Your reflections on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Drunken Cat]

I don't think you can really just go as far as saying the moral implications were too high for you to have done it, without suggesting an alternative that would have to carry less negative effects than the former.

Pretty pivotal.

Perceptions of morality are one way to attempt to broach such a complicated issue.

It isn't the way I approach it, but I think it is valid. It at least forces one to contemplate.

That said, I'll leave it up to Anorak to explain what he meant by morality in this context if he wants, without trying to define it for him.

[BattlingNelson]

To the contrary, the hardliners attempted a coup de tête to prevent the Emperor from issuing the surrender. They were beaten back. And the Emperor made an absolutely unprecedented radio address to the Japanese people, in which he announced that Japan had formally surrendered. Emperor Showa was in fact the emperor from 1926 until 1989, which is quite amazing to contemplate.

Coup de tête? What does that mean?

Meaning coup d'etat? Or what do you mean?

And how is this post contrary to what I said?

[BattlingNelson]

The reason that the nukes were used was to prevent Russia from taking over the North of Japan. End the war now, so that we don't have to deal with a partition. We can take the whole pie. The Russians managed to capture and hang onto the Northern islands, which were Japanese territory.

Plus, who would want to let such a dynamic and innovative weapon go to waste, especially after spending so much money and human capital on its development. Especially when you can show off the Russians.

So the nukes was dropped to prevent the russians from taking Japan.

Plus, who would want to let such a dynamic and innovative weapon go to waste, especially after spending so much money and human capital on its development. Especially when you can show off the Russians.

Jesus Christ, you couldn't make this up.

[Drunken Cat]

Coup de tête? What does that mean?

Meaning coup d'etat? Or what do you mean?

And how is this post contrary to what I said?

I did a quick copy paste, I know the difference. Who's idea was it to introduce french words to English anyway? Yeah, I know the history and the various circumstances, but its a horrible fit.

You seemed to suggest that it was the emperor holding out support for a surrender, or that was my interpretation at least. It was actually the military hardliners who tried to keep Japan in the war until the very end. The emperor didn't have much to do with it. He in fact went to lengths to end the war, to the point that there was a military coup attempted, which was stopped.

[The Noose]

should have dropped it on england too.

feckin wankers.

That sounded Irish.

[Drunken Cat]

So the nukes was dropped to prevent the russians from taking Japan.

This isn't even that controversial of an idea among historians.

Not to stop Russia from taking Japan, to prevent a divided Japan between the US and Russia.

The degree of significance of this consideration to the political actors at the time is a matter of debate, but that it was a consideration to a certain degree is not really controversial.

Also Russia declared war against Japan as soon as Hiroshima was bombed. They had maintained neutrality up until then. The Russians immediately seized Japan's northern islands, which are now part of Russia.

[BattlingNelson]

This isn't even that controversial of an idea among historians.

Not to stop Russia from taking Japan, to prevent a divided Japan between the US and Russia.

The degree of significance of this consideration to the political actors at the time is a matter of debate, but that it was a consideration to a certain degree is not really controversial.

Also Russia declared war against Japan as soon as Hiroshima was bombed. They had maintained neutrality up until then. The Russians immediately seized Japan's northern islands, which are now part of Russia.

And since Russia declared war on Japan AFTER Hiroshima then surely that bomb was NOT dropped to prevent Russia from taking (parts of) Japan n'est ce pas?

[Drunken Cat]

And since Russia declared war on Japan AFTER Hiroshima then surely that bomb was NOT dropped to prevent Russia from taking (parts of) Japan n'est ce pas?

Not at all. After the first bomb was dropped, the end of the war was imminent. Russia had to move immediately. It was a land grab, nothing else. Shows that they were waiting in the wings.

Do you not think that the military strategists were aware of these realities on the ground? A US invasion from the South would have absolutely been accompanied by a Russian invasion from the North, just like in Korea and Germany. Japan would've been a tough nut to crack, none the least because it is an island nation. That is also a factor. But the impending Russian invasion, and post-war partitioning of Japan between the US and Russia was also a factor.

To note, I am seeking to enhance clarity, not provide a 'moral' judgement. But the facts need to be put out there, and these were the facts on the ground. A divided Japan may have been a worse result.

I was in Hiroshima for the memorial last August, and I had a Hiroshima bus driver tell me that dropping the bomb was the right thing to do. He wasn't an historical scholar, and approached it more so from the angle that he believed it in fact saved lives. I personally don't know, although I do think that it unleashed some major political consequences, which also have to be taken into account, and which essentially informed the politics of the Cold War. To me, it is a complex issue and I don't have an answer for it.

[The Noose]

Yes, it was definitely terrible and a consequence of war. I want to say, however, that often people bash religion as being this cause of great evil and just sorrow, in general. However, by that logic, I can say that science is also responsible for things such as nuclear warfare, chemical & biological warfare, and many other terrible things. I don't know where this came from, but it's just something I feel strongly about. We must remember that the cause of the great evil we observe is from man and man alone. We have tendencies, as humans, toward hatred and violence. Therefore, we do not require an explanation as to why this hatred arises. We often like to attribute evil and hatred as stemming from religious intolerance or inherent in religious ideology. But, the hatred is in us. Before religion, men killed. After religion, men will kill. I must admit, I do not like the direction our world is going in. I just feel our planet is headed toward bad things with respect to economic collapse, resource depletion, overpopulation, mass species extinctions, water scarcity, etc. The human species has many challenges ahead and the future seems bleak. This world is a scary place and nature in general is weird and vicious. Humans are opportunistic and it seems unlikely for people to be civilized. It's not in our nature. We want power, resources, women, etc. We are corrupt from the start. The reason I believe in God is so that he can provide justice and balance to a world that does not have it. I feel all those people who are taken advantage of in this world deserve retribution and that is why I hope God exists. It would not seem fair that people who suffer in this world never get the justice they deserve. Otherwise, this world truly is a ****ed up place. It doesn't seem right for bad people to get away with things. I must admit, I don't like this system.

Paragraphs > God.

Science is knowledge. Its how that knowledge is used that should be held accountable for the damage that is done. Not science itself.
Whereas religion can preach evil in the name of justice.

Surely hoping god exists to bring justice to the victims contradicts your statement about nature being cruel and vicious? Did God not create nature?