I feel like there’s a real focus on the forest instead of the trees.
What exactly does this tell us?
Republicans in congress relied on obviously uncredible evidence in their pursuit to prove a crime that they wanted to prosecute regardless of whether it happened. A professional international shill shilled professionally, internationally.
Russia and other countries tell people to say and do things to spread propaganda and misinformation to influence politics in the US.
Sadly, none of this, we must acknowledge is new information. And honestly, it’s so terribly pervasive. The bad guys do this stuff, but most of the “good guys” kinda do too, just usually with a bit more restraint. So what do we do with this?
I think the main issue, the reason we should be pissed off when we learn that a guy lied to law enforcement to try and convince the media and the public that a political rival is a double-crossing criminal, is that we don’t want our system of government constantly being manipulated by unscrupulous manipulative assholes.
And so we should turn our attention to REAL democratic reforms. Ranked choice voting. Ending the electoral college. Curtailing political gerrymandering. Converting our two-party duopololy system into an actual multi-party system.
There’s no real use in being mad in the folks who do all this stuff. We need to just stop expecting otherwise and make systems that don’t reward this kind of outlandish bullshit.
And so we should turn our attention to REAL democratic reforms. Ranked choice voting. Ending the electoral college. Curtailing political gerrymandering. Converting our two-party duopololy system into an actual multi-party system.
Not to sound nihilistic or defeatist, but the odds of any of that federally passing within our lifetime has the same odds of Congress deleting the Second Amendment.
Maybe state governments can be swayed to add these amazing ideas, but good luck telling rural MAGA retards that is all actually in their best interest to add these concepts into local government.
I think you pointed the way forward and didn’t realize how significant it is: states and cities.
What states and cities do has the power to change a lot about how we send to make federal laws. It’s not a pipe dream to imagine that an embrace of these ideas at a state level could happen and then bring that change to the national level. I already live in a city with ranked choice voting, in a state where access to vote is pretty solid. I’m going to keep pushing for more.
I’m not so sure the second amendment is going to survive the Millennials and Gen Z. If enough people get on board to replace it or repeal it then that’s it. It’s gone. And the last time I looked, common sense gun regulations like registry and universal background check have 80% approval rates. Go long enough without any compromise with those kinds of numbers and the rubber band effect comes into play.
You only need 38 states. So the super deep red states aren’t enough to stop it. Once the moderates are against it, it will be over. And we’ve been running active shooter drills in schools like that’s not going prejudice those kids against guns…
I'm a progressive liberal, and a minority who's immigrant parents barely escaped from a fascist religious country with a helpless and disarmed population unable to fight back against the status-quo running the government.
I also have many gay and trans friends who live in opressive bleak conditions every single day and cannot trust law enforcement to fairly help them.
NO matter what happens, I will always vote in favor of less gun control, because hoping the fucking cops/military won't be full of racist/bigoted/MAGA-Trumper/fascist/religious nutjobs not intent on fucking you over is a really really stupid thing.
You are responsible for your own families well being. If you feel safe thinking you live in a fucking fairy tale utopia and most western societies are not at one catastrophic event from collapsing, you are delusional.
And how many kids is your security blanket worth? Because I’m sorry but if someone wants you dead, a gun is not going to stop it. It can help if you’re being robbed, or something sure. But if they came for you? Statistics say they’re likely to be killing you with your own gun.
Especially in the world of bad cops and hate groups. Unless you’re living in a patrol base with the rest of your militia you aren’t going to stop a group of bigots or cops from killing you. That’s some Hollywood bullshit.
And thinking an armed populace is any kind of threat to a modern military? That’s ridiculous. This isn’t 1792, and the whiskey rebellion didn’t work then either.
Your route to safety is putting the work in to fight politically.
Appealing to the safety of children is what Republicans do to trick voters to join them. You are attempting to do the same here and have a inauthentic argument; unless you have a plan to guarantee to get rid of all weapons, people are going to kill other people including kids. I don't know if you are aware of this, but criminals and insane people don't follow the laws and will still stay armed.
And thinking an armed populace is any kind of threat to a modern military? That’s ridiculous.
I don't know if you are purposely omitting GOPs primary benefactor Russia because you are obtuse or because you are purposely trying subvert the discussion in a malicious way to attempt at an argument; and if you think Russia won't do everything in its power to support the Christofacist/MAGA/GOP/Nazi/KKK population with their US Civil War 2, then you are indeed fucking dumb.
Guns are the biggest killer of children and young adults.
This seems so far the most intelligent point you have made so far where I agree with you, but unlikely a concept you have independently considered and likely were told to think this way by someone smarter than you.
Non-sequiturs against you aside, you cannot realistically think you can disarm the entire population of the United States without Trump-level door-to-door military style invasive home inspections? Criminals and crazies will still shoot up innocent people, and if Uvalde, TX hasn't convinced you cops are unreliable for your personal safety, continue living in your fantasy.
The CDC’s WISQARS is free for everyone to use. And I Omitted Russia because funding alone isn’t enough. You have to be able to get out of the borders. Somewhere you can’t be touched. Counter insurgency against an enemy that is merely funded is a solved issue.
If two thirds of the country votes to get rid of the second amendment there will not be popular support for an insurgency either. This isn’t some NRA wet dream where the Democrats suddenly turn into totalitarians.
So in your scenario (which I admit is likely) Russia and China heavily fund militia groups. But neither Mexico or Canada wants any part in it so they don’t have anywhere to go to avoid catching drone fired missiles in the middle of the night. And the majority of the country cheers the morning news because they don’t see the militias as American after they attacked the duly elected government.
Contrary to what you think, guns, politics, and insurgencies are all things I have experience and studies in. Another thing we’ve seen in the 21st century? As long as the Army stays out of the conflict, revolution by the masses walking in the street is far more effective than armed insurrection. And it would take a long time to bring the American military around to the point it could shoot at protesting crowds again.
On the surface, Ranked Choice looks like it would be a good idea, but when you break it down, it has some fundamental problems that are just as bad for democracy as First Past the Post.
This video is a great watch on the subject, it goes through all the problems in great detail, but the TLRW is thus, Ranked Choice is a flawed system, fatally so.
If you want to steal an election but make it look legit, Ranked Choice is your number one voting system. If you want viable third parties, Ranked Choice is not the voting system for you. It actually punishes viable third parties harder than FPtP.
It is also interesting that the movie focuses on the scientists developing the bomb over everything else. There is a removal of the protagonists from seeing the destruction of their work, but that was done on purpose by the military. Even within that, you see a discussion of morality of the bomb by its developers and that the scientists, in almost all cases, have a more nuanced understanding of the destructive power they are developing and the ethics of using such a device.
I think that’s always the way. Compartmentalisation. Though I don’t blame the film for not showing the horrors taking place in those cities. At the time Oppenheimer wouldn’t have access to those images, and so I guess neither do we. On the other hand - unless I miss remember - we do get to see him watching a film reel. So, maybe they could have shoehorned the scenes of destruction. But, personally, I think it’s enough to see the effect it has on Oppenheimer. Any more could be classed as prurient voyeurism.
I don’t know of you or @HobbitFoot is aware but the screenplay of the movie was written in first person. That’s how focused Nolan was from the very beginning. No way he was going to show actual bombings.
Also, funny that you mentioned compartmentalization. This article opens with same observation, and in turn refers to Matt Damon’s character in the movie.
I don’t think they could show the bombings as Oppenheimer wasn’t there. However, it is plausible that he saw some newsreel footage of the aftermath. They could show that.
Also that the alternative was burning cities with the people still in them, and they’d seen that, which was have been more horrifying and slow than a nuclear conflagration.
Is there a Japanese film like Oppenheimer but from their perspective? I’ve seen plenty of stuff that feels influenced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including the horrors from a perspective unique to people who have first hand experience; but it’s all fictional.
Like, is there maybe a movie about the dude who survived both bombs?
Almost… Another way to see it is they burdened future generations as an expedient measure to save the lives of the people now in the past. Another another way to look at the bomb is preventing another world war.
An interesting historical point is Japan had largely been defeated by the time the bombs were dropped. And they had the option to bomb an uninhabited (or very lightly) part of Japan’s territory as a show of force. But, instead they specifically chose to irradiate civilians.
Because future generations have to safehold and not misuse extremely destructive knowledge. We have a world where North Korea has nuclear weapons, but do they have the ethics to use them responsibly, understanding their full potential? Do the other countries with nuclear bombs have that ethical responsibility, especially over generations? Cuz that big red button is going to be around for a while.
This is of course just my opinion, but no horrors, imaginable or otherwise, that the Japanese could’ve possibly orchestrated at the time, with the means they had available, would’ve come close to the devastation caused by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace? Maybe the complete distruction of their Navy and Air forces? Maybe the blockaid we had on the island? Maybe the fact they were already sueing for peace?
Lmao, in your source, the narrator correctly claims that Emepeor Hirohito had to intervene and force the military to stand down following the atomic bombings. Literally, the first three minutes of the video… gtfo
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) …us.archive.org/…/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
Now you’re just being argumentative throwing out accusations cause you got sourced. You don’t want to defend your position anymore so your attempting to shift the argument entirely.
Still trying to shift the goal posts. I will not be responding to your 5 second skim of a source you didn’t read because you think you gotta win an argument above all else. You asked for a source that showed the bombings were unnecessary. You got it. Defend the point or shut it. If you want to argue the finer details of the American strategic bombing campaign and it’s effectiveness then get a history degree. Because that is NOT the argument being made here. Neither by me or by you. Attempting to bring that up is irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
Your source states, based on your quote, that the atomic bombings would be unnecessary if the strategic bombing continued… and that’s your argument for why the atomic bombings were unjustified?
Done with you. Misrepresenting my argument and moving the goal posts. You have given up defending your point, that the nukes were necessary and instead are trying portray my argument, that the nukes were unnecessary, as one advocating for continued strategic bombardment.
You wanna read more about strategic bombing in general and it’s own inadequacies then go ahead. But that’s not what this conversation is. Go get a history degree if you want to dive into the nuances, otherwise continued arguments with you are pointless.
My point is that targeting civilians is never okay. And if we are going to open the box to “well the state committed war crimes so civilians had to be targeted” I’d like to know your opinions on both 9/11 and October 7th, cause I bet there’s gonna be some inconsistency to your belief.
But that whole argument concedes the point that the nukes stopped Japan. They did not. Japan was already sueing for peace. They were willing to negotiate and we know that what they were and were not willing to give up lines up with what we did end up agreeing to post war anyways. The nukes were pointless on top of being abhorrent.
But that whole argument concedes the point that the nukes stopped Japan. They did not. Japan was already sueing for peace. They were willing to negotiate and we know that what they were and were not willing to give up lines up with what we did end up agreeing to post war anyways. The nukes were pointless on top of being abhorrent.
You better have a good source if you’re going to make such a bold statement.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) …us.archive.org/…/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
You are incredibly naive. Total war between industrialized nations, as happened in WW2, is won or lost on industrial capacity. States literally need to cripple their enemy’s ability and will to wage war, which means destroying industrial production, food production, access to safe water, and civil infrastructure. And that is why there should never be another great power war.
As for the USA’s use of nuclear weapons in Japan, they weren’t used to “win” the war. As you say, the Japanese were effectively beaten. Nukes were used to force an immediate surrender, saving millions of both American and Japanese lives.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945. Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war. and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. - The United States Strategic Bombing survey (European war) (Pacific War) …us.archive.org/…/unitedstatesstra00cent.pdf
But it was though. We had intercepted the communications between the Japanese foreign affairs head and the ambassador to the Soviet Union. The ambassador was attempting to get the Soviets to mediate a peace with the allies as they were not yet at war. We had their entire negotiation strategy. We had their intent and knew their wants, must haves and no go’s. All of which lines up with the peace we ultimately would have.
We 100% knew. All we had to do was sit down and negotiate.
The Japanese were not ready to surrender unconditionally, and that was the internationally agreed endpoint of the war with Germany and Japan. Unconditional surrender and occupation was considered necessary to completely break the German and Japanese spirit and ensure no third world war. The Allies didn’t want a repeat of the inter-war period between WW1 and WW2 where Germany was not occupied and could tell itself that it hadn’t really lost WW1. The Allies agreed that the way to avoid this problem was to comprehensively defeat and then force unconditional surrender on the Axis powers, followed by occupation, re-education, and rebuilding. When you look at Japan and Germany’s success after WW2, it’s hard to argue that the Allies were wrong to take that stance. The atomic bombs are a side issue. The invasion of Japan would have been so much worse.
Look up the Rape of Nanking. Studying that alone made me believe the bombs were warranted. That’s not even including Unit 731, and the fact that the Japanese government still will not acknowledge their attrocities.
The bombs were a sad necessity to stop the monstrosities.
Japan surrendered due to the Bomb drops. This prevented the invasion of Japan that would have resulted in the total eradication of life on those islands due to the US’s experience on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. The Japanese Isles would be glass statues without that surrender as the US would not risk troops and fire bombing would have done the job without the Nuke.
The US would not have stopped without total surrender. That would not have come without massive loss of life. Whether or not more died to the bomb is a moot question. The better question is how many would have survived without it and would it have been classified as a genocide afterward.
There was no distinction between civilian and soldier on the eastern front after Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the civilians fought as combatants.
The Japanese still exist due to the bomb and the Emperor.
Except the government didn’t give a shit about the peasants or they would have surrendered earlier when so many were dying from previous bombings and the war was already obviously hopelessly lost. Let’s pretend what you say is correct, do you think Americans should get nuked because of the US carrying out the Iraq invasion and occupation along with the many other war crimes that the US carries out on a regular basis? We’ll find out just how much the government cares about these screams.
Maybe not nuked because the invasion of Iraq was a far cry from Unit 731 alone, but America certainly fucked around and found out with 9/11. The government very much cry over the screams of those affected by 9/11 as well.
Thanks for actually pointing out a specific atrocity committed by the Japanese, which did result in higher casualties than the bomb, though it happened over months rather than minutes, but ok, I’ll accept it.
Still, the point is, what atrocities were the Japanese capable of perpetrating at the time the bombs were dropped, that were prevented by it, and couldn’t have been prevented in a different way. There’s a big chance that the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, and if not, maybe just the threat of dropping the bomb (maybe, say, after a demonstration at sea or otherwise away from civilians) would’ve been enough.
There’s a big chance that the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, and if not, maybe just the threat of dropping the bomb (maybe, say, after a demonstration at sea or otherwise away from civilians) would’ve been enough.
They believe their Emperor was a God. The invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in the Japanese fighting to the last man, woman, and child. Millions of civilian casualties. You suggest a test of the bomb would have forced Japanese surrender. But history tells the exact opposite story. There was a 3 day gap between the first and second bomb. Japanese high command thought the allies only had one bomb, refused to surrender. They only surrendered after the second bomb, when they realized this was repeatable.
So, a couple of things, comment has been reported, likely for your final sentence which is about as removal worthy as anything else I’ve seen… but addressing your first point…
The argument at the time was that dropping the bomb WOULD save lives, military and civilian, compared to a full scale invasion of Japan.
Would the psychological impact of a full scale D-day style invasion be better or worse than the obliteration of 130,000+ people in Hiroshima and another 80,000+ in Nagasaki?
Well, smarter people than me have been arguing that since it happened. I’m certainly in no position to say one way or the other.
What can’t be debated, for the people who say “Japan was beaten, we didn’t need to drop the bomb…” Following Hiroshima on August 6th, there followed THREE DAYS requesting a surrender. The Japanese military refused. Even AFTER they knew the devastation of Hiroshima, the common thought was “hey, how many more bombs could they possibly have?”
So given they stubbornly refused to surrender following Hiroshima, that kind of gives you the idea of what devastation would be required from a full scale invasion. No, they weren’t ready to surrender, and didn’t even surrender after Hiroshima.
Three days isn’t that huge amount of time for this kind of thing, and of course, even after two bombs some still didn’t want to surrender. … but the emperor did, and that’s what matters. Maybe he would’ve surrendered after the first one, or maybe even with no bombs, given enough time to think… or maybe not, but the US didn’t try to go that route really. It really seems like they went for maximum civilian casualty. That’s the part I cannot agree with.
As for the comment, well, I’m always kind and respectful to those who are kind and respectful to me, despite disagreement, but if you just tell me to f off, all bets are off… so, feel free to remove if you want, but if you do, then please also remove the comment I was responding to. Thanks.
Yeah, partially because of the face saving culture. I do tend to agree with the assessment that an invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for both the invaders and the Japanese.
-This is moving the goal post of the argument that I was replying to and irrelevant to this conversation.
-Theorizing about the consequences at stake in the war doesn’t assume anything retrospectively. The decision to deploy nukes was not made with the knowledge we possess after the fact.
-It’s very likely that any other option that would finally result in the complete cessation of an enemy as ideologically tenacious as Imperial Japan would’ve far exceeded a price that was able to be paid that late into the second world war.
You made an implicit assumption, and that assumption is very possibly wrong. You are “theorizing about the consequences” just as much as me by making that assumption.
For example, I can think of at least one way the US could’ve tried to avoid the huge civilian death toll: drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they’re next. I don’t claim to say it would’ve worked for sure, but at least they would’ve tried.
I don’t even know how to continue this conversation. I didn’t have to assume anything about Imperial Japan’s reception to alternative methods of prompted surrender to arrive at the conclusion that the theoretical devastation of Fascism proliferating is at all comparable to the nuclear bombs that were deployed.
You’re right, this conversation is pointless. You keep making unproven assumptions, even in your last reply, and don’t even know you’re doing it. Maybe search “assumption” in the dictionary? Anyways, good luck.
He’s not theorizing, he’s summarizing decades of historians’ research. We know, for example, with the benefit of hindsight, that your idea would not have worked- it would have lead only to countless deaths via nuke, and then a long, slow slog through the meat grinder for troops and civilians.
How do we know this? Because we have Japanese communications from the time- and they basically sum up to something along the lines of “They don’t have the balls to use the bomb against people again.” with a side dash of “they don’t have more bombs to throw at people.”
Exploding the first one over water, the second one over a city on people, and then NOT dropping a third one because we didn’t have anymore would have proved them right, and without a surrender it would have lead to millions of dead Americans and Japanese. They made so many purple hearts preparing for that invasion in 1945 that we still haven’t gone through the backlog, 80 years later.
Now think about it without the benefit of hindsight. You know that culturally, they refuse to surrender. You know they see massive losses as completely acceptable, civilian, military, and suicide bombers. You know they want to try and grind the US down, make them give up because of the sheer number of troops dead. You know they’re trying desperately to negotiate a favorable surrender where they can save face, maintain their ‘experiments’, and maintain their military, which is exactly the sort of thing that lead to WW2 in the first place. Finally you know you only have two bombs. Use them wrong, and the deaths, crippling, and wounding of millions of your own country’s soldiers is directly on your head. Use them right, and you might get some surrenders.
Frankly speaking, dropping the two bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki almost didn’t end the war. The second bomb was what finally changed the mind of the emperor, because he bought the bluff that if we had two we would throw at people, we had more. Even then, there was instantly a coup to try and halt the surrender process- and they thought this guy was literally an incarnation/speaker/appointed of god. That’s how much the military hated the idea of surrendering.
And finally, do keep in mind- every time the US bombed a Japanese city, they dropped leaflets warning the civilians to get out. By all accounts, they were actually highly effective.
To make it clear, dropping the bombs was a horrible thing. That it killed so many civilians who wouldn’t- or more likely couldn’t - get out in time, even if warned, is horrific. Leaflets are good and all, but that doesn’t meanyou have anywhere to go, or the infrastructure, and beyond that, the Emporer was executing anyone who tried to leave bombing areas. (Seriously, possession of a leaflet was grounds for immediate execution.) But the alternatives to dropping the bombs were judged, at the time, to be worse. And I believe that their decision to do so were understandable with the knowledge they had, the options they had, and the consequences to their own troops if they didn’t.
I appreciate well written comments. ysjet’s response was detailed and well explained, and didn’t just say “of course nothing else would’ve stopped them”, but actually went in depth to explain why (which, of course, I don’t fully agree with, but I’m here to discuss and hear other people’s opinion).
I was not attacking you, I was trying to have a conversation. Yes, nazis spreading all over asia would be likely worse than two nukes over Japan, but in saying that, there is the underlying assumption that this spread was otherwise unstoppable, or in other words, that the Japanese were capable of perpetrating it, at the time (using the wording in my original comment) while in fact they were almost defeated already.
But maybe you disagree that they were effectively defeated, or maybe you had something else interesting to say other than “I don’t need to make assumptions” right after making an assumption.
Anyways, you choose to call me dogshit, and have the guts to talk about nuance when you yourself don’t seem to get it, so, I don’t even know why I’m still wasting time with you. I’ll just block you and move on. Au revoir.
Thanks for the detailed response. Yes, I don’t claim to say for sure that my idea would’ve worked, though you seem convinced it definitely wouldn’t have, in hindsight. Yet, there are many other reports that point in the opposite direction, namely, that the Japanese were already beaten and likely to surrender anyways. I agree the culture was always to never surrender, so I doubt it, but the idea of being instantly destroyed after seeing the a-bomb in action could’ve changed somebody’s mind.
And if that didn’t work, maybe there was a way to avoid targeting civilians, while still hitting military targets, but it seems to me the intention was to hit civilians in large number, and that’s what I don’t like (and no, leaflets aren’t really enough).
Also, I didn’t know the US only had two bombs, so I did a bit of research, and actually, it seems a third one was gonna be ready pretty soon after. But then again, I’m glad a third one wasn’t used…
So I see ‘they were ready to surrender’ a lot in this thread, and while that’s not… false, it’s not exactly what it sounds like. They were ready to come to the table, yes, absolutely, but the problem was that they wanted to dictate their surrender - they wanted to keep their military, they wanted their industry rebuilt, they wanted the current government to stay in power- it was less of a surrender or more of a cessation of hostilities. Japan was ‘ready to surrender’ in much the same way Russia was ‘ready to come to the peace table’ about a year ago.
This was geopolitically not realistic, for a number of reasons- for one, allowing that kind of conditional surrender with Germany is directly what lead to WW2 in the first place, and nobody had any intentions of repeating that mistake. There was concern, given the view on surrendering, that it wouldn’t actually be peace, or a surrender, merely a delaying tactic to build up forces and entrench. For another, Russia was bearing down on Japan, and the Allies wanted to limit Russia’s geopolitical influence by preventing another East/West Germany. While the extra troops would have undoubtedly help save American lives, it would have ended in significant Russian and Japanese deaths, as well significant geopolitical issues long-term (East/West Germany worked so well, after all :P )
Long story short, the Allies absolutely wanted an unconditional surrender, exactly the kind of thing the Emperor and the military refused to contemplate, even after a single bomb was dropped. The military still refused to consider it even after the second, so seeing the a-bomb in action once would likely, I feel, not have done much.
RE: hitting civilians in large numbers, my understanding is less that they were deliberately targeting civilians, and more that they were looking for military targets that were geographically located in a position that would enhance the bomb’s effects without considering civilians too much. You could argue in a very real way that they were deployed as terror weapons, or perhaps ‘shock and awe’ weapons if you want to be slightly less confrontational. Civilian casualties were, much like the entire rest of WW2, not much of a consideration- WW2 was considered a total war, and the Geneva Convention would not be signed for another 4 years, directly as a result of the atrocities of WW2. At the time, civilians were not considered something to inherently avoid unless you had some sort of political reason to do so (hence the leaflets). The most obvious example of this is the firebombings of Tokyo, which killed far, far more civilians in arguably far more painful ways, but there’s plenty of example in the European front from all sides as well. Again, they were making decisions with the knowledge and viewpoints of the time. Doesn’t excuse it, but trying to moralize decisions made in the past with current morals is always kind of a waste of time, in my opinion.
Regarding the third shot, there was, at the time, no bombs available when the uranium Little Boy bomb for Hiroshima was dropped, but they had prepped for another. They immediately turned towards trying to prepare another (Nagasaki’s plutonium-based Fat Man), and managed to rush it to completion in just a week, but keep in mind that these were highly dangerous, experimental one-off prototypes being produced- it’s why all of the planned subsequent bombs were of the fat man design, which was significantly safer, and America was completely out of uranium at that. It was only able to be rushed to completion so much because General Groves always planned to use two, and a lot of the logistics were already worked out and prepped beforehand. Before more plutonium bombs could be made, Woodrow Wilson called off the production. So yes, America was technically out of bombs, and completely out of uranium.
Arguably, America could have created more plutonium bombs, but was limited by the availability of plutonium (which is lengthy to turn into weapons grade), the speed at which they could be safely produced (and Fat Man was, frankly, very unsafely produced, it should have taken nearly 3 weeks to create), and America only had a small amount of weapons-grade plutonium stockpiled. So technically, both positions are correct- America only had two bombs, and they certainly could have made more, but they were limited by time and materials, and lack of willingness. They had, perhaps, one or two more fat mans they would be able to drop, with perhaps 3+ week production times for each (because no logistics were prepared for it), before it would have dropped to something like iirc 6 months per bomb due to lack of prepared plutonium.
So yes, one could argue there could have been more bombs after the first two, but it was generally considered by the American military and also the President that two was the ‘magic number,’ so there wasn’t any setup for them, so they would not have been cranked out anywhere near as fast. Nobody believed that one bomb would trigger a surrender (because of, again, the cultural viewpoints on surrendering) as well the implicit belief that it would be a one-off prototype that could not be repeated.
If two did not, and it was widely considered it would, nobody believed 3 would be any more likely to trigger a surrender than two did, and might even convince them to fight harder. In addition, due to the effects of radiation, America would have limited to how they could use the bombs one the land invasion started- with Russia from the north, America from the south-east, and most of central Japan firebombed, there’s not a lot of good targets without hitting allies.
Thank you for the very well written write up. It reflects my exact thoughts on the dropping of the bombs, but laid out in a much more coherent manner.
Dropping the bombs was by all means a horror unleashed to stop an even greater horror from occuring. A trolley problem incarnate almost. Personally I think trying to moralize the bombs at all is reductive and ignores many of the facts of the situation and creates an idealized version of how wars are/where conducted that simply is not real.
drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they’re next
The Trinity tests would have most likely been observed by Japanese spies/network, so the Japanese leadership already knew of the destructive nature of the bomb. And yet they didn’t surrender when ordered, until the bomb was finally used on their citizenry.
The trinity tests weren’t even close to Japan’s shore… yes, spies would’ve seen it, or heard about it, but regular army people, generals, etc. and the emperor would only know a second or third hand story.
Compare that to walking down the street and seeing a giant mushroom cloud at a safe but not so far distance, potentially with a large part of Japan’s navy gone in a blink (and maybe a bit of a tsunami as well). Let’s say this was timed such that the emperor himself would likely observe it. We can’t know for sure, and I concede that Japanese culture was very much “victory or death” at that time, but seeing it in person might, just might’ve changed some people’s mind, with a much smaller civilian death toll.
Doesn’t matter what the population thinks ultimately, it only matters what the leadership thinks, and the leadership would have gotten a full report on the destructive nature, and the ramifications of, from the Trinity test.
So blowing up another one off on the Tokyo Harbor wouldn’t have added anything to what the leadership already knew about their chances of winning the war.
Trust me, if the leadership saw this first hand it would make a much bigger impression.
Anyways, I think the conversation derailed a bit, I cannot claim this would’ve worked for sure, I don’t have a time machine. My point is, this was done with the intention to cause mass civilian casualties, which today one could argue it being a war crime (and that’s why I don’t approve of it), but of course, the Geneva convention didn’t exist yet at the time.
Maybe there was a different way to get the Japanese to surrender, with fewer casualties, but it doesn’t look like the US really tried.
Not trying to downplay what Japan did, but I don’t think that’s why they dropped the bombs. Russia was closing in and the US didn’t seem keen on having to divide up Japan like they did in Europe. I’d say it’s more likely civilian targets were bombed to put social pressure on the emperor and government to accept defeat.
These bombs don’t discriminate, so even put into context like you say, it’s still not a good argument
For Truman, news of the successful Trinity test set up a momentous choice: whether or not to deploy the world’s first weapon of mass destruction. But it also came as a relief, as it meant the United States wouldn’t have to rely on the increasingly adversarial Soviet Union to enter World War II against Japan.
By the morning of August 9, 1945, Soviet troops had invaded Manchuria and Sakhalin Island, but there was still no word from the Japanese government regarding surrender.
Moreover, regular incendiary bombing raids were destroying huge portions of one city after another, food and fuel were in short supply, and millions of civilians were homeless. General Curtis LeMay, the commander of American air forces in the Pacific, estimated that by the end of September he would have destroyed every target in Japan worth hitting. The argument that Japan would have collapsed by early fall is speculative but powerful.
Of course the bombing campaign was purposed to pressure the Japanese government to surrender, but that it was, as you claim, so that the US didn’t have to carve up Japan with the Soviets is a claim that lacks support, and I couldn’t find that claim in your sources neither.
Justice Sotomayor did not hold back in her dissent:
“Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy,” Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Li- brary ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” Ibid. The answer after today is no. Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”
The entire dissent was a solid read, if you’re into that kind of stuff. Just another little choice quote which made me chuckle:
In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled under- standings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them
It should, and the Democrats should absolutely use their own decision against them to reinstate a neutral Supreme Court. But I expect mild grumbling followed by silence.
Right. So I guess the main question now is what’s stopping Biden from going on a 3 month bender and reconstructing the entire government, from SCOTUS to Congress?
I’ve wondered for a while if the breakdown is caused by living on our phones, Covid separation, government and mass media divisiveness, or some brain empathy destroying component in our water we haven’t discovered yet. Or a combination of all, because holy shit.
None of those are bad answers, but since societal breakdown has been continuously occurring since humans started societies, with people pointing to technology, government, media or toxins as they culprit, I doubt it has much more to do with external factors then it does with internal factors.
I would say the biggest factor is the emboldening of the people who were already toxic, because this has been progressing for decades now in the US, if not the rest of the world.
Once the racists could hide their hatred in plain view by simply saying “it’s just a joke”, it became that much easier for them to say the quiet part out loud. And once they got bold enough with that, all bets were off. The divisiveness of media (both traditional and social) is profit-motive driven and probably comes as a direct result of the former developments. Clicks bring in the ad revenue, and nobody clicks faster or more often than an angry crowd.
There’s plenty of other factors too, I’m sure, like lead poisoning from all the lead being spewed out by cars with leaded gasoline back in the day (one of the side effects of lead poisoning is increased aggression), and the removal of third places that had once allowed people from all walks of life and social classes have a common area where they’d meet and interact. But letting the racists get away with it is definitely a big one.
I heard once that after no-fault divorces started becoming wide-spread, murders of husbands by their wives decreased, since women now had a way to get out of a marriage.
I often used to scratch my head at hearing creaky old cons complaining about no-fault divorce. I thought those crusty old sort had mostly left this plane, but it seems some of the young cons are now making that a thing again.
They really, really, really just want to control the wimminfolk. Things like contraception, access to financial services, being able to drive, and yes, abortion (“on demand”, as if anything else makes any sense - what the hell else would any health service be, FFS - I’ve always laughed at people adding “on demand” to the conversation as if it’s a BAD thing. ) drives a certain type of person (men AND women, by the way) up the wall…
Wasn’t there a lawyer lady on reddit that sued Airbnb because she rented a studio unit that had indoor cameras? I following her posts until reddit decided to kill Infinity.
I left Reddit when they announced their API change because their mobile app and mobile web experience suck, and i wasn’t confident in them keeping old Reddit around (I hate the new web UI).
Yeah! She didn’t get very far with it. They kept running her around in circles. If we’re talking about the same one… I mean that’s probably gotta happen a lot, really.
My red state doesn’t even allow citizen-initiated ballot measures. Some red states have had positive changes enacted that way, but my state doesn’t even have that.
Now is your chance to sell the new upside down american flags for triple the price to the stupidest people on planet earth. Do it quick before they realize they can just flip over the 27 flags they already own. End your ebay listing with god bless to really sell it.
Right-wingers love to disrespect the flag. Seems to contradict their allegiance to the flag, and the liberty and justice for all it is purported to represent.
Reminder: Hamas does not have a presence in the West Bank. Mass killings of Palestinians have never been about containing or defeating Hamas. The killing, destruction of property/seizure of land, and creation of fear are the point.
That’s false.
Hamas does have a presence, and it has grown over the years of people being dissatisfied with Fatah. And the support of Hamas there is even greater than in Gaza.
His lawyer, Ryan Newman, defined it in court as such:
The belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them.
So yeah, they know exactly what it means (beyond the mouthbreathers definition of “everything I don’t like”). What makes them evil twats was the next thing he said to the judge:
[DeSantis] doesn’t believe there are systemic injustices in the country.
Which means that either a) he’s lying about that (which he is) or b) he’s burning all his political capital trying to stop a thing that isn’t even happening.
The sooner this plastic-faced, white-jack-booted, can’t-smile chode and his power-hungry, Stepford-smiling, Temu Jackie O. disappear, the better.
You could put a clever spin on this to say that it means DeSantis doesn’t think there’s any bias against conservatives. Which, there isn’t, but Republicans won’t like hearing that.
npr.org
Top