"Thank God for the Atom Bomb"

[Shek]

This should hopefully spark some good discussion.

http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/Fussell.pdf

Many years ago in New York I saw on the side of a bus a whiskey ad I've remembered all this time. It's been for me a model of the short poem, and indeed I've come upon few short poems subsequently that exhibited more poetic talent. The ad consisted of two eleven-syllable lines of "verse," thus:

In life, experience is the great teacher.
In Scotch, Teacher's is the great experience.

(Page 14) For present purposes we must jettison the second line (licking our lips, to be sure, as it disappears), leaving the first to register a principle whose banality suggests that it enshrines a most useful truth. I bring up the matter because, writing on the forty-second anniversary of the atom-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I want to consider something suggested by the long debate about the ethics, if any, of that ghastly affair. Namely, the importance of experience, sheer, vulgar experience, in influencing, if not determining, one's views about that use of the atom bomb.

OoE, feel free to comment on the ad as well ;)

[ahmet]

There is nothing to defend about the idea of dropping the a-bombs and causing hundreds of thousands of death.

[Bill]

You're right asshat, because starving people out with a massive conventional bombing campaign and a full-scale naval blockade, thereby causing the death of perhaps ten million plus is definitely more humane than forcing an early end to the war and saving a full scale invasion of the Home Islands.

Friggin' idiot.

[leib10]

Dropping the bomb undoubtedly saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives. Strange as it may sound, you sometimes have to destroy life to preserve it.

However, if the Allies had lost the war and the leaders had been put on a Nuremberg-style trial, it would've gone down as the greatest "war crime" of the war.

[Semper Fi]

Lemay killed more people with his firebombing then those two nukes ever did. I think Japan was gonna surrender soon anyways after Stalin declared war on Japan. The Soviets declared war on Japan either the day the first bomb was dropped, or the following day. Either way Japan knew it was in a world of ****. When you start resorting to training kids with bamboo sticks you know you lost.

[Asim Aquil]

You're right asshat, because starving people out with a massive conventional bombing campaign and a full-scale naval blockade, thereby causing the death of perhaps ten million plus is definitely more humane than forcing an early end to the war and saving a full scale invasion of the Home Islands.

Friggin' idiot.

If thats the case you should have surrendered!

You nuked people to save lives, sure.

[ArmchairGeneral]

If thats the case you should have surrendered!

You nuked people to save lives, sure.

Well, it seems like America had options: 1) Do nothing, since Japan's ability to attack her neighbors was gone; 2) Blockade and/or invade; 3) Nuke. If we did one, Japan quite possibly would have just built up her strength and started the war again, with consequent mass death and destruction. If we did two, we cause starvation and/or slaughter at least an order of magnitude greater than the nukes caused. So that leaves nukes as the best way to win with the least number of lives lost, no?

[Bluesman]

If thats the case you should have surrendered!

You nuked people to save lives, sure.

Sure, indeed. That's how it worked out. Argue with history if you want; it's about as plain as anything that it shortened the war, and made an absolutely hopeless last-ditch battle to the very apex of destruction unnecessary.

[Bluesman]

Lemay killed more people with his firebombing then those two nukes ever did. I think Japan was gonna surrender soon anyways after Stalin declared war on Japan. The Soviets declared war on Japan either the day the first bomb was dropped, or the following day. Either way Japan knew it was in a world of ****. When you start resorting to training kids with bamboo sticks you know you lost.

Problem was, they did NOT know they lost. They were quite prepared to go to that extent. Which is precisely why what was done HAD to be done.

[Bluesman]

There is nothing to defend about the idea of dropping the a-bombs and causing hundreds of thousands of death.

Well, I certainly don't think it needs defending, either, quite frankly. I'm coming at it from an entirely different set of values and judgement than you, but ain't it funny that we end up with the same conclusion:

The decision certainly does NOT need to be defended.

[Bill]

If thats the case you should have surrendered!

You nuked people to save lives, sure.

Do i need to talk to someone about getting you re-banned?

[Asim Aquil]

Do i need to talk to someone about getting you re-banned?

Get your sniper rifle back first.

[Parihaka]

If thats the case you should have surrendered!

You nuked people to save lives, sure.

Perhaps you should consider how many of us hairy barbarians would have been killed if we HAD surrendered to the Japanese? I expect we'd be pretty much extinct in the Pacific hemisphere at least. Also, my dad certainly had his chances of survival dramatically increased by not having to take part in an invasion, so just that is good for me.



In fact to be perfectly honest, I'd be quite happy if Japan had been nuked from top to bottom, side to side, with not a square inch left unglowing. It's nice that they haven't been, but I wouldn't have lost any sleep over it.

[Asim Aquil]

Perhaps you should consider how many of us hairy barbarians would have been killed if we HAD surrendered to the Japanese? I expect we\'d be pretty much extinct in the Pacific hemisphere at least. Also, my dad certainly had his chances of survival dramatically increased by not having to take part in an invasion, so just that is good for me.



In fact to be perfectly honest, I\'d be quite happy if Japan had been nuked from top to bottom, side to side, with not a square inch left unglowing. It\'s nice that they haven\'t been, but I wouldn\'t have lost any sleep over it.

So say that... Don\'t say you did it to save lives of the world. You saved your own lives.

[Bluesman]

So say that... Don\'t say you did it to save lives of the world. You saved your own lives.

Well, that's perfectly valid, in a war we didn't start. But it's more than that: it WAS, on balance, and for EVERYbody, a Good Thing that nukes were used. I swear, chief, I'm not sure I can take ANYbody seriously that can't see that. It really IS that obvious.