Human affairs are sometimes terrible, but they often take the least terrible path out of all terrible paths. This is evidenced by the fact that the cuban missile crisis didn't result in an all-out nuclear war, and also that these bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than Americans invading Japan, which would have been far more devastating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high. Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties. I upvoted you because I agree that everyone should be terrified at the prospect of war, because war only happens when people aren't terrified of it.
- shabda 12y ago
  While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no ground invasion. The allies had complete air and naval superiority and Russia had joined the the Japanese war theatre. If you have read the ethics of atomic bombings in any detail you are already aware of the details, so I would refrain from linking to wikipedia. To push your POV that the bombing was entirely necessary and entirely morally right is immoral. [Edit] As requested below: here are the detail about the military unneccesity of the atomic bombings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... There are other debates around this, but this discusses only if Japan would have speedily surrendered without the Atomic bombing.
  - kyberias 12y ago
    Now is there really an equal number? How do you know?
  - sillysaurus3 12y ago
    I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. EDIT: An excerpt from your link: This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. It seems hard to argue that literally firebombing an entire civilization into stoneage living conditions was more ethical than forcing a quick political decision to surrender and stop the madness. Can you imagine trying to live without basic necessities? Even if nobody was dropping bombs on you directly, you, your family, and everyone around you would be the definition of misery for the duration of the firebombing. The firebombing didn't simply destroy military targets. It also decimated infrastructure that we take for granted, such as the ability to deliver drinkable water, or to seek medical treatment at hospitals. How many were to die a miserable death due to the firebombing before Hiroshima and Nagasaki could objectively be called the more ethical decision? Also, the above analysis assumes both sides had perfect information. But information during wartime is asymmetric. It's entirely possible that America had no knowledge of the Japanese political framework at the time the decision to drop the bombs was made. If the Japanese were broadcasting their intention to surrender before the bombs were dropped, that would be different, but it doesn't seem like that was the case. Would you mind helping me understand why firebombing was more ethical than the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
mladenkovacevic 12y ago
It strikes me as pure evil that the very first use of nuclear energy was to drop a massive bomb over a bunch of fellow humans. Surely the force of nuclear weapons could have been demonstrated without actually dropping it on a concentration of living, healthy people.
- lutusp 12y ago
  > It strikes me as pure evil that the very first use of nuclear energy was to drop a massive bomb over a bunch of fellow humans. Atomic weapons are a natural evolutionary step up from conventional explosives, which are a natural evolutionary step up from clubs and rocks. All this talk about atomic weapons being qualitatively different (as opposed to quantitatively different) is mostly hyperbole, with one exception -- only wealthy industrial powers can create them ... so far. > Surely the force of nuclear weapons could have been demonstrated without actually dropping it on a concentration of living, healthy people. The people in charge decided that a demonstration wouldn't stop the war or the need to use the new weapons, and later events proved them right. Contrary to what many Americans believe, the Japanese didn't surrender because of the atomic bombings, but because Russia invaded Manchuria, a development the Japanese saw as much more dangerous than atomic bombs.
  - dolleyellama 12y ago
    >The people in charge decided that a demonstration wouldn't stop the war or the need to use the new weapons, and later events proved them right. Contrary to what many Americans believe, the Japanese didn't surrender because of the atomic bombings, but because Russia invaded Manchuria, a development the Japanese saw as much more dangerous than atomic bombs. If that is the case, then that proves they were dead wrong about their justification for the necessity of dropping those bombs in the first place. Why tell everyone "we need to bomb" in order for Japan to surrender when you knew it wouldn't stop the war?
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > Why tell everyone "we need to bomb" in order for Japan to surrender when you knew it wouldn't stop the war? For various political reasons (I'm not justifying this, only explaining it). The Manhattan Project began in response to the perceived threat that Germany might create an atomic weapon. In 1945, with Germany out of the picture, and with no alternative, people began to talk about using it against Japan. It was realized that, if we didn't force Japan to surrender to us, they would surrender to the Russians, with unimaginable postwar consequences. Again, I'm only explaining the thinking of the time, not justifying it. After the war, it was discovered that Germany was nowhere near creating an atomic bomb, but it came out that Japan was actively pursuing this class of weapon and was technically farther ahead, lacking only the raw materials. In the closing days of the war, a German submarine was intercepted trying to deliver uranium to Japan for use in a nuclear weapon they planned to build and use against the U.S. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234

creativityhurts 12y ago

Especially when you read things like "The device's alignment was checked over by eye and hand."

sillysaurus3 12y ago

Actually, the purpose of the bomb was to save many thousands more lives than it ended. An invasion of Japan would've cost an enormous number of lives. It would've also had a catastrophic effect on the civilian population, because they were being told that the American troops were there to enslave them. It has even been said that the propaganda being told to the Japanese civilians included the idea that the troops would kill and cannibalize their families. I'm not sure whether that latter part is true, but what is true is that the civilians were extremely incentivized to be as hostile as possible to any American invasion army, even to the extent of whole families committing suicide out of fear of being enslaved or tortured, as on Okinawa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa Simultaneously, 42,000–150,000 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, a significant proportion of the local population. Human affairs are sometimes terrible, but they often take the least terrible path out of all terrible paths. This is evidenced by the fact that the cuban missile crisis didn't result in an all-out nuclear war, and also that these bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than Americans invading Japan, which would have been far more devastating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high. Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties. I upvoted you because I agree that everyone should be terrified at the prospect of war, because war only happens when people aren't terrified of it.

shabda 12y ago
While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no ground invasion. The allies had complete air and naval superiority and Russia had joined the the Japanese war theatre. If you have read the ethics of atomic bombings in any detail you are already aware of the details, so I would refrain from linking to wikipedia. To push your POV that the bombing was entirely necessary and entirely morally right is immoral. [Edit] As requested below: here are the detail about the military unneccesity of the atomic bombings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... There are other debates around this, but this discusses only if Japan would have speedily surrendered without the Atomic bombing.
- kyberias 12y ago
  Now is there really an equal number? How do you know?
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. EDIT: An excerpt from your link: This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. It seems hard to argue that literally firebombing an entire civilization into stoneage living conditions was more ethical than forcing a quick political decision to surrender and stop the madness. Can you imagine trying to live without basic necessities? Even if nobody was dropping bombs on you directly, you, your family, and everyone around you would be the definition of misery for the duration of the firebombing. The firebombing didn't simply destroy military targets. It also decimated infrastructure that we take for granted, such as the ability to deliver drinkable water, or to seek medical treatment at hospitals. How many were to die a miserable death due to the firebombing before Hiroshima and Nagasaki could objectively be called the more ethical decision? Also, the above analysis assumes both sides had perfect information. But information during wartime is asymmetric. It's entirely possible that America had no knowledge of the Japanese political framework at the time the decision to drop the bombs was made. If the Japanese were broadcasting their intention to surrender before the bombs were dropped, that would be different, but it doesn't seem like that was the case. Would you mind helping me understand why firebombing was more ethical than the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

mladenkovacevic 12y ago

It strikes me as pure evil that the very first use of nuclear energy was to drop a massive bomb over a bunch of fellow humans. Surely the force of nuclear weapons could have been demonstrated without actually dropping it on a concentration of living, healthy people.

lutusp 12y ago
> It strikes me as pure evil that the very first use of nuclear energy was to drop a massive bomb over a bunch of fellow humans. Atomic weapons are a natural evolutionary step up from conventional explosives, which are a natural evolutionary step up from clubs and rocks. All this talk about atomic weapons being qualitatively different (as opposed to quantitatively different) is mostly hyperbole, with one exception -- only wealthy industrial powers can create them ... so far. > Surely the force of nuclear weapons could have been demonstrated without actually dropping it on a concentration of living, healthy people. The people in charge decided that a demonstration wouldn't stop the war or the need to use the new weapons, and later events proved them right. Contrary to what many Americans believe, the Japanese didn't surrender because of the atomic bombings, but because Russia invaded Manchuria, a development the Japanese saw as much more dangerous than atomic bombs.
- dolleyellama 12y ago
  >The people in charge decided that a demonstration wouldn't stop the war or the need to use the new weapons, and later events proved them right. Contrary to what many Americans believe, the Japanese didn't surrender because of the atomic bombings, but because Russia invaded Manchuria, a development the Japanese saw as much more dangerous than atomic bombs. If that is the case, then that proves they were dead wrong about their justification for the necessity of dropping those bombs in the first place. Why tell everyone "we need to bomb" in order for Japan to surrender when you knew it wouldn't stop the war?
  - lutusp 12y ago
    > Why tell everyone "we need to bomb" in order for Japan to surrender when you knew it wouldn't stop the war? For various political reasons (I'm not justifying this, only explaining it). The Manhattan Project began in response to the perceived threat that Germany might create an atomic weapon. In 1945, with Germany out of the picture, and with no alternative, people began to talk about using it against Japan. It was realized that, if we didn't force Japan to surrender to us, they would surrender to the Russians, with unimaginable postwar consequences. Again, I'm only explaining the thinking of the time, not justifying it. After the war, it was discovered that Germany was nowhere near creating an atomic bomb, but it came out that Japan was actively pursuing this class of weapon and was technically farther ahead, lacking only the raw materials. In the closing days of the war, a German submarine was intercepted trying to deliver uranium to Japan for use in a nuclear weapon they planned to build and use against the U.S. : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-234