Views: 29301

Comment by Nina van der Roos on October 11, 2012 at 10:08am
The Japanese were seeking peace when the bombs were dropped, unfortunately they were using Russia as an intermediary and they had a vested interest in the war lasting long enough to secure certain strategic territories, though the allies were aware of this. The Japanese by 1945 were very fractured internally with the politicians once again starting to gain control and the military loosing its grip. History is written by the victors.
Comment by James Cox on October 11, 2012 at 2:45pm

"I've read that the Japanese agreed to surrender days before the bomb was dropped.."

I read about the bombing once. The two bombs dropped were also part of the ongoing testing to determine effects. I am not familier with the political details before the bombings, but the literature concerning the weapon developement seems to indicate 'data collection'. Political 'object lesson' or 'demoralization', possibly motivated bt the first Japanese attact, might have felt 'just' to a few in power at the time.

Comment by James Cox on October 11, 2012 at 8:46pm

"I don't want any single person ever to be able to "push the button" and generate a fuckstorm of destruction on earth.."

I do remember a conversation from HS concerning the MAD model. It was clear at the time that full nuclear exchange would just about cause our mass extinction and much of the other life on the planet. While I might understand 'why' a full exchange could be considered, I was wondering if the 'first strike/launch' country should be considered the victor, and no responce launch of weapons would be considered. This would insure, or atleast offer some degree of survival for part of the human population and biosphere. Being moralistic about the issue of 'first strike', seems to contain a Faustian bargain of extinction. A lock-out system to control any retaliation strike could be considered, but I expect that such a system would not survive the hawks on both sides. Sadly we are still the quiet victims of nutty.    

Comment by Tom Sarbeck on October 13, 2012 at 12:52am

I've been to a war and survived it.

Before we ban nuclear weapons, think on this: FOR THE FIRST TIME IN ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY, a general nuclear war will result in the destruction of people who profit from war.

The profit-takers' fear of dying is our best insurance against such a war.

The religious crazies among us? Their actions require a different analysis.

Comment by Suzanne Olson-Hyde on October 13, 2012 at 1:12am

@ Tom Serbeck - Spot on - people know the results if anybody started a nuclear war - and it just won't happen - Iran, nope. They know that if they dropped a bomb anywhere - Iran would no longer exist - Arms dealers know they and their families could well die, and there goes the fabulous ship they just bought. They will want to keep their money coming in from the smaller arms. It is just good for their business.

It is very big problem if the religious crazies get their hands on a nuclear bomb totally different scenario.

Comment by James Cox on April 22, 2013 at 6:31pm

I would rather have 'Mutually Assured Reasonable Happiness'.

Comment by Unseen on April 22, 2013 at 6:37pm


Why is it that when people argue that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were necessary, they never bother to ask whether the entire war was necessary in the first place? Had the Japanese stayed home and conducted tea ceremonies and Zen meditation rather than invading China, New Guinea, The Philippines, and elsewhere, and had they not engaged in the various well-documented war crimes against both civilians and prisoners of war—not to mention the attack on Pearl Harbor—there would never have been a Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Would there?

Comment by angela kozma on April 22, 2013 at 6:51pm

@strega watched video. My running thought is yikes. I know it was written as a farce but yike. At least the prime minister thought about consequences of the red button.

Comment by Unseen on April 22, 2013 at 7:15pm

Absolutely not. We bear some shame for how we handled the end of the war, they bear the BLAME for starting it.

Comment by SteveInCO on April 22, 2013 at 9:05pm

It would likely have taken over a year and a million casualties on both sides to have invaded Japan.  And while we were bogged down in that mess, the Soviet Union might have absorbed Western Europe as well as Eastern Europe.


You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service