5 ms·

United States dumps two bombs with no reason in Japan and you are saying that only rational leaders and rational nations have access to nuclear weapons? We are

by meira 11y ago

United States dumps two bombs with no reason in Japan and you are saying that only rational leaders and rational nations have access to nuclear weapons? We are not in a nuclear war because US makes more profit based in the fear than in the use of the bombs. Don't play this "intolerant" game.

Kurtz79 11y ago
I´m neither American nor a fan of US foreign policy, but you seem to be overlooking the small fact that the US was at war with Japan at the time. The bombs made clear that the US had the upper hand in warfare technology (and no scruples in taking advantage of it) and that action ended the war without additional casualties on US part. The decision wasn't neither humane nor merciful , but from a rational point of view made a lot of sense.
- meira 11y ago
  That's why we celebrate, in August, the end of world war II. Not in May.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    Today is the 70th anniversary of VE day and it's actually have quite a lot of coverage here in the UK given that there are other things happening today. There were a few quite moving interviews with veterans on Radio 4 this morning - including one with a chap who had fought in Europe and was, like many others, about to be shipped out to the Far East to help the US invade Japan. He was, perhaps understandably, delighted to hear that Japan had been bombed. Personally, I think the motivations for using the atomic bombs on Japan are complex and unclear - even with hindsight.
    - kuboa 11y ago
      I don't think the motivations were unclear at all: They were in a Total War where there was no distinction between military and civilian targets, and they had a new, powerful weapon; of course they were gonna use it. There was never a discussion as to whether use it or not. The immediate political effects of the bombs, if they were really the main factor in Japan's decision to surrender for instance, are indeed murky, though it was most probably Soviets entering the war that did it more than the bombs.
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    here in Europe, we celebrate 8th of May ;)
- sensationaltru 11y ago
  and frying people with nukes and condemning their offspring to a life of fatal deformities and diseases apologists like you are rational too, I guess ...
  - ptaipale 11y ago
    AFAIK those birth deformities have been greatly exaggerated, and are mostly (so-called urban) legends. For reference, see http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html
  - Kurtz79 11y ago
    I beg you to look for the definition of "rational", and I take issue in you calling me an "apologist" without knowing anything about my ideas or positions. I find it atrocious, and possibly should have been avoided, but it's easy and convenient for us to sit in front of our laptops and pass judgement 70 years after the fact, without having first-hand experience of the situation at the time. Personally, I think that any nation involved in the war, if they had been in the same position of the US, would have taken the same decision, but again it's easy to judge and theorize now.
    - sensationaltru 11y ago
      Hey "rational gentleman", do you realize that most of the victims of these US state sponsored terrorist attacks on Japan were poor civilians not even military personnel? Do you think that it's acceptable or "rational" as you put it to have people fried alive in furnaces or dissolved in acid? Would you like to face a similar "rational" fate for you or your loved ones? Hadn't been for the US and its allies emerged as victors in WWII, all of their political and military leadership would have been had their own Nuremberg trials a decades ago but they got it away with it for the simple fact that they prevailed over their enemies. Like they say 'History is written by the victors'.
      - oblio 11y ago
        I'm from a country defeated in the war, Romania, so I should be somewhat objective as "I" didn't "write" any history. Japanese atrocities are well documented, so it's not like the US was the only one doing awful things. I, for one, am glad that the Allies won the war. The lesser of two evils.
- fennecfoxen 11y ago
  In retrospect, it wasn't even necessary, given the sad state of the Japanese wartime economy -- the US wasn't very far from overwhelming them with conventional warfare. But such things are more obvious to leaders in retrospect, especially when they haven't been in a war mindset for years, fighting a string of incredibly nasty battles one island at a time before coming to the islands named 'Japan'.... But either way -- you can say it was the right decision or the wrong decision -- it was hardly "for no reason".
- andyjohnson0 11y ago
  "...and that action ended the war..." It is worth noting that there is considerable debate among historians about the degree to which the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings influenced the Japanese decision to surrender. Hiroshima was attacked on 6th August and Nagasaki on the 9th, but the surrender wasn't announced until the 15th. Some historians see the Russian declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria as being equally or more significant [1]. [1] http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
  - saiya-jin 11y ago
    Heard this before, sounds reasonable (for non-expert). In 40's mentality in Japan, emperor was a god, and common citizens didn't matter a bit in war efforts. They were burning alive (tens of) thousands by carpet bombings on all major cities (also having many buildings built with wood helped spread fires), and it didn't move opinions of ruling elite a bit. I would say atomic bombs were one of the many factors considered when finally giving up, but common US view of "hey we bombed them hard with our cool new toys, they craed their pants and gave up immediately" is not very accurate.
- fsloth 11y ago
  The other historically plausible motivation is that Truman wanted to display to Stalin as a deterrent against for soviet expansion into europe that a) they had the bomb b) they were not afraid to use it c) what effect it has on cities. Japan was at war against USA at the time and effects of firebombings with traditional planes and explosives were no less horrible in cost to human lives than the A-bombs so the morale of the whole thing is ambiguous.
mikeash 11y ago
Really, "with no reason"? There were plenty of reasons. You can debate whether they were good or bad, or justified what was done, but to just dismiss it all as "no reason" is ridiculous. Even people who think that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was completely reprehensible will still say that there was a reason for it, like putting a fright into the Soviets.
- meira 11y ago
  So what? ISIS has a reason too.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    So "no reason" is a phrase which destroys thoughts and makes us be content with not understanding people's motivations. I object to using it when it's so clearly wrong. And yes, I would just as strongly object to someone saying that ISIS beheads and rapes people for "no reason."
Houshalter 11y ago
You can debate whether it was ethical to use them or not, but you can't say it was irrational. They were at war with the country and trying to use every advantage to end it as quickly as possible. That's very different than starting a nuclear war for the hell of it knowing your country will be totally destroyed as a result.

by meira 11y ago

Kurtz79 11y ago

I´m neither American nor a fan of US foreign policy, but you seem to be overlooking the small fact that the US was at war with Japan at the time. The bombs made clear that the US had the upper hand in warfare technology (and no scruples in taking advantage of it) and that action ended the war without additional casualties on US part. The decision wasn't neither humane nor merciful , but from a rational point of view made a lot of sense.

meira 11y ago
That's why we celebrate, in August, the end of world war II. Not in May.
- arethuza 11y ago
  Today is the 70th anniversary of VE day and it's actually have quite a lot of coverage here in the UK given that there are other things happening today. There were a few quite moving interviews with veterans on Radio 4 this morning - including one with a chap who had fought in Europe and was, like many others, about to be shipped out to the Far East to help the US invade Japan. He was, perhaps understandably, delighted to hear that Japan had been bombed. Personally, I think the motivations for using the atomic bombs on Japan are complex and unclear - even with hindsight.
  - kuboa 11y ago
    I don't think the motivations were unclear at all: They were in a Total War where there was no distinction between military and civilian targets, and they had a new, powerful weapon; of course they were gonna use it. There was never a discussion as to whether use it or not. The immediate political effects of the bombs, if they were really the main factor in Japan's decision to surrender for instance, are indeed murky, though it was most probably Soviets entering the war that did it more than the bombs.
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  here in Europe, we celebrate 8th of May ;)
sensationaltru 11y ago
and frying people with nukes and condemning their offspring to a life of fatal deformities and diseases apologists like you are rational too, I guess ...
- ptaipale 11y ago
  AFAIK those birth deformities have been greatly exaggerated, and are mostly (so-called urban) legends. For reference, see http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html
- Kurtz79 11y ago
  I beg you to look for the definition of "rational", and I take issue in you calling me an "apologist" without knowing anything about my ideas or positions. I find it atrocious, and possibly should have been avoided, but it's easy and convenient for us to sit in front of our laptops and pass judgement 70 years after the fact, without having first-hand experience of the situation at the time. Personally, I think that any nation involved in the war, if they had been in the same position of the US, would have taken the same decision, but again it's easy to judge and theorize now.
  - sensationaltru 11y ago
    Hey "rational gentleman", do you realize that most of the victims of these US state sponsored terrorist attacks on Japan were poor civilians not even military personnel? Do you think that it's acceptable or "rational" as you put it to have people fried alive in furnaces or dissolved in acid? Would you like to face a similar "rational" fate for you or your loved ones? Hadn't been for the US and its allies emerged as victors in WWII, all of their political and military leadership would have been had their own Nuremberg trials a decades ago but they got it away with it for the simple fact that they prevailed over their enemies. Like they say 'History is written by the victors'.
    - oblio 11y ago
      I'm from a country defeated in the war, Romania, so I should be somewhat objective as "I" didn't "write" any history. Japanese atrocities are well documented, so it's not like the US was the only one doing awful things. I, for one, am glad that the Allies won the war. The lesser of two evils.
fennecfoxen 11y ago
In retrospect, it wasn't even necessary, given the sad state of the Japanese wartime economy -- the US wasn't very far from overwhelming them with conventional warfare. But such things are more obvious to leaders in retrospect, especially when they haven't been in a war mindset for years, fighting a string of incredibly nasty battles one island at a time before coming to the islands named 'Japan'.... But either way -- you can say it was the right decision or the wrong decision -- it was hardly "for no reason".
andyjohnson0 11y ago
"...and that action ended the war..." It is worth noting that there is considerable debate among historians about the degree to which the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings influenced the Japanese decision to surrender. Hiroshima was attacked on 6th August and Nagasaki on the 9th, but the surrender wasn't announced until the 15th. Some historians see the Russian declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria as being equally or more significant [1]. [1] http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
- saiya-jin 11y ago
  Heard this before, sounds reasonable (for non-expert). In 40's mentality in Japan, emperor was a god, and common citizens didn't matter a bit in war efforts. They were burning alive (tens of) thousands by carpet bombings on all major cities (also having many buildings built with wood helped spread fires), and it didn't move opinions of ruling elite a bit. I would say atomic bombs were one of the many factors considered when finally giving up, but common US view of "hey we bombed them hard with our cool new toys, they craed their pants and gave up immediately" is not very accurate.
fsloth 11y ago
The other historically plausible motivation is that Truman wanted to display to Stalin as a deterrent against for soviet expansion into europe that a) they had the bomb b) they were not afraid to use it c) what effect it has on cities. Japan was at war against USA at the time and effects of firebombings with traditional planes and explosives were no less horrible in cost to human lives than the A-bombs so the morale of the whole thing is ambiguous.

mikeash 11y ago

Really, "with no reason"? There were plenty of reasons. You can debate whether they were good or bad, or justified what was done, but to just dismiss it all as "no reason" is ridiculous. Even people who think that dropping nuclear bombs on Japan was completely reprehensible will still say that there was a reason for it, like putting a fright into the Soviets.

meira 11y ago
So what? ISIS has a reason too.
- mikeash 11y ago
  So "no reason" is a phrase which destroys thoughts and makes us be content with not understanding people's motivations. I object to using it when it's so clearly wrong. And yes, I would just as strongly object to someone saying that ISIS beheads and rapes people for "no reason."

Houshalter 11y ago

You can debate whether it was ethical to use them or not, but you can't say it was irrational. They were at war with the country and trying to use every advantage to end it as quickly as possible. That's very different than starting a nuclear war for the hell of it knowing your country will be totally destroyed as a result.