why 6 aug 8.15am deserves silence

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Sava

Stop ignoring the fact that an invasion of the home islands would have cost more lives on both sides.

again... would you feel the same way if it was germany that nuked England or America into surrendering?

"an invasion would've caused more deaths" is nothing more than a rationalization. Is it always better to anihilate your enemy before he can retaliate - to murder the sleeping, because it lessens the danger to one party?

But nobody really knows what might've or might not of happened anyways. All you can know for certain is what did happen, and what shouldn't of happened.

[DanS]

In this you have assumed the American lives are more valuable than the Japanese lives.

Actually, that's not the case. The bomb was dropped after the experience in Okinawa, where many thousands of Japanese civilians met their deaths in the cruelest manner, egged on by their leaders. Forcing Japan to surrender was for the greater good of the Japanese civilians.

Of course, the US was protecting its own lives at the expense of Japanese lives (i.e., this is what war is).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sava
Stop ignoring the fact that an invasion of the home islands would have cost more lives on both sides.

That ignores the fact that there was a small chance that Japan would have surrendered had the Allies dropped their demand for unconditional surrender. Yes, most likely, had the Japanese tried to surrender on the condition that Emporer not be touched, there would have been a coup. It wouldn't have cost any lives to try.

Second, at the time, the U.S. estimated the total dead from an invasion of the home islands to be 250,000 (1,000,000 casualties total), which is equivalent to the amount of people killed by the bombs. After the war, the number of casualties was taken for the number of dead.

Ultimately, it was probably the right decision, but don't act like it's not debatable.

[Boris Godunov]

"Had we lost the war, we would be the ones being tried as war criminals." -- Gen. Curtis LeMay, architect of the Tokyo firebombings and the use of the A-bomb.

[Verto]

Originally posted by General Ludd


Would you feel the same way if it was Germany that droped a nuke on New York or London?

If I was a German, and had been deluded into thinking Germany had not been the one who provoked the war for the sole purpose of eradicating the Jews and taking over the world, then I would.

As I am an American, I will obviously value American lives more than others during wartime. And since America had the war forced on us, your rebuttal is invalid.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
you know, i don't have an argument for you, mtg.
it's not first-world liberal angst here that makes me pause and want to give this a moment of silence.

I wasn't referring to you, but some others.

it's the fact that ever life is sacred, and when so many can be killed in an instant with a primitive device... it's shocking.

I've never quite understood how people react so strongly to a single catastrophic event, instead of the larger events spread over time. Many wars left huge famines and epidemics in their wake, such that the dying didn't stop with the war.

To me, it's not one particular incident or another, but the totality of it - tens of millions dead in a few short years, not 80,000 in one day.

because the atomics, like it or not, have become literally and figuratively, flash points. they're the things that everybody comes back and references. they're the ones that everyone links to. it's become the big thing that frames and shapes the argument.

I think the existence and demonstration of the bomb was unfortunately essential - who would have thought after the carnage of WW1 that barely 20 years later, we'd have had WW2? With even more carnage. After the previous centuries' history with warfare, colonialism, imperialism, etc., what would stop or slow down the human species' fetish for destruction? The only thing I can think of, given the history, is that technology ratcheted up the efficiency of carnage to a point that we all had to give it a second thought. Since that day, we haven't seen anything of the likes of Imperial Japan or Nazi germany anywhere in the world.

we could argue all day as to whether the second bomb was necessary. i personally don't think it was, because it seemed to have missed anyone who actually mattered to the japanese (catholics and burakumin rated just a little higher than the koreans during that time). the second bomb is never the one that's remembered.

personally, i think the second one deserves a moment of silence more, simply because nobody gives it one.

I don't think it was necessary at that time (August 9), but LeMay was never given to patience, and it was unfortunate that he had the discretion as to when the bomb was to be used. The Japanese leadership had communications and logistics problems, and they were hard-pressed to believe initial reports about the Hiroshima bombing. Maybe a few more days would have made the second bomb unnecessary. We'll never know.

When I lived in Nagasaki, I had a view out my bedroom window towards ground zero, so it's something that was constantly in the back of my mind.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Snowflake


In this you have assumed the American lives are more valuable than the Japanese lives.

During war, they are. The lives of my country's servicemen, and the servicemen of our allies, are far more important.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
You want silence for Nazis?

Why is that any worse than wanting silence for the Japanese, who committed atrocities just as evil as their German ally?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"Had we lost the war, we would be the ones being tried as war criminals." -- Gen. Curtis LeMay, architect of the Tokyo firebombings and the use of the A-bomb.

Um. Duh? Just remember who our judges would have been.

[Dis]

it seems like we have this discussion every year

no one believes me when I say we saved Japanese lives by dropping the A-bomb. Their loss. end of discussion.

[lightblue]

I think that the use of the bombs in 1945 precluded their use at any point during the Cold War. Because the effect on population centres had been seen the whole MAD situation arose.

That doesn't mean that the bombings shouldn't be remembered, in fact it is all the more reason to remember them, if not for the victims, then for the realisation that unchecked aggression by humans will one day lead to total destruction. As long as we keep the horrors of Dresden, Warsaw, Leningrad, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Auschwitz etc etc in mind it shouldn't happen again.

And humankind as a whole has a duty to ensure it does not happen again, and has failed this duty on a number of occasions already (Rwanda, Bosnia, Cambodia to name but a few).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Verto
Um. Duh? Just remember who our judges would have been.

That wasn't LeMay's intent when saying it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
That ignores the fact that there was a small chance that Japan would have surrendered had the Allies dropped their demand for unconditional surrender. Yes, most likely, had the Japanese tried to surrender on the condition that Emporer not be touched, there would have been a coup. It wouldn't have cost any lives to try.

The US had no reliable information at that time that this was a possibility, and even so, it was an extremely remote possibility, given that the proponents for surrender were outnumbered numerically and in terms of their importance in the government.

It always costs lives - Japanese civilians were dying every day, especially the very young and very old, due to the hardships the government imposed on the war economy.

Second, at the time, the U.S. estimated the total dead from an invasion of the home islands to be 250,000 (1,000,000 casualties total), which is equivalent to the amount of people killed by the bombs. After the war, the number of casualties was taken for the number of dead.

That was the estimate of the number of US casualties, based on the escalating resistance as the US approached the mainland. The US had very poor information by which to estimate Japanese casualties, and in particular, the Japanese will to resist. It is highly likely that at least that many Japanese would have died in the winter lull in 1945-1946 before an invasion would even begin, due to famine, water quality, epidemics and shortage of medicines for otherwise treatable diseases.

Ultimately, it was probably the right decision, but don't act like it's not debatable.

It really isn't realistically debatable, if you frame it in terms of what was known to the decisionmakers at the time.

[Verto]

Yes, but it's still an idiotic statement.

[Q Classic]

I've never quite understood how people react so strongly to a single catastrophic event, instead of the larger events spread over time. Many wars left huge famines and epidemics in their wake, such that the dying didn't stop with the war.

To me, it's not one particular incident or another, but the totality of it - tens of millions dead in a few short years, not 80,000 in one day

i don't disagree. it's just that it's harder to encapsulate bigger events, i.e., nanking, holocaust, the occupation, into a single moment, whereas 6 and 9 aug are a bit easier, seeing as the event took less than a minute. the aftereffects, well, that's different.

I think the existence and demonstration of the bomb was unfortunately essential - who would have thought after the carnage of WW1 that barely 20 years later, we'd have had WW2? With even more carnage. After the previous centuries' history with warfare, colonialism, imperialism, etc., what would stop or slow down the human species' fetish for destruction? The only thing I can think of, given the history, is that technology ratcheted up the efficiency of carnage to a point that we all had to give it a second thought. Since that day, we haven't seen anything of the likes of Imperial Japan or Nazi germany anywhere in the world.

if that's the case, do you not think that this incident, which helped people realize the sheer scale of murder which we are capable of, deserves a moment of recognition?