Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 2: Line 2:
 
The '''[[Nuclear war|atomic bombing]]''' of the [[Japan]]ese city of '''Hiroshima''', quickly followed by the bombing of '''Nagasaki''' (on August 6 and August 9, 1945 respectively) established that the [[Greek]] myth of "opening Pandora's box" had real-life consequences.<ref>[http://www.farfilm.com/films/white-light-black-rain-learn.html "...and the genie can't be stuffed back in the bottle."] - Lawrence Johnston, "Little Man" developer</ref>  With a combined death toll of at least 200,000,<ref>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp10.asp</ref> the attacks marked the end of [[World War II]] with the total surrender of the [[Axis]] powers, the culmination of the [[Manhattan Project]], and doomed human civilization to over [[Cold War|40 years of threatening apocalypse for diplomatic gain]].   
 
The '''[[Nuclear war|atomic bombing]]''' of the [[Japan]]ese city of '''Hiroshima''', quickly followed by the bombing of '''Nagasaki''' (on August 6 and August 9, 1945 respectively) established that the [[Greek]] myth of "opening Pandora's box" had real-life consequences.<ref>[http://www.farfilm.com/films/white-light-black-rain-learn.html "...and the genie can't be stuffed back in the bottle."] - Lawrence Johnston, "Little Man" developer</ref>  With a combined death toll of at least 200,000,<ref>http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp10.asp</ref> the attacks marked the end of [[World War II]] with the total surrender of the [[Axis]] powers, the culmination of the [[Manhattan Project]], and doomed human civilization to over [[Cold War|40 years of threatening apocalypse for diplomatic gain]].   
  
The [[ethical]] justifications of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in considerable debate and will likely do so indefinitely.  Those on the "pro-" side maintain that it was a necessary measure to prevent an inevitable invasion of Japan, with casualties expected to go into the millions,<ref>{{wpa|Operation Downfall}} (Double the landing force of Normandy and [[42]] aircraft carriers.  Yes, you heard that correctly.)</ref> while opponents consider it [[state terrorism]] (or [[genocide|genocidal]]) and question its military necessity as [[Soviet]] forces were already cornering Manchuria from the west.  Still arguing about it probably isn't juvenile, as there was no consensus even amongst the [[US]] generals themselves.<ref>[http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm Who disagreed with the atomic bombing?]</ref>
+
The [[ethical]] justifications of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in considerable debate and will likely do so indefinitely.  Those on the "pro-" side maintain that it was a necessary measure to prevent an inevitable invasion of Japan, with casualties expected to go into the millions,<ref>{{wpa|Operation Downfall}} (Double the landing force of Normandy and [[42]] aircraft carriers.  Yes, you heard that correctly.)</ref> while opponents consider it [[state terrorism]] (or [[genocide|genocidal]]) and question its military necessity as [[Soviet]] forces were already cornering Manchuria from the west.  
 +
 
 +
Arguments about the necessity of the bombing occasionally come across as being slightly racist: 'The US had to use the a-bombs since the Japanese were so committed to their nation and Emperor, that they would have fought to the last man,woman and child'. The implication of this statement is that the Japanese were different from European enemies (such as Ze Germans), who were not quite so fanatical, and thus didn't need to have the morale nuked out of them. The stereotype of the fanatical Japanese warrior-state that would fight to the very bitter-end (images of school children and housewives using bamboo spears to defend the God-Emperor are often invoked) doesn't really have any relation to reality. There is some indication <ref>http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinnpeopleswar.html</ref> that the Japanese realized there was no way they could win, and were willing to negotiate a surrender before the US dropped the two bombs. Howard Zinn has argued that if the US was willing to budge just a little on some issues (not demanding total surrender from the Japanese, letting the Emperor go on pretending to be the a living god), a settlement could have been reached before the bombings. Regardless of other issues, the bombing did amount to an enormous strategic advantage for the US; by detonating not one, but two atom bombs, the US showed other erstwhile superpowers (I'm looking at you, USSR!) that Uncle Sam had the ability and the will to resort to super weapons in conflicts.
 +
 
 +
  Still arguing about the justifications for the bombings probably isn't juvenile, as there was no consensus even amongst the [[US]] generals themselves.<ref>[http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm Who disagreed with the atomic bombing?]</ref>
  
 
==Footnotes==
 
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 17:07, 19 March 2013

Never again.
What is it good for? Absolutely nothing!

War

Icon war2.svg
Don't believe us?
I made one great mistake in my life.
Albert Einstein[1]

The atomic bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima, quickly followed by the bombing of Nagasaki (on August 6 and August 9, 1945 respectively) established that the Greek myth of "opening Pandora's box" had real-life consequences.[2] With a combined death toll of at least 200,000,[3] the attacks marked the end of World War II with the total surrender of the Axis powers, the culmination of the Manhattan Project, and doomed human civilization to over 40 years of threatening apocalypse for diplomatic gain.

The ethical justifications of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in considerable debate and will likely do so indefinitely. Those on the "pro-" side maintain that it was a necessary measure to prevent an inevitable invasion of Japan, with casualties expected to go into the millions,[4] while opponents consider it state terrorism (or genocidal) and question its military necessity as Soviet forces were already cornering Manchuria from the west.

Arguments about the necessity of the bombing occasionally come across as being slightly racist: 'The US had to use the a-bombs since the Japanese were so committed to their nation and Emperor, that they would have fought to the last man,woman and child'. The implication of this statement is that the Japanese were different from European enemies (such as Ze Germans), who were not quite so fanatical, and thus didn't need to have the morale nuked out of them. The stereotype of the fanatical Japanese warrior-state that would fight to the very bitter-end (images of school children and housewives using bamboo spears to defend the God-Emperor are often invoked) doesn't really have any relation to reality. There is some indication [5] that the Japanese realized there was no way they could win, and were willing to negotiate a surrender before the US dropped the two bombs. Howard Zinn has argued that if the US was willing to budge just a little on some issues (not demanding total surrender from the Japanese, letting the Emperor go on pretending to be the a living god), a settlement could have been reached before the bombings. Regardless of other issues, the bombing did amount to an enormous strategic advantage for the US; by detonating not one, but two atom bombs, the US showed other erstwhile superpowers (I'm looking at you, USSR!) that Uncle Sam had the ability and the will to resort to super weapons in conflicts.

Still arguing about the justifications for the bombings probably isn't juvenile, as there was no consensus even amongst the US generals themselves.[6]

Footnotes

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support