Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:21:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
568 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > Now you're the one who's going for the complicated explanation ;)
>
> The world is a complicated place. Or would you rather Truman hadn't
> considered all those factors?
>
> You can handle the complexity, I think. You're trying to run two arguments
> here at the same time, one about necessity and the other about morality,
> after all.
Oh, that was just sarcasm about the last time you accused me of
over-analyzing a situation down to many constituent parts and rating those
parts as nigh on irrelevant. Hence the little ';)'.
> > As pointed out,
> > two bombs were dropped and they still didn't surrender (at least not
> > immediately). Were the bombs really providing the motivation? And to pick
> > back to the side-issue, wasn't what motivation they were providing based on
> > threat of terror?
>
> No, the motivation was that we had a *new weapon* that could wreak so much
> havoc with relative impunity (since we owned the sky at that point) that we
> were about to become well nigh invincible and that the emperor cult was
> going to therefore fall one way or another no matter what. That motivation
> would still have been there if the weapon was one that made all metal go
> away but left people around just fine (to pick a hypothetical weapon that
> has a lot lower death quotient but still has that same invincibility) within
> its effect radius.
You just hit the nail on the head, didn't you? That we had a "new weapon"--
and that we weren't afraid to use it! "Be scared, you Japanese! Behold our
new super-weapon! Surrender or else!" Yes? Isn't what you described
instilling fear in the enemy as opposed to preventing them from retaliating?
Isn't that terrorism? You may still argue that it was a *necessary* and
maybe even a *moral* use of terrorism (I'll disagree if you do, but carry it
little further), but I think you're arguing that it *was* terrorism.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I think I missed that the first time. It was my understanding that they surrendered about as immediately as could be possibly arranged given the circumstances. Can you restate why you feel they did not surrender immediately? (...) I fear a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) No, at least I don't parse it that way. Feel free to diagram the sentence though, so I can see it! (...) The world is a complicated place. Or would you rather Truman hadn't considered all those factors? You can handle the complexity, I think. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
