Hiroshima Day

[Elvis]

Photo Gallery of belongings affected by the Bomb, stories told in the left behind possessions:
http://www.lclark.edu/~history/HIROSHIMA/photo3-1.html

Hiroshima Day

On August 6th, in 1945, the world saw the first use of atomic weapons against human targets. On this day 63 years ago, humanity lost its nuclear virginity. Until the end of time we will be a species that has used fission bombs in anger.

Time has passed, and we still haven't blown up our world, despite a close call or two. Which makes it difficult to criticize the decision - would things still have turned out all right, if anyone had chosen differently, anywhere along the way?

Maybe we needed to see the ruins, of the city and the people.

Maybe we didn't.

There's an ongoing debate - and no, it is not a settled issue - over whether the Japanese would have surrendered without the Bomb. But I would not have dropped the Bomb even to save the lives of American soldiers, because I would have wanted to preserve that world where atomic weapons had never been used - to not cross that line. I don't know about history to this point; but the world would be safer now, I think, today, if no one had ever used atomic weapons in war, and the idea was not considered suitable for polite discussion.

I'm not saying it was wrong. I don't know for certain that it was wrong. I wouldn't have thought that humanity could make it this far without using atomic weapons again. All I can say is that if it had been me, I wouldn't have done it.

From the blog, Overcoming Bias:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/

Very good blog. Interesting entry too. What was that anime made awhile back about the bomb (I don't recall the specifics but I think it's about 2 children navigating their way through the chaos of the aftermath?).

[Koga]

Really?

[Beckwin]

Grave of the Fireflies, but that was about "normal" bombs.

[crazyrabbit]

Another Anime/Manga was called "Barefoot Gen".

[MisterBob]

"Until the end of time we will be a species that has used fission bombs in anger."

I really don't think that's why we dropped it, lol.

[Correction]

people with merit point avatars shouldn't be allowed to start threads...

[Elvis]

Why is that?

[Creeps]

Thread sucks

A-bomb was dropped to end the war and bottleneck the amount of casualties that would have assuredly been much greater if WW2 continued, go away

[Correction]

Because it's copypasta of a blubbering, navel-gazing blogpost about a historical event from over 60 years ago. This kind of thread invites 'the crazies' from all the dark cracks of /bg/ since honestly there's very little that you've otherwise invited people to discusson the matter. That's why.

[Elvis]

@Creeps

It's a heavily debated topic. I wouldn't summarize it in one sentence as you did.

Eisenhower, Einstein, the 1946 United States Strategic Bombing Survey, MacArthur, etc. have all written at length that the bombings were unnecessary for victory.

@Corrections

I don't think passage of time should negate the importance of an event like this. You could say the same thing about the Armenian Genocide (and people have, in efforts to avoid labeling it a genocide). You could eventually say the same thing about the Iraq Sanctions, the First Gulf War, etc. Time doesn't make these things go away.

Plus, you don't have to read the thread.

People copy and paste news stories all the time on the boards. Why does that matter?

[Creeps]

"In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction and instilling fear of further destruction in sufficient strength to cause Japan to surrender."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

Edit: Forum needs a "who posted while you were posting" function. Anyway, the bombing may have been unnecessary, but it happened, so stop blubbering like a school girl and take your Myspace bulletin fodder somewhere else. Anyone who knows anything knows that every nation with a large amount of power will grossly overreact or simply just make terrible decisions regarding international conflicts every once in awhile.

[Charla]

On August 6th, in 1945, the world saw the first use of atomic weapons against human targets. On this day 63 years ago, humanity lost its nuclear virginity. Until the end of time we will be a species that has used fission bombs in anger.

Even leaving aside that the humans present were not the primary targets, I daresay the historical use of fission weapons will be rendered quite irrelevant when we use fusion, antimatter, total conversion, and/or any of various planetkiller weapons. Of course, given our anthropocentric perspective, it will probably be less remarkable if the targets are neither human nor human-built. (In case anyone couldn't tell, I've been reading Larry Niven lately)

[Creeps]

People copy and paste news stories all the time on the boards. Why does that matter?

Because this isn't a news story; you can't report news in 2008 that happened decades ago.

Also, as Charla said, the targets for the bombs were never human. The bombs were dropped strategically in areas that were responsible for the manufacturing of a Japanese military force. Dropping a weapon of mass destruction on an industrial complex used to create weapons planned to be utilized to attack America = not only smart, but effective.

[Neosutra]

Because making the use of nuclear fision as a weapon "unpolite" in modern discussion would proclude other powers from developing and using it as such... No.

There comes a time in scientific evolution where a society must accept the power of the discoveries they have made.

Making a considerable effort to understand it, control it, and regulate it, was and still is the only acceptable step in preventing the species from destroying itself from its own innovation.

The decision to use the weapon is another topic, however a few pictures of tests in the nevada desert hardly tap the perverbial soul of humanity and display the awesome power and horror that is nuclear war.

To the OP: Really, give some thought to idealistic principles before you pass them off as reasonable.

[Beckwin]

Yes, dropping bombs on highly-populated industrial centers is not dropping them on human targets.

If you're gonna argue in favor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Dresden and etc), don't try to gloss over the conscious decision to end a lot of civilian lives. You have to make your argument acknowledge that decision or otherwise you're just being dishonest. Not trying to say you can't make the argument in favor of it though.

[Elvis]

"In early July, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, Truman made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction and instilling fear of further destruction in sufficient strength to cause Japan to surrender."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

Edit: Forum needs a "who posted while you were posting" function. Anyway, the bombing may have been unnecessary, but it happened, so stop blubbering like a school girl and take your Myspace bulletin fodder somewhere else. Anyone who knows anything knows that every nation with a large amount of power will grossly overreact or simply just make terrible decisions regarding international conflicts every once in awhile.

Is that an excuse: "once in awhile"?

You're bat-shit insane.

These debates didn't originate on the net (myspace fodder?). The 'blubbering' you're referring to isn't centered around emotional rhetoric. It's everything to do whether the bombings were strategically necessary.

And of course, the moral and ethical issues of such an act are debated as well.

Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, reflected this reality when he wrote, "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace.the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, said the same thing: "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender."

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm

[Elvis]

The point of whether the civilian casualties weren't INTENTIONAL is irrelevant in terms of an implied ethical debate on this issue.

SEE: The Iraq Sanctions.

I'm sure, people didn't INTEND to kill 500,000 (estimated between 170,000 and 500,000) Iraqi children, but that's what happened.

[Doofus]

Is that an excuse: "once in awhile"?

You're bat-shit insane.

These debates didn't originate on the net. The 'blubbering' you're referring to isn't centered around emotional rhetoric. It's everything to do whether the bombings were strategically necessary.

And of course, the moral and ethical issues of such an act are debated as well.



http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm

I just love how that site you quote is some random tree hugger site, and not a site anyone has ever heard of. Like seriously, click some of the articles on that site and reconsider if you want to be quoting it to HELP your argument.

[Elvis]

I just love how that site you quote is some random tree hugger site, and not a site anyone has ever heard of. Like seriously, click some of the articles on that site and reconsider if you want to be quoting it to HELP your argument.

Be more

Who is "anyone"?

The quotes are from the generals and military officers of the time. If I present a quote, I obviously stand by it. Making a passive-aggressive remark does what exactly? You could find evidence to contradict or prove the quote false instead.

And even then, plenty of "popular" voices have challenged the bombings. I don't think you have to be well-known (whatever the fuck that means) to have an opinion on this matter. The only prerequisites should be that you have a relevant and logical argument.

[Elvis]

There comes a time in scientific evolution where a society must accept the power of the discoveries they have made.

This is a very broad generalization so I'm not worried about any context issues.

We clearly have issues with Iran having the capacity to make nukes. There are obvious ethical concerns w/ human cloning and stem cell research. I am not advocating for/against any of these other issues (I haven't stated an opinion).

I don't think that because we CAN do something, that we should.