Subject:
|
The Eternal Nuke Debate? (was: Re: First entry in "predict the responses!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 May 2002 22:20:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
308 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > And if they did, for the love of God, tell me to what end? Anyone who would
> > > do such a thing *is* irrational!
> >
> > You mean like dropping bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
>
> No, there was a rational reason for dropping those-- to end the war, and
> prevent even *more* widespread killing. And it worked.
This is the accepted wisdom, and no doubt that was a big part of the
justification. But I don't think it was the only reason.
> That is not to say that that call was a no-brainer. It was an agonizing
> decision to make, and truthfully, the morality of it will always be debated.
> But not its rationality.
An interesting sidebar: Another point that's often been brought up
is the less morally but far more psychologically defensible one (well,
actually, two): The Japanese paid with their suffering to save *all*
of us for the last 57 years. One, it showed the Soviet Union that we
had a weapon they didn't; and two, it showed them and the world what
nuclear weapons were capable of *against an actual target*. Without
that, all the tests in the world wouldn't acquaint us with the horror
until people started dropping them in active warfare. By dropping
the bombs to end the war, the rising tension between allies that was
not yet war could be headed off while the continuing terror of the
bombs' aftereffects were seen, studied, and dwarfed by new generations
of weapons. (Hiroshima was a 20kT bomb, if memory serves--we have
weapons in the 3000-5000kT range.)
I mean, when thinking about nuclear holocaust, who thinks about Bikini
Atoll? I don't. I think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And it was
that memory that really gave MAD the visceral sense--the teeth--that
made it a functioning Balance of Terror. Once you know that something
really kills and how, you're likely to treat it with a lot more respect.
In a sense, I feel like dropping those bombs--and the suffering of the
Japanese who endured them--have brought us all through the Cold War
without anyone lobbing nukes around.
Just a psychological sidebar. Yes, I think dropping the bombs was
justified, only for a slightly different mix of reasons--some of
which may not have been apparent to Truman and the CGS in July
and August of 1945.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: First entry in "predict the responses!"
|
| (...) No, there was a rational reason for dropping those-- to end the war, and prevent even *more* widespread killing. And it worked. That is not to say that that call was a no-brainer. It was an agonizing decision to make, and truthfully, the (...) (22 years ago, 22-May-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
16 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- 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
|
|
|
|
