4 ms·

dropping of the atom bombs on Japan I respectfully disagree that it's indefensible. It was either 100,000 Japanese civilians in those 2 cities OR million or mo

by dba7dba 11y ago

dropping of the atom bombs on Japan I respectfully disagree that it's indefensible. It was either 100,000 Japanese civilians in those 2 cities OR million or more American casualties. AND if the invasion had taken place, millions and millions of Japanese civilians would've died also. I agree, with proper PR language, anything can be made look half decent and therefore tolerable.

myth_buster 11y ago
I respectfully disagree that it's indefensible. It was either 100,000 Japanese civilians in those 2 cities OR million or more American casualties. AND if the invasion had taken place, millions and millions of Japanese civilians would've died also. I respectfully disagree with your defense as it's speculative.
- dba7dba 11y ago
  Iwo Jima? And ALL other Japanese islands that had to be conquered? ## EDIT I don't mean to be dismissive but anyone with even remote knowledge of what went on to recapture all the Japanese held islands in the Pacific during the WW2 will say the nukes were needed. On all the islands that US Marines/soldiers fought on to recapture from Japan, Japanese units were usually wiped to the last man. And this kind of resistance to the last man was repeated on every single island. Example, Saipan island. Out of 31,000 Japanese soldiers, only 921 were captured. 24000 were killed and 5000 committed suicide. 22000 Japanese civilians died, mostly from suicides. US suffered 3426 killed and 10364 wounded. For an island of 44 square miles. ## end EDIT
- pav7en 11y ago
  No, it's not speculative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_ca...
gefh 11y ago
Orwell's quote was: > ... can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face.
PaulAJ 11y ago
No, he said that these things "can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties." That is not the same thing as saying that they are indefensible.
- dba7dba 11y ago
  Without nukes, it was gong to be more brutal than death of 100,000 civilian lives. As in death of millions of Japanese civilians. A million or so US casualty was projected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
awfullyjohn 11y ago
This is disputable. Please check out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8908197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8908197 And a great book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674022416/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674022416/ref=oh_aui_detai...
- dba7dba 11y ago
  It's not disputable. Do you know how hard it was for US marines to retake the Japanese held islands?
godzilla82 11y ago
>million or more American casualties ?? Isn't that PR language itself?
- dba7dba 11y ago
  Look at what it cost US Marines to take away Japanese held islands. And what if it was going to take half a million American casualties? And it still would've killed lots and lots of Japanese civilians and soldiers. Far more than 100,000 Japanese would've died. Have you read anything about any of the campaigns by US Marines? Not accusing you of ignorance or anything. Just wondering if you know some history.
Houshalter 11y ago
This thread is probably dead, but the main arguments I hear from people saying it was wrong is that Japan was extremely close to surrender and even negotiating terms before the bombs. Also that it didn't need to be dropped on a populated city first, and that previous bombing of cities in the war proved that the tactic was relatively ineffective. And that the US had a conflict of interest; they wanted to end the war before the Russians were involved. As well as demonstrate the capability of the bomb to them. Everything I said is debatable, and I don't blame Truman for making the decision he did. But Orwell's comment, that the arguments involved are "too brutal to bear" is definitely true. Most people can't answer the trolley problem, a hypothetical situation where you have to kill one innocent person to save 5. Now imagine instead of 1 person it's thousands, and they aren't all just killed instantly but some horribly maimed or irradiated. And that whether it will work wasn't certain, or that the horrible alternative wasn't certain, and that there are all sorts of possible third options, etc. And so whatever you think the best choice is, the arguments involved are extremely brutal.

by dba7dba 11y ago

myth_buster 11y ago

I respectfully disagree that it's indefensible. It was either 100,000 Japanese civilians in those 2 cities OR million or more American casualties. AND if the invasion had taken place, millions and millions of Japanese civilians would've died also. I respectfully disagree with your defense as it's speculative.

dba7dba 11y ago
Iwo Jima? And ALL other Japanese islands that had to be conquered? ## EDIT I don't mean to be dismissive but anyone with even remote knowledge of what went on to recapture all the Japanese held islands in the Pacific during the WW2 will say the nukes were needed. On all the islands that US Marines/soldiers fought on to recapture from Japan, Japanese units were usually wiped to the last man. And this kind of resistance to the last man was repeated on every single island. Example, Saipan island. Out of 31,000 Japanese soldiers, only 921 were captured. 24000 were killed and 5000 committed suicide. 22000 Japanese civilians died, mostly from suicides. US suffered 3426 killed and 10364 wounded. For an island of 44 square miles. ## end EDIT
pav7en 11y ago
No, it's not speculative http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_ca...

gefh 11y ago

Orwell's quote was: > ... can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face.

PaulAJ 11y ago

No, he said that these things "can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties." That is not the same thing as saying that they are indefensible.

dba7dba 11y ago
Without nukes, it was gong to be more brutal than death of 100,000 civilian lives. As in death of millions of Japanese civilians. A million or so US casualty was projected. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

awfullyjohn 11y ago

This is disputable. Please check out: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8908197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8908197 And a great book on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674022416/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674022416/ref=oh_aui_detai...

dba7dba 11y ago
It's not disputable. Do you know how hard it was for US marines to retake the Japanese held islands?

godzilla82 11y ago

>million or more American casualties ?? Isn't that PR language itself?

dba7dba 11y ago
Look at what it cost US Marines to take away Japanese held islands. And what if it was going to take half a million American casualties? And it still would've killed lots and lots of Japanese civilians and soldiers. Far more than 100,000 Japanese would've died. Have you read anything about any of the campaigns by US Marines? Not accusing you of ignorance or anything. Just wondering if you know some history.

Houshalter 11y ago

This thread is probably dead, but the main arguments I hear from people saying it was wrong is that Japan was extremely close to surrender and even negotiating terms before the bombs. Also that it didn't need to be dropped on a populated city first, and that previous bombing of cities in the war proved that the tactic was relatively ineffective. And that the US had a conflict of interest; they wanted to end the war before the Russians were involved. As well as demonstrate the capability of the bomb to them. Everything I said is debatable, and I don't blame Truman for making the decision he did. But Orwell's comment, that the arguments involved are "too brutal to bear" is definitely true. Most people can't answer the trolley problem, a hypothetical situation where you have to kill one innocent person to save 5. Now imagine instead of 1 person it's thousands, and they aren't all just killed instantly but some horribly maimed or irradiated. And that whether it will work wasn't certain, or that the horrible alternative wasn't certain, and that there are all sorts of possible third options, etc. And so whatever you think the best choice is, the arguments involved are extremely brutal.