So I've been wandering around the internet and I've come across some folks who can't seem to agree on this--and admittedly I'm not sure what to think. So I figure, why not bring it up here?
So pro A-Bomb side says that Japan civilians would have fought and/or committed suicide had the US invaded--possibly to the point where they would have obliterated their whole race. They claim that the 200,000 people who died from the bomb would have been upward toward a million Japanese and allied people who died in an invasion. The Japanese thought we had only one bomb and wanted to keep fighting after Hiroshima. In addition the targets had factories and military bases that, should they have remained would have made a southern invasion incredibly difficult. This is also the position that Truman put forth (which immediately creates red flags for me, but that's just a gut reaction from this day and age.)
The anti A-Bomb side says that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway because the Soviets entered the war in Manchuria. Both Gen. Eisenhower and Gen. MacArthur have stated that the bomb didn't shorten the war. These folks claim that the bomb was more as an effort at intimidating the Soviets and the Japanese were the perfect opportunity due to Americans' racist tendencies to think of the Japanese as "cockroaches". That the pending surrender was based on a promise that the Allies would allow the Japanese imperial reign to remain intact as their culture was used to.
So I DON'T want to believe that bombing and horrid aftermath of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best solution but there seems to be a good case for it based on the evidence I've found. The anecdotes from Eisenhower and MacArthur are...well anecdotes and Eisenhower was mostly in Europe and Africa anyway. I heard that MacArthur was more disappointed that he couldn't do what he did best and storm in there--even after Hiroshima.
Ultimately, I WANT to believe that there is never a use for the bomb so I'd like to reconcile this--even if it means swallowing hard truths.
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
Pretty much this. I feel wicked ambivalent about the whole thing. My birthday is the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, and truth be told, I always think about Hiroshima on my birthday.
On the one hand, I consider it wrong to take human life unless it is to preserve your own life or the life of another. Kill a would-be killer, but not a has-been killer.
War's one of those things that you can't bring logical, altruistic calculations into. And history isn't black and white like people would want it to be. So, the best answer I can give you is that both camps are simultaneously right and wrong. Quite honestly, you have to look at it as this thing that happened, and it brought both good and bad. Both immediately and in the long term.
I think we can't calculate the lives lost and the lives saved in an alternate timeline. We can't even calculate the lives saved in this. We can only calculate the lives lost. We (the United States) are the only nation to have unleashed a nuclear weapon on another. Not once, but twice. And that's the only two times it happened. And thank God for that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
Truman was intelligent enough to find himself President. Much as we hate to admit it, there has never been a dumb President. Presidents of nations have bias though. They have to, by definition. You're assuming executive and military command of a nation state. Doesn't make it right. I dunno.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on July 08, 2014, 03:31:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
Pretty much this. I feel wicked ambivalent about the whole thing. My birthday is the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, and truth be told, I always think about Hiroshima on my birthday.
On the one hand, I consider it wrong to take human life unless it is to preserve your own life or the life of another. Kill a would-be killer, but not a has-been killer.
War's one of those things that you can't bring logical, altruistic calculations into. And history isn't black and white like people would want it to be. So, the best answer I can give you is that both camps are simultaneously right and wrong. Quite honestly, you have to look at it as this thing that happened, and it brought both good and bad. Both immediately and in the long term.
On your birthday? woah...that's gotta be weird...I've been thinking about this the past week or so--not so much in the ZOMG THE WORLD IS ENDING AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE sense but in the more "Hmmmmmm...." sense. I suppose you have plenty of hours in on both counts.
But yeah, what Roger and you said...the more I study history the more it seems that there are some things that will remain endlessly debatable. I think what gets me is not being able to fully understand the mentality of periods. Like, the anti-Japanese thing...i can't even begin to imagine that kind of head space.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on July 08, 2014, 03:36:07 AM
I think we can't calculate the lives lost and the lives saved in an alternate timeline. We can't even calculate the lives saved in this. We can only calculate the lives lost. We (the United States) are the only nation to have unleashed a nuclear weapon on another. Not once, but twice. And that's the only two times it happened. And thank God for that.
Yes, indeed. I understand what you mean...it's really about moving forward. My whole thing lately is broadening my historical perspective to better understand today's world. So when these questions come up that I'm not sure how to file confusion sets in--especially when this whole 'the bomb helped us'/'the bomb was a mistake' debate seems so abound (at least in the internet corners where I'm poking my nose).
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on July 08, 2014, 03:42:27 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
Truman was intelligent enough to find himself President. Much as we hate to admit it, there has never been a dumb President. Presidents of nations have bias though. They have to, by definition. You're assuming executive and military command of a nation state. Doesn't make it right. I dunno.
He almost didn't get elected--Dewey had it in the bag from what I understand, but yeah I dig. I don't think he was unintelligent, though, but maybe more like a kid in a candy store or raucous in a 'boys will be boys' kind of way.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:47:14 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on July 08, 2014, 03:31:44 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
Pretty much this. I feel wicked ambivalent about the whole thing. My birthday is the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, and truth be told, I always think about Hiroshima on my birthday.
On the one hand, I consider it wrong to take human life unless it is to preserve your own life or the life of another. Kill a would-be killer, but not a has-been killer.
War's one of those things that you can't bring logical, altruistic calculations into. And history isn't black and white like people would want it to be. So, the best answer I can give you is that both camps are simultaneously right and wrong. Quite honestly, you have to look at it as this thing that happened, and it brought both good and bad. Both immediately and in the long term.
On your birthday? woah...that's gotta be weird...I've been thinking about this the past week or so--not so much in the ZOMG THE WORLD IS ENDING AND WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE sense but in the more "Hmmmmmm...." sense. I suppose you have plenty of hours in on both counts.
But yeah, what Roger and you said...the more I study history the more it seems that there are some things that will remain endlessly debatable. I think what gets me is not being able to fully understand the mentality of periods. Like, the anti-Japanese thing...i can't even begin to imagine that kind of head space.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on July 08, 2014, 03:36:07 AM
I think we can't calculate the lives lost and the lives saved in an alternate timeline. We can't even calculate the lives saved in this. We can only calculate the lives lost. We (the United States) are the only nation to have unleashed a nuclear weapon on another. Not once, but twice. And that's the only two times it happened. And thank God for that.
Yes, indeed. I understand what you mean...it's really about moving forward. My whole thing lately is broadening my historical perspective to better understand today's world. So when these questions come up that I'm not sure how to file confusion sets in--especially when this whole 'the bomb helped us'/'the bomb was a mistake' debate seems so abound (at least in the internet corners where I'm poking my nose).
Yep. Actually, when I was working for Dr. S, I mentioned offhand that my birthday was on x day in the coming week. He paused, thought about it, and said, "a rather historic day..." (he knew I was majoring in history at the time), and I responded, "yes... not one of the proudest moments in human history..."
The bomb both helped and was a mistake. Like I said, history is rarely, if ever, clear cut. It certainly stopped the US and the Soviets from throwing down, because both sides knew that was not a fight that anyone can win, so why fight if you know that you're going to lose anyway? Instead we got proxy wars and some of the geopolitical mess that we have now.
We can't fix it. That's probably the best lesson you can learn from history. Every event is both good in some ways and bad in others.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:55:54 AM
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on July 08, 2014, 03:42:27 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
Truman was intelligent enough to find himself President. Much as we hate to admit it, there has never been a dumb President. Presidents of nations have bias though. They have to, by definition. You're assuming executive and military command of a nation state. Doesn't make it right. I dunno.
He almost didn't get elected--Dewey had it in the bag from what I understand, but yeah I dig. I don't think he was unintelligent, though, but maybe more like a kid in a candy store or raucous in a 'boys will be boys' kind of way.
Like I said, the bias thing. Americans generally don't understand other countries. We view the world from American eyes. We can't step into that other guy's shoes. We just can't. Problem is, we think we know what's up, and will step in, if we think it's in our interest.
I remember during American History II I made a rather impassioned argument with a vet about how we probably wouldn't have nuked the Nazis. I made him think from my perspective and he made me think from his.
He and I ended up agreeing with each other, and uncomfortably so.
An argument has been made by a Japanese historian (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416) with access to the Japanese High Command's military records that the entry of Russia into Manchuria and subsequent preparations to attack the Japanese mainland were the primary cause for the collapse of the war effort, and not the nuclear bombs.
I've not read the book myself, though I've read several reviews which suggest it is a credible piece of historical investigation and should be taken seriously. It also coheres with what we know of the Japanese military and their abject fear of Stalin after 1938, a fear so great that they turned down German requests to open a second, Pacific front on the beleaugered Soviet Union in the wake of Operation Barbarossa.
If true, then the atom bombs were unnecessary.
One question that occurs to me would be "If not then, then when?"
Considering the conflicts post WW2, I'm unsure if there's one that would justify it's use on civilians. That's disturbing me somewhat. If the above regarding Russia is credible, it would seem to be more of a show of force for them rather than a show of force to end the war.
I would say it's nearly impossible to make a case for the general sense.
However, personally I can look at specific points of view and try out those shoes.
For example, I firmly believe the guy that pressed the button was wrong no matter what he believed the outcome of nuking a city would end up as. With so much uncertainty in the world I'd rather take the chance that war continues with or without my help, rather than guarantee an absolute horror takes place by my hand, whether or not it "saves lives" in the long run.
I think individuals are always responsible for their own actions, even when under orders and against a powerful enemy.
That said, if I had a gun to my head, and had to kill people or be killed, I'm the kind of shithead that would kill people and save myself at nearly any cost. I wouldn't consider that course of action moral or right, and I would be very ashamed and guilty, but I know I would do it anyway.
But my study of morality is limited to philosophy 101 level so grain of salt and all that
Morality aside, I don't think we will ever know for sure if and how many lives it might have saved, as the aborted potential timeline where the bombs did not go off is not available to study, and reality is a very weird and often unpredictable place.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
This. So much this.
And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"
Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.
Genocide is very bad.
One nuke destroys many species.
Nukes are very very bad.
There is only one acceptable use of nukes.
To stop worse genocide.
Did they achieve this?
I don't think so, at most they merely prevented the murder of a few million individuals.
Murder is less bad than genocide in the same way that finite numbers are less than infinity.
I can't see morally justifiable reason to do it but then I come from the comfortable position of a country that wouldn't and couldn't have made that choice.
I suspect it wasn't necessary but it was a very complex political topography that I know little about, what's done is done now we can try and make sure it never ever happens again.
Quote from: The Suu on July 09, 2014, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
This. So much this.
And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"
Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.
I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
I would have slept better knowing they were dropped on military bases, or dentonated a few miles away from Japan and said LOOK OUTSIDE JACKASS! GIVE UP NOW!
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 10, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
Quote from: The Suu on July 09, 2014, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
This. So much this.
And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"
Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.
I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
They knew what hell they were about to unleash, they just needed an excuse to show it off. You know, just like how they showed off mustard gas and tanks.
When I was in Kansas City for that costuming convention, I went to a seminar JUST on World War I military dress. The advances they made in the FUCKING LOOM TO WEAVE WOOL happened in less than a year on the French end to help thwart German gas attacks, after they were using the same style twill wool for something like 200 years. So it wasn't just warfare, it was down to the threads. It blew my brain.
Quote from: The Suu on July 10, 2014, 03:59:36 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 10, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
Quote from: The Suu on July 09, 2014, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
This. So much this.
And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"
Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.
I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
They knew what hell they were about to unleash, they just needed an excuse to show it off. You know, just like how they showed off mustard gas and tanks.
When I was in Kansas City for that costuming convention, I went to a seminar JUST on World War I military dress. The advances they made in the FUCKING LOOM TO WEAVE WOOL happened in less than a year on the French end to help thwart German gas attacks, after they were using the same style twill wool for something like 200 years. So it wasn't just warfare, it was down to the threads. It blew my brain.
That's pretty incredible. It's crazy how it trickles down like that.
Quote from: George Edger Dingleburry on July 10, 2014, 03:31:28 AM
I would have slept better knowing they were dropped on military bases, or dentonated a few miles away from Japan and said LOOK OUTSIDE JACKASS! GIVE UP NOW!
Well Hiroshima, I thought, housed a military base and Nagasaki was targeted a Mitsubishi steel mill. But I hear what you're saying. Thing is, you gotta crush your enemy completely.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 10, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
That's almost poetically put, and rather thought-provoking.
I can remember moments like that in my own life, getting carried away so much I forgot that it's reality that i'm playing with until that surreal moment where I woke back up to the real world and realized wtf I just did.
Lord of the Flies seems to suggest that sort of thing happens more than we realize, and I find it unnervingly plausible that something as horrific as atomic bombs could be caused in part by this... I dunno, tendency?
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 10, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
Quote from: The Suu on July 09, 2014, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
This. So much this.
And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"
Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.
I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
No, world war I was when that wedding took place. It was far more awful in terms of carnage.
Quote from: trix on July 10, 2014, 04:59:38 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 10, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
That's almost poetically put, and rather thought-provoking.
I can remember moments like that in my own life, getting carried away so much I forgot that it's reality that i'm playing with until that surreal moment where I woke back up to the real world and realized wtf I just did.
Lord of the Flies seems to suggest that sort of thing happens more than we realize, and I find it unnervingly plausible that something as horrific as atomic bombs could be caused in part by this... I dunno, tendency?
"Adults"
I'm 33 and I still don't feel like one. AND I do really stupid shit...I'm just glad I don't have my finger on the button...not that I'd press it, more like drop a cup of coffee on it.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2014, 05:46:40 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 10, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
Quote from: The Suu on July 09, 2014, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
This. So much this.
And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"
Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.
I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
No, world war I was when that wedding took place. It was far more awful in terms of carnage.
Yep ;)
A-bomb was the (then) culmination of the arms race. Two factors at play - Humans like to kill other humans. Humans invent increasingly powerful tech.
These two factors began with picking up rocks, continued through attaching rocks to sticks to form axes, the invention of metal, ballistics, siege engines, gunpowder... every step of the way the desire to slaughter our fellow man and our ability to produce increasingly powerful technology made the creation of a-bombs inevitable.
Equally inevitable was the fact that, once we had one, we were always going to find a justification for playing with it. Sooner rather than later. Death Opera is not the most patient of headspaces.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 01:58:04 AM
So I've been wandering around the internet and I've come across some folks who can't seem to agree on this--and admittedly I'm not sure what to think. So I figure, why not bring it up here?
So pro A-Bomb side says that Japan civilians would have fought and/or committed suicide had the US invaded--possibly to the point where they would have obliterated their whole race. They claim that the 200,000 people who died from the bomb would have been upward toward a million Japanese and allied people who died in an invasion. The Japanese thought we had only one bomb and wanted to keep fighting after Hiroshima. In addition the targets had factories and military bases that, should they have remained would have made a southern invasion incredibly difficult. This is also the position that Truman put forth (which immediately creates red flags for me, but that's just a gut reaction from this day and age.)
The anti A-Bomb side says that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway because the Soviets entered the war in Manchuria. Both Gen. Eisenhower and Gen. MacArthur have stated that the bomb didn't shorten the war. These folks claim that the bomb was more as an effort at intimidating the Soviets and the Japanese were the perfect opportunity due to Americans' racist tendencies to think of the Japanese as "cockroaches". That the pending surrender was based on a promise that the Allies would allow the Japanese imperial reign to remain intact as their culture was used to.
So I DON'T want to believe that bombing and horrid aftermath of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best solution but there seems to be a good case for it based on the evidence I've found. The anecdotes from Eisenhower and MacArthur are...well anecdotes and Eisenhower was mostly in Europe and Africa anyway. I heard that MacArthur was more disappointed that he couldn't do what he did best and storm in there--even after Hiroshima.
Ultimately, I WANT to believe that there is never a use for the bomb so I'd like to reconcile this--even if it means swallowing hard truths.
I dunno...the normal "pro A-bomb" stance I hear is a synthesis of both your presented "pro" and "anti" arguments.
Basically, it follows as:
The japanese would have surrendered anyway because of the Soviets, however, this would have lead to a divided japan, with a southern conquest being perpetrated by the US, and a northern perpetrated by the USSR.
In "North Japan", you'd end up with communist purges, as is per usual with communists, probably some famine from the wonderful execution of communist planning, and possibly a "japanese war" to go right along with the korean and vietnamese ones. God knows how it would effect geopolitics in the long run too...
So the blunt premise is that the A-bombs caused casualties, yes, but far less than a japanese communist state would have in the form of purges, starvation and attempts at conquering the capitalist south...
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2014, 05:46:40 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 10, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
Quote from: The Suu on July 09, 2014, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
This. So much this.
And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"
Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.
I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
No, world war I was when that wedding took place. It was far more awful in terms of carnage.
I would further argue that the wedding was inevitable. There was courtship as early as the American Civil War (birth of machine guns, ironclad hulls, though you could argue the American revolution, with rudimentary submarines. Not being Amerocentric intentionally, it's just that those are the noticeable beginnings of modern war tech from a perspective I'm familiar with). But ultimately, humans have always been at war with each other. WWI just happened to break out at a particular point of runaway technological progress.
Quote from: Ållnephew Tvýðleþøn on July 18, 2014, 02:02:24 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 10, 2014, 05:46:40 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 10, 2014, 02:53:58 AM
Quote from: The Suu on July 09, 2014, 08:32:08 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 09, 2014, 04:29:21 PM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 03:36:55 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on July 08, 2014, 03:10:30 AM
On one hand, it was a graphic demonstration of why global wars were no longer feasible.
On the other hand, we dropped nukes on civilians.
I don't really know what to think. It was awful as hell, but so were world wars, and without the bomb, we'd have kept having them.
That's true.. Maybe it's better to just let it be a 'damn thing that happened' rather than take a side. I guess I'd just really like to know if that was really thought out. I mean Truman doesn't strike me as intelligent to consider those ramifications and the way he reacted when he heard the news -- all giddylike -- seems to indicate that he was more power drunk than contemplative.
The 20th century was, in my opinion, the most barbaric era mankind ever indulged in. So of course they dropped the bombs.
This. So much this.
And there was plenty of barbarism outside of the bombs, or WWII in general. The Modern Era was rife with running with technology and the idea of "what can we do to kill the other side faster/stronger/more horrifically than the other guys" without stopping to think. WWI is an excellent example of this. The way warfare technology moved in a period from 1914 to 1919 was INSANE. It became a game of "can we top this?" instead of, "How can we stop this?"
Politics had changed from the kingdoms and empires of the Middle Ages into democracies, dictatorships, and communist states in what was probably a direct result of the industrial revolution. Barriers were broken so fast, nobody gave a fuck.
I'm happy you replied because I've been thinking about Roger's comment on and off today.
WWI was really that time when technology and warfare wedded. Like a kid with a new toy, every country wanted to show off. Only they were adults with millions of lives on the line. The bomb seemed to be the capper. Like that moment in Lord of the flies when they got rescued and everyone realized how fucked up they were being.
Only it was a reality that couldn't be reversed.
No, world war I was when that wedding took place. It was far more awful in terms of carnage.
I would further argue that the wedding was inevitable. There was courtship as early as the American Civil War (birth of machine guns, ironclad hulls, though you could argue the American revolution, with rudimentary submarines. Not being Amerocentric intentionally, it's just that those are the noticeable beginnings of modern war tech from a perspective I'm familiar with). But ultimately, humans have always been at war with each other. WWI just happened to break out at a particular point of runaway technological progress.
I suppose you could further argue that the first world war on any planet would necessarily begin around that level of technology. That level of technology make global war feasible.
Quote from: von on July 18, 2014, 01:34:27 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on July 08, 2014, 01:58:04 AM
So I've been wandering around the internet and I've come across some folks who can't seem to agree on this--and admittedly I'm not sure what to think. So I figure, why not bring it up here?
So pro A-Bomb side says that Japan civilians would have fought and/or committed suicide had the US invaded--possibly to the point where they would have obliterated their whole race. They claim that the 200,000 people who died from the bomb would have been upward toward a million Japanese and allied people who died in an invasion. The Japanese thought we had only one bomb and wanted to keep fighting after Hiroshima. In addition the targets had factories and military bases that, should they have remained would have made a southern invasion incredibly difficult. This is also the position that Truman put forth (which immediately creates red flags for me, but that's just a gut reaction from this day and age.)
The anti A-Bomb side says that the Japanese were going to surrender anyway because the Soviets entered the war in Manchuria. Both Gen. Eisenhower and Gen. MacArthur have stated that the bomb didn't shorten the war. These folks claim that the bomb was more as an effort at intimidating the Soviets and the Japanese were the perfect opportunity due to Americans' racist tendencies to think of the Japanese as "cockroaches". That the pending surrender was based on a promise that the Allies would allow the Japanese imperial reign to remain intact as their culture was used to.
So I DON'T want to believe that bombing and horrid aftermath of dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the best solution but there seems to be a good case for it based on the evidence I've found. The anecdotes from Eisenhower and MacArthur are...well anecdotes and Eisenhower was mostly in Europe and Africa anyway. I heard that MacArthur was more disappointed that he couldn't do what he did best and storm in there--even after Hiroshima.
Ultimately, I WANT to believe that there is never a use for the bomb so I'd like to reconcile this--even if it means swallowing hard truths.
I dunno...the normal "pro A-bomb" stance I hear is a synthesis of both your presented "pro" and "anti" arguments.
Basically, it follows as:
The japanese would have surrendered anyway because of the Soviets, however, this would have lead to a divided japan, with a southern conquest being perpetrated by the US, and a northern perpetrated by the USSR.
In "North Japan", you'd end up with communist purges, as is per usual with communists, probably some famine from the wonderful execution of communist planning, and possibly a "japanese war" to go right along with the korean and vietnamese ones. God knows how it would effect geopolitics in the long run too...
So the blunt premise is that the A-bombs caused casualties, yes, but far less than a japanese communist state would have in the form of purges, starvation and attempts at conquering the capitalist south...
Conversely, it might have been that Japan ended up being Korea, and Korea, Vietnam, and Vietnam ending up somewhere else.
Or it could've ended up the same way, Japan surrendured to the US to avoid any kind of Soviet occupation.
The US still had the preponderance of force in the region, I'm not sure the Soviets would've pressed the issue, especially with China to the south looking like much more promising territory to forge gains in (I suspect the Soviets had no idea how much wealth Japan had looted, or that most of it would avoid being paid back in reparations to the country's Japan occupied).
In the most literal sense, no. He didn't stop anyone from dying, he just increased the rate at which they died exponentially.
#1. Fuck 'em
#2. If we had invaded, Japan could have been a state by now.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 08, 2014, 03:42:27 AM
Much as we hate to admit it, there has never been a dumb President.
And that is when Twid jinxed us all.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 14, 2018, 03:04:52 AM
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on July 08, 2014, 03:42:27 AM
Much as we hate to admit it, there has never been a dumb President.
And that is when Twid jinxed us all.
So,
He's the one!
Anyway, in reference to your new lower signature, last week I found a zucchini in my garden that looked like a bomb too. The damn thing was about eight inches in diameter, and about eighteen inches long. That's what can happen when it rains for five days straight, and you can't get outside to pick anything.
This is all miles above my pay-grade. so I'm about to make a fool of myself in answering the OP re:reduction of casualties. If I were to make a rough estimate, it seems like by the end of WWI we had gotten a little too good at killing each-other on a global scale. if someone graphed war casualties over time, I should think we might see a temperig of carnage after we went nuclear. of course this fits the whole deterent narrative to a tee, so maybe suspicious. various fronts have still occured and we continue to fight proxies, so the numbers can't be too low... we still purported to fight for freedom (oil) and finding non-extant nukes when we already had access to information and technology voiding said objectives. from my naive perspective it seems like the development of military technology stopped when they fashioned 'a type of bat with a round or oval frame strun with catgut', for protection.
Quote from: axod on August 14, 2018, 10:59:13 PM
This is all miles above my pay-grade. so I'm about to make a fool of myself in answering the OP re:reduction of casualties. If I were to make a rough estimate, it seems like by the end of WWI we had gotten a little too good at killing each-other on a global scale. if someone graphed war casualties over time, I should think we might see a temperig of carnage after we went nuclear. of course this fits the whole deterent narrative to a tee, so maybe suspicious. various fronts have still occured and we continue to fight proxies, so the numbers can't be too low... we still purported to fight for freedom (oil) and finding non-extant nukes when we already had access to information and technology voiding said objectives. from my naive perspective it seems like the development of military technology stopped when they fashioned 'a type of bat with a round or oval frame strun with catgut', for protection.
Où est le théâtre?
Only actually working way to reduce global deathtoll is to die without having kids. So yeah.
Quote from: Con-troll on August 15, 2018, 03:50:49 PM
Only actually working way to reduce global deathtoll is to die without having kids. So yeah.
That's not true, an earthquake device will rapidly increase the death toll in a region for a very very small amount of time, but in the long term it reduces the death rate to zero forever.
Quote from: Con-troll on August 15, 2018, 03:50:49 PM
Only actually working way to reduce global deathtoll is to die without having kids. So yeah.
Postmodernism
never works.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on August 15, 2018, 04:15:36 PM
Quote from: Con-troll on August 15, 2018, 03:50:49 PM
Only actually working way to reduce global deathtoll is to die without having kids. So yeah.
Postmodernism never works.
Even if you just want to make money selling awkwarldy shaped pieces of plastic?
Quote from: Faust on August 15, 2018, 04:09:06 PM
Quote from: Con-troll on August 15, 2018, 03:50:49 PM
Only actually working way to reduce global deathtoll is to die without having kids. So yeah.
That's not true, an earthquake device will rapidly increase the death toll in a region for a very very small amount of time, but in the long term it reduces the death rate to zero forever.
People will move there as long as its easier than going to space.
Quote from: Con-troll on August 15, 2018, 03:50:49 PM
Only actually working way to reduce global deathtoll is to die without having kids. So yeah.
+
"awkwardly shaped pieces of plastic"
=
DILDOS 4 DENUCLEARIZATION
look at me when Im talking to you!
Quote from: LuciferX on August 15, 2018, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Con-troll on August 15, 2018, 03:50:49 PM
Only actually working way to reduce global deathtoll is to die without having kids. So yeah.
+
"awkwardly shaped pieces of plastic"
=
DILDOS 4 DENUCLEARIZATION
Or nuclear dildos. Which one would you invest in?
:?
Quote from: Con-troll on August 16, 2018, 10:46:46 AM
Quote from: LuciferX on August 15, 2018, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Con-troll on August 15, 2018, 03:50:49 PM
Only actually working way to reduce global deathtoll is to die without having kids. So yeah.
+
"awkwardly shaped pieces of plastic"
=
DILDOS 4 DENUCLEARIZATION
Or nuclear dildos. Which one would you invest in?
Well, I'd need a new gun foe depth charges.