"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.
"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.
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.
@ 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.
I would rather have 'Mutually Assured Reasonable Happiness'.
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.
@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.
Absolutely not. We bear some shame for how we handled the end of the war, they bear the BLAME for starting it.
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.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by Violetta Fay in Small Talk on Tuesday.
Started by Jimmy in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology Sep 25.
Started by D L in Small Talk Sep 19.
Started by D L in Small Talk Sep 7.
Started by Jimmy in Advice. Last reply by Jimmy Sep 25.
Sunday School May 28th 2017
Sunday School May 21st 2017
Sunday School May 14th 2017
Posted by Muhammad ali on August 5, 2017 at 9:27am
Posted by Brad Snowder on July 9, 2017 at 1:08am
© 2017 Created by Rebel.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.