What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

LynahFan said:
The fact that I came to a conclusion is not an "abnegation of responsibility."
Click to expand...

That's not what I was trying to say. What I meant was certitude in situations like this is, IMO, highly suspect. I'm with Sartre that to be is to decide. But to decide is not always to say it can be no other way. I have an opinion that the bombings -- at least the first one -- were morally justifiable. I'm uncertain but can understand the opinion that they were the best choice. What I don't understand was the idea that the bombings were necessary -- which is to say, that any other choice would have been strategically and morally deficient. My answer to that is: we'll never know.

I'm still not saying it eloquently or clearly, but I believe you can see what I am saying. I do not trust when "I would do it again" turns into "it was the only thing I could have done."
 
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

St. Clown said:
Given the culture of the Japanese soldier at the time, the propoganda both they and their citizens were fed, they'd have gone back to 18th century living before surrendering to American invaders. Add to that, their views of Japanese being far superior to all over peoples, as shown in their treatment of POWs and occupied citizens. Either a full conquering through traditional warfare would've finally caused the emporer to submit his full surrender, or the awe and fear of more bombings like they saw. It's sad to think, but using atomic bombs was the humane option.
Click to expand...

LynahFan said:
Just because a decision was difficult doesn't mean it's not settled. I have thought quite a lot about this - was a War in the Pacific buff for quite a number of years - and I believe that Truman did the right thing. The fact that I came to a conclusion is not an "abnegation of responsibility."
Click to expand...

Where I think the big mistake was made was after the war ended. The USA (iIrc) seriously considered the option of saying "look how terrible nuclear weapons are. We want to make sure no one ever uses one ever again, and so we are going to reveal the full details of all the technology involved, and ask everyone in the world never to use it. Given how it works, we also request everyone agree to inspections from UN to make sure there isn't covert development going on."

That was not at all what we did do. Instead, we tried to keep it secret, and so of course the USSR raced to develop their version of it too, and others then followed suit.


So far, the USA is still the only country ever to use a nuclear weapon. Sadly, I'm not sure we will be able to say the same thing 20 years from now. :(
 
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

FreshFish said:
Where I think the big mistake was made was after the war ended. The USA (iIrc) seriously considered the option of saying "look how terrible nuclear weapons are. We want to make sure no one ever uses one ever again, and so we are going to reveal the full details of all the technology involved, and ask everyone in the world never to use it. Given how it works, we also request everyone agree to inspections from UN to make sure there isn't covert development going on."

That was not at all what we did do. Instead, we tried to keep it secret, and so of course the USSR raced to develop their version of it too, and others then followed suit.
Click to expand...

In a bit of a role reversal for us, I'd like to defend the US. In the actual event, we did formally propose the plan. Even with the benefit of hindsight research, it actually seems to have been legitimate -- a rare (indeed, nearly singular) example of a powerful nation doing The Right Thing for The Right Reasons.

The plan was rejected by the Soviets and the rest is history. Either MAD was genius or it's the longest string of protracted and undeserved luck in human history.

Inevitably but kinda wonderfully, the nutbars have a different perspective.
 
Last edited:
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

joecct said:
My (future) father survived. Its good enough for me.
Click to expand...

It's not terribly hard to trace both my parents and my wife's parents back to the cold war, and how wars were fought when the fear of the bomb loomed large.

If not for it, it's not likely I would be around. And I'm sure many lives were altered or created due to us dropping the bomb 70 years ago.
 
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

Kepler said:
This assumes they had to invade the mainland. A blockade would probably have forced a surrender.
.
Click to expand...

I don't believe a blockade would have forced surrender. I think they would have gladly starved or just killed themselves before surrendering. Their mindset had to be crushed, just as the German's had to be, so ensure a total 180 from where their heads were in the late 1930's. I think it was more important to crush the Japanese mindset than the German when you consider the Germans were p/o'ed since 1918 and the Japanese had their superiority complex for hundred of years. If we ever went to war with North Korea, it would be just the same as the war in the Pacific, brutal beyond modern humanity.
 
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

Truman's dilemma:

If I do nothing the total is unknown but will be larger than a half million.
If I invade, a half million die.
If I end it with the bomb, a half million die.

OK, half million is better than much larger.

So, theirs or mine.

Enola Gay.


I'm thinking that's how Truman had work it out in his mind.
 
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

The Sicatoka said:
Truman's dilemma:

If I do nothing the total is unknown but will be larger than a half million.
If I invade, a half million die.
If I end it with the bomb, a half million die.

OK, half million is better than much larger.

So, theirs or mine.

Enola Gay.


I'm thinking that's how Truman had work it out in his mind.
Click to expand...

I think that probably sums it up. Truman was an "earthy" thinker.

Anyway, it gave us a good song.
 
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

I was at Los Alamos in June and toured the (surprisingly small) science museum near the site of the old campus (bizarrely, there is nothing left of the old compound -- the only era buildings with any significance are the ones where Oppenheimer and a few of the other high ranking staff lived). Anyway, the museum includes a digital library of biographical material on every person who had clearance at the facility, from the physicists down to the guard shack guys, along with fairly long personal statements by them of what working on the project meant to them.
 
Re: 70 years ago, Aug, 6, 1945

Kepler said:
I was at Los Alamos in June and toured the (surprisingly small) science museum near the site of the old campus (bizarrely, there is nothing left of the old compound -- the only era buildings with any significance are the ones where Oppenheimer and a few of the other high ranking staff lived). Anyway, the museum includes a digital library of biographical material on every person who had clearance at the facility, from the physicists down to the guard shack guys, along with fairly long personal statements by them of what working on the project meant to them.
Click to expand...

Including the Russian spies?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top