Hiroshima

[naturalized]

If one starts counting individual actions and attributing it to all the nations, then the sport of killing innocents for fun was started by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

What the feck is this?

Seriously I know you're on a high horse and all but this would actually be offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous.

Im sure that factored high in the thought process.

I'm sure it did, actually.

 

[Sir Matt]

If one starts counting individual actions and attributing it to all the nations, then the sport of killing innocents for fun was started by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

 

[JustAFan]

If one starts counting individual actions and attributing it to all the nations, then the sport of killing innocents for fun was started by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Are you serious? If so you might want to read up on some more history

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Dunno if this has been posted before?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima

A very long - but absolutely fascinating/horrifying - account of the Hiroshima bombing. First published in 1946.

Essential reading for anyone with any interest in the reality of a nuclear attack (and should be essential reading for every politician with his finger on a nuclear button)

 

[SteveJ]

Thanks for that. Horrifying reading, of course.

 

[RedDevil@84]

What the feck is this?

Seriously I know you're on a high horse and all but this would actually be offensive if it wasn't so ridiculous.

So killing millions of civilians for fun and crippling a generation of kids was just what the world needed?

 

[RedDevil@84]

I think depending on where you are from, the history you read would be quite different. So it is better that people stop asking each other to re-read history. Everyone reads the history distorted to suit the point of view of that individual nation.

As far as I am concerned, the argument that 2 A-bombs on heart of Japan was necessary and for the greater good of Americans and the Japanese is a ridiculous argument. Tomorrow if any nation in Europe was going broke and has the money to feed only half of the nation, I wouldn't recommend nuking one half of it for the greater good of that nation.

 

[RedDevil@84]

The allies decided that this time the aggressor states (Germany and Japan) should unconditionally surrender, in order to prevent political schemes that happened after the first WW. It was definitely the right decision.

If you consider that until 1949 people died in Japan from starvation, throwing the nukes was easily the best possible decision. 200k+ people died, but an invasion would have easily killed much more (if you consider that Hiroshima ana Nagasaki combined number of victims is less than in some other cities from conventional bombing) from invasion alone, and then a few other millions would have died from starvation, diarrhea, infected water and other illnesses. That is without counting the number of American soldiers who would have died in the war.

Ultimatelly, if US wasn't going to finish the war (or even deciding to not invade but doing a blockade), USSR wasn't going to do so. They had just defeated with ease the elite army of Japan in Manchuria. They were going to invade, and at worst case it would have been a three party war.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a neccesary evil. Every other option would have ended with far more victims.

Seriously. Tomorrow if a deadly virus were to hit any nation in the world(I hope it never happens), would you recommend nuking them to stop them from spreading the disease?

 

[AkaAkuma]

I'm sorry I missed something, are you pretending that Japan were victims? It was a freakishly strong nation who decided to invade half of the world.

I'm missing something, are you saying the Japanese who suffered through and after the atomic detonation are not victims?

 

[Winrar]

If one starts counting individual actions and attributing it to all the nations, then the sport of killing innocents for fun was started by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

not sure if trolling or just stupid

 

[RedDevil@84]

not sure if trolling or just stupid

Ok.. There were much bigger tyrants before 1945. Doesn't really make killing innocents a pious act

 

[JPRouve]

I'm missing something, are you saying the Japanese who suffered through and after the atomic detonation are not victims?

It was from an other thread and it was about before the bombing.

 

[Tincanalley]

Dunno if this has been posted before?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima

A very long - but absolutely fascinating/horrifying - account of the Hiroshima bombing. First published in 1946.

Essential reading for anyone with any interest in the reality of a nuclear attack (and should be essential reading for every politician with his finger on a nuclear button)

Thanks @Pogue Mahone

 

[Tincanalley]

Thanks @Pogue Mahone

EDIT: pretty much makes a lot of the discussion in the thread superfluous.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It's amazingly well-researched and written, isn't it? People need to read shit like that to understand the human cost of weapons like this. Such a tragic event.

 

[JPRouve]

It's amazingly well-researched and written, isn't it? People need to read shit like that to understand the human cost of weapons like this. Such a tragic event.

That's true it's like phosphorus bombs, these weapons are particularly cruel.

 

[RedDevil@84]

At the memorial in Nagasaki, people put water bottles (not flowers mind you). This is because, when the bomb fell over them, the worst thing that happened that it contaminated every water body (many water bodies ceased to exist) and people could not find any water to drink.

 

[naturalized]

So killing millions of civilians for fun and crippling a generation of kids was just what the world needed?

For fun? Here'a a thought - what do you think occupied Asia should have been doing while sitting around waiting for Japan to surrender of its own accord? Play cards?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sook_Ching

My grandfather barely survived that last one. Friends of mine have relatives who just disappeared - we'll never know if they were victims or not.

You are perfectly entitled to decry the horrors of atomic warfare. It is a terrible, monstrous weapon to use. It was used to bring a terrible, monstrous empire to heel and bring a terrible, monstrous war to an end.

People can legitimately disagree over whether the weapon was necessary or not - although I suspect the tone of that conversation would be very different if you lived where I did, or basically anywhere but in your comfortable left-wing peacenik environment. But to suggest that the weapon was used "for fun", as a "spree killing", demonstrates your fundamental lack of seriousness in this conversation.

 

[naturalized]

On second thoughts, while I'm here, I might as well finish the job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_Famine_of_1945
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Cannibalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burma_Railway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romusha

Fun for all!

I'm missing something, are you saying the Japanese who suffered through and after the atomic detonation are not victims?

I need to be measured about this, but let me be very blunt with you.

There's a tendency to towards moral equivalence in our assessment of historical occurrences as times go by. It does seem to be a bit of a pointless endeavour to compare Auschwitz to Death Railway. But there's no nice way to say this. Your country committed unbelievable crimes. Ridiculous, unbelievable, shocking, historically unprecedented crimes. Your empire is right up there with the worst of the worst. "Colonialism was as bad!", someone's going to come in here and say. That person can feck off. That person has no idea what he's talking about.

That was not the fault of those underneath the bomb. But if nothing else, if the duration of your empire's terrible crimes could be shortened by one day by using the bomb - and I think it's ridiculous to argue that it wasn't - then it was fully justified. If nothing else.

 

[kotha]

Dunno if this has been posted before?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima

A very long - but absolutely fascinating/horrifying - account of the Hiroshima bombing. First published in 1946.

Essential reading for anyone with any interest in the reality of a nuclear attack (and should be essential reading for every politician with his finger on a nuclear button)

Thanks for this.. What a compelling read..

 

[Revan]

Seriously. Tomorrow if a deadly virus were to hit any nation in the world(I hope it never happens), would you recommend nuking them to stop them from spreading the disease?

If it is the only option, and if the numbers of death is smaller for at least an order of magnitude, then probably yes.

It isn't a good analogy though, IMO. And I am not an expert in looking at other options. But if killing a hundred thousands of people in order to stop the death of 10 million (and in that 10 million, most likely those a hundred thousands are included) would be a neccesary evil.

I think that a lot of noise is made because it was from an A-bomb, not because of the number of people who died. Neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki had the largest number of victims in Japan. For example, in Tokyo died more people from conventional bombing rather than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki from nukes. Yet you rarely see people talking for it.

 

[LeChuck]

If it is the only option, and if the numbers of death is smaller for at least an order of magnitude, then probably yes.

It isn't a good analogy though, IMO. And I am not an expert in looking at other options. But if killing a hundred thousands of people in order to stop the death of 10 million (and in that 10 million, most likely those a hundred thousands are included) would be a neccesary evil.

I think that a lot of noise is made because it was from an A-bomb, not because of the number of people who died. Neither Hiroshima, nor Nagasaki had the largest number of victims in Japan. For example, in Tokyo died more people from conventional bombing rather than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki from nukes. Yet you rarely see people talking for it.

What about those that suffer the indirect consequences of radiation and its associated problems? If we tally them up, do they not exceed those bombed via conventional bombing?

Spoiler: Article

Care for A-bomb disease sufferers

The Osaka District Court on Aug. 2 ruled in favor of eight atomic bombing survivors whose application for official recognition as sufferers of diseases caused by atomic bomb radiation had been turned down by the state. They called for overturning the state’s decision not to recognize them as such sufferers. The court recognized them as suffering from atomic bomb diseases and nullified the state’s decision.

In a reasonable move, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced that the state will not appeal the ruling to a higher court after attending a ceremony on Aug. 9 to mark the Nagasaki atomic bombing 68 years before.

The government should widen the scope of medical assistance to atomic bomb survivors and hasten the work to ease the criteria to recognize such survivors as sufferers of atomic bomb diseases. The Aug. 2 ruling stopped short of calling for abolition of the criteria for revision.

The current criteria were introduced in 2008 after atomic bombing survivors won in a series of lawsuits in and after 2003 in which they called for official recognition of them as atomic bomb sickness sufferers.

If the government officially recognizes survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings as suffering from certain types of diseases caused by radiation from the atomic bombs, they each will receive about ¥137,000 a month as a special medical treatment allowance. The earlier criteria were so strict that reportedly only about 1 percent of the nation’s atomic bombing survivors received official recognition as atomic bomb disease sufferers.

Under the current criteria, if atomic bombing survivors meet the following conditions and suffer from any of seven diseases including cancer, leukemia, myocardial infarction (traceable to radiation), an overactive parathyroid and a malfunctioning thyroid (traceable to radiation), they are officially recognized as sufferers of atomic bomb diseases.

The conditions are: having been exposed to atomic bomb radiation at a spot within about 3.5 km of ground zero, having entered an area within about 2 km of ground zero within about 100 hours of the atomic bombing or having stayed for a week or longer in an area within about 2 km of ground zero during a period of about 100 hours to about two weeks after the atomic bombing.

Although the current criteria had been eased from the former criteria, so far only about 6,400 atomic bombing survivors have been officially recognized as atomic bomb illness sufferers. They account for only about 3 percent of some 201,800 survivors as of the end of March 2013.

The government should flexibly handle applications for official recognition by taking into consideration the conditions and circumstances of applicants. It also should consider whether it is rational to provide the same amount of a special medical treatment allowance irrespective of the severity of diseases.

The government must quickly work out a new, reasonable recognition and relief system. Not much time is left because the average age of atomic bombing survivors is 78.

 

[Eboue]

What about those that suffer the indirect consequences of radiation and its associated problems? If we tally them up, do they not exceed those bombed via conventional bombing?

Maybe it equals conventional bombing of you attribute all cancer and other health issues to it, but it's still a drop in the bucket compared to operation downfall.

 

[AkaAkuma]

On second thoughts, while I'm here, I might as well finish the job.
II need to be measured about this, but let me be very blunt with you.

There's a tendency to towards moral equivalence in our assessment of historical occurrences as times go by. It does seem to be a bit of a pointless endeavour to compare Auschwitz to Death Railway. But there's no nice way to say this. Your country committed unbelievable crimes. Ridiculous, unbelievable, shocking, historically unprecedented crimes. Your empire is right up there with the worst of the worst. "Colonialism was as bad!", someone's going to come in here and say. That person can feck off. <b>That person has no idea what he's talking about</b>.

That was not the fault of those underneath the bomb. But if nothing else, if the duration of your empire's terrible crimes could be shortened by one day by using the bomb - and I think it's ridiculous to argue that it wasn't - then it was fully justified. If nothing else.

Im British. My Grandfather was also in a Japanese PoW camp in Burma. So go feck yourself and your high horse.

While the Japanese army committed unspeakable acts, there were victims within Japan - men, women and children who were caught up in the war.

 

[JustAFan]

I think depending on where you are from, the history you read would be quite different. So it is better that people stop asking each other to re-read history. Everyone reads the history distorted to suit the point of view of that individual nation.

As far as I am concerned, the argument that 2 A-bombs on heart of Japan was necessary and for the greater good of Americans and the Japanese is a ridiculous argument. Tomorrow if any nation in Europe was going broke and has the money to feed only half of the nation, I wouldn't recommend nuking one half of it for the greater good of that nation.

No it is not a matter of where you are from it is a matter of you being just completely wrong in your comment about killing civilians for fun. It showed a complete ignorance not just of Ww2 and the reasons for use of the bombs but of human history in general. When the atrocities of NAZI Germany and those of Japanese troops in China were taking place your comment made no sense at all.

 

[Eboue]

Tomorrow if any nation in Europe was going broke and has the money to feed only half of the nation, I wouldn't recommend nuking one half of it for the greater good of that nation.

That's very brave of you to say even though you will get criticized by the Nuke Half Of A Random Country In Europe crowd.

 

[barros]

So killing millions of civilians for fun and crippling a generation of kids was just what the world needed?

Crap I need to read about WW2 again, never thought the a-bombs killed millions, is not funny that the Chinese, Koreans and other nations occupied by the Japanese think the yanks should had drop more a-bombs in Japan.

 

[JPRouve]

Im British. My Grandfather was also in a Japanese PoW camp in Burma. So go feck yourself and your high horse.

While the Japanese army committed unspeakable acts, there were victims within Japan - men, women and children who were caught up in the war.

You are right to care about the innocents but remember that it's Japan who started the War and wars always involved civilians and innocents. The problem with other poster is that he seems to believe that the US started the war for fun and nuke the Japanese for fun.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

I'm from Vietnam. My great-grandfather was one of the few landowners in his province who feed the people going without. None starved to death 3 miles around him, that released him from being lynched when the communists came. The view that Japanese occupying forces won't surrender without an official surrender of the Empire is false. The V.C actually was forced to take over before the Allies came in for legitimacy, sooner than they'd have liked.

I think much of my vehemence against the bombings is from personal experience. I've travelled and seen the victims of US bombings in the 2nd Indochine War, the deformed born affected by dioxin, the coastlands that even after 30 years it was a struggle to get any kind of tree growing. Also, I don't subscribe to the fatalistic school of thought that it's either the bombs or invasion. Many scholars have pointed out there were alternatives, they have also ceded that it might result in more casualties, but the issue here is that the US was all too willing to use a particularly inhumane way to end the war.

 

[AkaAkuma]

You are right to care about the innocents but remember that it's Japan who started the War and wars always involved civilians and innocents. The problem with other poster is that he seems to believe that the US started the war for fun and nuke the Japanese for fun.

Perhaps there is some confusion. You spoke of 'Japanese' not being victims, within the Hiroshima bombing thread. I have indicated that within a war, the nation starting war will still have its own victims of war.

Kindly, I do not need to be reminded that Japan started its war. This thread has done a very good job of indicating that fact.

 

[JPRouve]

Perhaps there is some confusion. You spoke of 'Japanese' not being victims, within the Hiroshima bombing thread. I have indicated that within a war, the nation starting war will still have its own victims of war.

Kindly, I do not need to be reminded that Japan started its war. This thread has done a very good job of indicating that fact.

Most of the post you responded to weren't in that thread but have been placed here yesterday.

 

[AkaAkuma]

Most of the post you responded to weren't in that thread but have been placed here yesterday.

I understand, I see where things have been confused.

 

[MTF]

I think there's a lot of re-interpretation going on that applies post-event thinking to pre-event decision making.

What I mean is that what was known about the A-bomb before its use on an actual target was not much beyond "its a very powerful bomb". The proof they didn't know about effects of fallout and such can be found in the preliminary US plans for the invasion of the home islands, which called for the use of further nuclear weapons, followed by invasion 24-48 hours after.

Nor were these the 300 kt large city destroyers later developed and produced by the thousands, which introduced the threat of human self-annihilation. I don't think they thought the two bombings would in a sense mark the transition from one period of human history to another.

In a war where whole cities had already been bombed to the ground, the nukes were just a new way of achieving the same, and a less risky because it involved much fewer planes. A leader could be considered irresponsible if they opted not to use it.

 

[JustAFan]

Just to put some information out there. The death toll from WW2 from all causes (including famine and disease that would not have happened without the war) most likely exceeds 80 million. Estimates vary of course depending on sources, whether famine and disease are included, etc. The range of data I have read is from 60 to 100 million deaths.

Or put another way 3 to 5% of the population of the planet depending on the numbers you use.

Going with the 80+ million figure , when you consider just civilian deaths you are into the 50 to 60 million range. That does not even consider how many of the military men and women killed would have not been in the military at all if not for the war. Remember not all were volunteers a large percent were conscripted into the service.

These numbers are difficult to wrap your head around even. I mean I have been inside sports stadiums containing 80k people so if asked to envision that number dead I can at least have a picture in my mind of how many that is. 80 million? Not so easy. It is mind boggling.

 

[DOTA]

A utilitarianist defence, when discussing WWII, is very shaky ground.

 

[Eboue]

A utilitarianist defence, when discussing WWII, is very shaky ground.

how so

 

[JPRouve]

@MarceloFalcon You are right, there is a lot of insight used here. And there is something else, it was a brutal war, Japanese used to bomb at night just to prevent the American soldiers to sleep some of them lost their minds, the Pacific Islands are extremely humid and a lot of soldiers were rotting alive. By the edn of the war everyone wanted it to end and the A bomb was seen as a solution.

It's true that it had horrifying consequences and that we shouldn't use it again but the Americans didn't used it for fun and giggles, it was one of the worst period of humanity, it was a global war.

 

[DOTA]

how so

It's the logic of the Nazi atrocities.

I'm not really sure what my point is here, to be honest. I know they aren't comparable. I just find this a really uncomfortable read, because of that.

 

[Winrar]

Ok.. There were much bigger tyrants before 1945. Doesn't really make killing innocents a pious act

others in this thread were kind enough to supply my argument for me so I won't say much further regarding that.

but united states is certainly not a "tyrant" who started wars for fun. if you read up on history you'd know they didn't actively engage in WWII warfare until japan attacked pearl harbor.

 

[SteveJ]

Why should American - or Japanese or whatever - posters be obliged to explain their country's actions? After all, I wasn't asked whether we (the UK) should invade Iraq; these momentous decisions, be they prove to be right or wrong in retrospect, aren't left to the public - the blood isn't on our hands, and it's not fair that the general public should feel guilty about these awful events.