Hiroshima Day

[Max™]

The bomb wasn't dropped to beat Japan, it was dropped to beat Russia 40 years after the fact...

Summed it up as simply as possible, Beckwin posted it, I phrased it differently, but that's the basic point.

Had we not demonstrated a willingness and ability to use atomic weapons at that point in time on such a limited scale, there is no way to say for sure that the Cold War would have remained such.

Testing on unoccupied targets clearly didn't have the same visceral impact, Hiroshima and Nagasaki did, the devil you know... or?

[Beckwin]

The martial law came after the Russians declared war, which seems to have had almost equal effect in motivating surrender. Russia is literally on the doorstep of both Japan and the mainland Asia theater (and had quickly executed overwhelming victories in Manchuria), and Japan would've been completely surrounded and grossly outnumbered in a joint invasion.

The US still had plans for an invasion after the bombs were dropped, and talks about further bombs were considering drops that would facilitate invasion more than additional Hiroshima-style attacks. It seems we hoped to avoid invasion, but would still do it anyway if we "had" to. Several generals noted that conventional bombing would have sufficed instead of nuclear, if needed.

Edit: Oh, and intentionally leaving Hiroshima, a communications, troop mustering, and manufacturing center pristine shows absolute premeditation of using the Bomb pretty much regardless of circumstances.

Firebombing was incredibly destructive and killed hundreds of thousands, but it's still different from 1 plane dropping 1 bomb that levels an entire city in an instant. It was possible to target industrial, military, and transportation assets rather than immediately engage in an assault against humanity.

[archibaldcrane]

Several generals noted that conventional bombing would have sufficed instead of nuclear, if needed.

Absolutely. I don't think anyone argues that we needed the nukes to win.

My argument is that we needed the nukes to win in the shortest possible timeframe, and that even a month of additional war while waiting for surrender would've had casualty counts worldwide much higher than the result of the nukes.

They may have been able to be dropped differently with the same quick end result, but not dropping them had a much greater human cost.

[archibaldcrane]

It was possible to target industrial, military, and transportation assets rather than immediately engage in an assault against humanity.

eh, kind of.

We didn't have laser-guided weaponry, bombs were dropped and fell where they fell. Hell, the Nagasaki nuke detonated 2 whole miles off-target. In WWII, you didn't bomb a building, you bombed an area where a target building was. If that building was in a city with civilians, you knew with certainty that some of them were going to die.

But yes, the nuke was more about striking fear into the Japanese government and military than it was about destroying a militarily-significant target. Given the willingness of many in the military to fight absolutely to the death, this new, horrible approach was considered necessary by many to bring the war to an abrupt conclusion. Thankfully it only took two.

[Max™]

But yes, the nuke was more about striking fear into the world than it was about destroying a militarily-significant target. Given the willingness of many in the military to fight absolutely to the death, this new, horrible approach was considered necessary by many to bring the war to an abrupt conclusion. Thankfully it only took two.

We could have won the war in Japan without it, the difference is how history would have unfurled after that point had we not used it.

[archibaldcrane]

We could have won the war in Japan without it, the difference is how history would have unfurled after that point had we not used it.

The difference is also the million+ people who would've died worldwide if we had fought for Japan to surrender with conventional weaponry over a month or 3.

[Beckwin]

oh I'm aware that bombing wasn't precise back then, but the thing about mass firebombing is that you can stop after whatever point. in between runs, scouts can verify if strategic sites had been destroyed/crippled. yes, there would undoubtedly be civilian casualties, which is why war is to be avoided in the first place, but the idea is that in theory there would be less compared to the indiscriminate nature of the A-Bomb. And we made no effort in the case of Hiroshima to pursue the path of least-possible civilian casualties- again, we left it untouched as a test site, basically. We had some kind of determination to use the bomb, and it's that callous disregard for civilian, nay human, life that presents the biggest lingering problem of our decision. It would've been wonderful if we had really finally learned our lesson, but then we're back in Asia 20 years later and dropping Napalm, Agent Orange, traditional bombs, and inflicting massive, massive civilian casualties.

[archibaldcrane]

It's awful and ironic that our callous disregard of human life saved so many lives.

I am not saying this as a sarcastic statement, it's truly awful.

[Beckwin]

*potentially, arguably saved an indeterminable amount of lives.

The war very well could've ended that same August without the a-bombs dropping.

But I'm glad you agree that it's awful either way.

I guess what frustrates me most is that we've been so willing to ignore oppression and callous disregard for human lives throughout our history, often in the name of "national interests," which just leads us toward a blissful ignorance and at times repeating of tragedies.

I suppose if you want to suggest an ironically positive result of the a-bombs in Japan, the unanimous and lasting sobering of an aggressive, imperialist nation and culture (not so different from our own, in many ways) is worth noting. Japan has pursued an extremely strict anti-nuclear doctrine and has avoided international conflict for the most part (only offering small forces for UN ventures, I think).

I'd like to think we could get to that point, without a massive loss of life and terrible destruction on our soil.

[Max™]

I think the fact that there has never been a nuclear weapon used in a wartime situation since then is something important to note.

To put it into perspective, it's like picking a fight in a room full of people who've never seen someone get shot, and then the guy you pick a fight with shoots you in the leg.

You'll recover, but you'll never forget what it was like, and neither will anyone else who saw it, including the shooter.

[Elvis]

This is the first part of my response. Going to deal w/ Corrections first since it's much easier and deals exclusively with rhetoric.

Let me preface this by saying you've not addressed my argument and I doubt you even know what it is - you're too preoccupied with emotional language and ad hominem.

@Corrections

It’s both hilarious and depressing that you would call the effects of war (hell on Earth/lives going to waste) the result of “poor judgement.” What a gross understatement that is.

“Poor judgement” is also a very vague and misleading statement and an example of soft language.

Your mindset reminds me of that book by Carl Tavris and Elliot Aronson – Mistakes Were Made (but not by me).

Anyways, let’s look at your generous paraphrase

Grats on your 100+ postcount. Mission half-accomplished. Creeps' remarks on the 'once in a while' speaks to the inevitability of poor judgment during a war. War is hell on earth and humans aren't infallible. Therefore, lives go to waste.

Several fallacies are committed here (some in combination):

-Affirming the consequent
-Post hoc, ergo propter hoe
-Weasel word
-Reductive fallacy (Oversimplification)

First Fallacy: Affirming the consequent – a deductive fallacy of the form…

If p then q.
q.
Therefore p.

If the statement “if p then q,” p is called the “antecedent” and q the “consequent.” The second premise of a modus ponens – the valid form – affirms (asserts) the antecedent (check it out). Affirming the consequent., though, yields an invalid form. A true conclusion is not guaranteed even if the premises are true. For example:

When the roads are icy, the mail is late.
The mail is late.
Therefore, the roads are icy.

Although the mail would be late if the roads were icy, it also may be late for OTHER REASONS. This argument overlooks alternative explanations.

Similarly:

When poor judgment by humans during wartime occurs, lives are wasted.
Lives were wasted.
Therefore, poor judgment by humans during wartime occurred.

This fallacy leaves out the other possible explanations for loss of life, under the guise of “poor judgment” – an example of Reductive fallacy (Oversimplification) and soft language.

Next Fallacy: Post hoc, ergo propter hoe – (literally, “after this, therefore, because of this"); assuming causation too readily on the basis of mere succession in time.

You even used the exact language in accordance with this fallacy:

War is hell on earth and humans aren't infallible. Therefore, lives go to waste.

Next Fallacy: Weasel word(s) – changing the meaning of a word in the middle of your argument so that your conclusion can be maintained, though it’s meaning may have shifted radically. Usually, a maneuver performed under the pressure of a counterexample.

A. All Studying is torture.
B. What about studying argument? You love that!
C. Well, that’s not really studying.

Let’s look at Creeps original statement:

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.

First of all, his statement is very similar to your revision in that it contains several fallacies. The weasel word(s) here is “once in awhile.”

Now onto your revision:

Creeps' remarks on the 'once in a while' speaks to the inevitability of poor judgment during a war. War is hell on earth and humans aren't infallible. Therefore, lives go to waste.

Next part in a bit. I'll respond to Melchiah as well.

[archibaldcrane]

...

jesus christ, go outside.

[Elvis]

:\

Next part incominnnnnngggggggggggggg

[archibaldcrane]

nothx

[Correction]

Now you're just masturbating into the fucking thead with senseless off-topic sanctimony. And you have the temerity to accuse me of posturing?

War occurs because man is flawed, because we can't always come to a rational, peaceful resolution of matters. As war continues these flaws are further exposed because perfect planning and execution of a war plan is basically impossible. Therefore, meaningless loss of human life is an inevitability of war. Find one fucking example of a war in history where these posits are disproven or even lessened by advancements in technology. We're never going to have a clean, moral war because that's just not what war is.

Or alternatively you can spend your next 100 posts being a complete cock and changing directions as you run out of room to defend your original positions. The choice is entirely yours.

[Kriz]

I subscribe to the belief that it was done to hasten unconditional surrender before the Soviet Union could move against Japan. The Soviet Union at the Yalta conference agreed to a 3 month regrouping period after the German front was over (May 8th).

Knowing full well that the Soviet Union had a bad way of taking land and not giving it back up easily, to avoid this issue completely hindering reconstruction of Japan and giving the Soviets any ground they dropped the bombs...

On the 6th and 9th, with the Soviet Union entering as planned on the dawn of the 9th. The Soviets were stunned that the bomb was dropped, Japan completely and unconditionally surrendered days later, and the Soviets didn't get the chance to land on mainland Japan.

Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchur...sive_Operation for an interesting read on what I said.

Personally, I don't think the world would have been better if we had a North/South/East/West/Allied/Soviet Japan like Korea, Germany, etc.

[Elvis]

Now you're just masturbating into the fucking thead with senseless off-topic sanctimony. And you have the temerity to accuse me of posturing?

Posturing: to assume an artificial or pretended attitude.

Sanctimony: A show or expression of feelings or beliefs one does not actually hold or possess.

How is my response to your post (quote by quote) senseless and off-topic?

I didn't do anything other than point out your poor rhetoric/logic. That's off-topic?

I should just ignore you. Let's put it this way, what is my stance on the bombings? What have I said in this thread that you disagree with?

I've said it before - I don't think you even know what my opinion is on the bombings.

War occurs because man is flawed, because we can't always come to a rational, peaceful resolution of matters. As war continues these flaws are further exposed because perfect planning and execution of a war plan is basically impossible. Therefore, meaningless loss of human life is an inevitability of war. Find one fucking example of a war in history where these posits are disproven or even lessened by advancements in technology. We're never going to have a clean, moral war because that's just not what war is.

WAR IS BAD? NUWAI!

Are we discussing art? A movie? A song? No, take your bullshit abstraction elsewhere.

You've done exactly what the blogger has - simplified the issue. Yes, bad things happen because we are flawed creatures. Bravo, you're a fucking genius.

Let me also add, that I think logical fallacies are things we all can spot in one another, intuitively. What I've done is just a more textbook way of calling out your bullshit rhetoric.

[Melchiah]

The only response to me is "You're right, I chose a shitty source."

I'm not arguing against you here Elvis, just pointing out that your source is as solid as a wet tissue.

[Elvis]

I know why you'd say that too. I'll get back to you on that.

Zinn references a book by Gar Alperovitz called The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. I am assuming you'll want the sources of the sources.

Basically, I'm going to look into my source some more.

[Correction]

You've done exactly what the blogger has - simplified the issue. Yes, bad things happen because we are flawed creatures. Bravo, you're a fucking genius.

When a simplification fits the facts of history, it's called an 'accurate summary.'

When it does not, it's called 'wishful, unrealistic thinking.'

Guess which direction you traveled when you posted what you did in the OP and then spout nonsense like 'when I post a quote it's because I'm assuming that position.'

Guess which direction you just confessed is more accurate.

Now guess which end you're reaching by debating the tactical effectiveness of whether or not it was worth using the atomic bomb on Japan over 60 years ago.