Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 2nd, 2012, 05:56 AM   #51

skizzerflake's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 2,138

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Winter View Post
......Ponder, what is more important - two or three hundred of thousand of civilians or a thousand or two thousand of soldiers of your army.

I suspect that the smart people who justify the U.S. atomic bombing probably will hesitate to accept aloud the legitimacy of such kind of examples.

That's why in order not to put them in an awkward position, I said all this on their behalf.

Don't thank me,I just wanted to make a good deed for them.
Every now and again, humanity takes a small step away from the dung-hole. War is a bad thing and while we don't seem to be able to avoid it, we can hopefully make little steps to minimize its horror. Having some concern for non-combatants is one of those things that helps a little. It may be true that as a cold calculation, it makes sense to throw lots of women, children, disabled and elderly at the enemy in the hope that they will run out of bullets before we run out of children, but at some point you have so little humanity left that none of this means much anyway. For an army to fight, there has to be something worth defending.
skizzerflake is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 3rd, 2012, 09:33 PM   #52

General Winter's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: May 2012
From: In the Land of Russia where the Shadows lie
Posts: 586
Blog Entries: 20

In Nagasaki the was a camp with American POWs.Today you kill private Rayan - tomorrow you make a movie "Saving private Rayan".Facts are not important,mythes are important.Those who make mythes write history.

Of course,I'm not so naive,I don't think I have convinced nuclear enthusiasts.I am fully aware that their arguments base on the sincere belief that everything that the United States have ever done is a great blessing for all.And such a conviction can not be disturb by arguments.

It's a religion.

So the psalms of beneficence of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be sung regularly and enthusiastically. As long as there exists a religion, so long there exist psalms.Naturally.
General Winter is online now  
Old December 4th, 2012, 07:55 PM   #53

skizzerflake's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 2,138

Quote:
Originally Posted by General Winter View Post
In Nagasaki the was a camp with American POWs.Today you kill private Rayan - tomorrow you make a movie "Saving private Rayan".Facts are not important,mythes are important.Those who make mythes write history.

Of course,I'm not so naive,I don't think I have convinced nuclear enthusiasts.I am fully aware that their arguments base on the sincere belief that everything that the United States have ever done is a great blessing for all.And such a conviction can not be disturb by arguments.

It's a religion.

So the psalms of beneficence of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be sung regularly and enthusiastically. As long as there exists a religion, so long there exist psalms.Naturally.
I'm neither an "American Exceptionalist" nor a nuke fan. In fact, I'm a cynic and a believer that at the bottom we all have our feet in the mud. What I can't escape, however, is that that idea of a nuclear weapon was out once Leon Szilard started talking about fission back in the 1930's. One thing about invention is that it always gets "out". In the military world, a weapon will always be used, somewhere, on somebody.

Over the centuries weapons have terrified us....biological warfare in the ancient world (diseased bodies catapulted into fortresses), Greek Fire, the crossbow, the first firearms, artillery, tanks, battleships, chemical weapons, etc have all had their moment as the apocalypse and all were eventually used on somebody and in a few cases, we collectively decided that they really were awful and we tried to ban or discourage them.

In the case of nukes, ever since their only 2 uses, it's been obvious to the world that they are very bad. Hiroshima and Nagasaki provided definitive evidence to the world of this. Somebody was going to use one sooner or later. It was better sooner, before there were a lot of them and before there were H Bombs. It happened to be the US, but it could have been somebody else and, by that time they might have had more or bigger nukes or a worse agenda. Even the most radical Americans of 1945 just wanted the war to be over and the nukes seemed to be the quickest was with the least American deaths. It's really a simple calculation that doesn't have much to do with religion....do the most damage to the other guy and the least to yourself...they way war works.
skizzerflake is offline  
Old December 4th, 2012, 09:52 PM   #54
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

It would be absurd to the Nth degree to imagine that virtually any other leader of any contender nation aside of Mr Truman & Mr Churchill (don't forget Britain was a full partner in this decision too) wouldn't have used such an extremely strategically valuable (and expensive) weapon had it been available for them against their enemies in such an extremely fierce war, from Uncle Joe to Hirohito himself.
sylla1 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 07:49 PM   #55

skizzerflake's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Mar 2010
From: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 2,138

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylla1 View Post
It would be absurd to the Nth degree to imagine that virtually any other leader of any contender nation aside of Mr Truman & Mr Churchill (don't forget Britain was a full partner in this decision too) wouldn't have used such an extremely strategically valuable (and expensive) weapon had it been available for them against their enemies in such an extremely fierce war, from Uncle Joe to Hirohito himself.
I'm guessing that you think Stalin or Hirohito, not to mention Hitler, would have used them if they had them. That's why I'm glad the US got them first. Not that we were entirely innocent, but I think we had the most benign agenda when considered against the likes of those guys.
skizzerflake is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 08:28 PM   #56
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 19,934

Quote:
Originally Posted by skizzerflake View Post
I'm guessing that you think Stalin or Hirohito, not to mention Hitler, would have used them if they had them. That's why I'm glad the US got them first. Not that we were entirely innocent, but I think we had the most benign agenda when considered against the likes of those guys.
And Britain too; the decision of using the nukes came from both partners.

I mean literally any leader of any relevant contender of WW2; there's hardly any doubt any of them would have used the nuke had it been available for them.
sylla1 is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
1945, 6th, atomic, august, bomb, dropped, hiroshima


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.