Summarily saying it's textbook crime against humanity is bad in the sense that you're comparing a military decision during a World War (something that hasn't happened since WWII, thus we have no modern context to put a World War in) to, for instance, Saddam Hussein using nerve gas against citizens of his own nation, or the "ethnic purging" in Eastern Europe, or (in a more time-appropriate context), the Holocaust in Germany.
What made it particularly bad was that the majority of casualties happened at once. That's what made the WTC attacks so heinous: it wasn't 3000 people killed in a war, it was 3000 civvies dying pretty close together in two attacks over like an hour's time.
On the other hand, what made it even worse was that it was an attack on a civilian population in a nation not at war. Hiroshima was in a nation that had launched an unprovoked attack on a nation that fought back. They started it, and designated themselves as military combatants. There was no more peaceful response available that would have achieved the same (or better) results in a timely fashion. They were, unfortunately, military targets.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Mod who doth quote:
Show how this discussion not only involves socialism but EXTREME socialism, since the socialism scale goes pretty far towards collectivism simply 'farther left than the libertarian party' won't cut it, or stop just dropping meaningless buzzwords.
You swooped in to defend Chomsky and Churchill, both of whom are radical ivory tower marxists.
I thought that was pretty obvious.
quote:
Blindy. got served! Blindy. got served!
If we hadn't nuked japan, they'd be speaking russian right now.
More or less. A huge motivation for using the atomic bomb was Stalin's expansion in Eastern Europe. Aware that a showdown between Stalin and the west was probably imminent, demonstrating such an awesome weapon would both nullify Russia's claim to Japan and eliminate a second front in the Cold war. It'd also make Stalin think twice about pushing westward in Europe.
Retrospectively, we also now see that it facilitated an unconditional surrender, which meant that the United States could shred at will the legal-moral structure of Japan. This ensured that the apparatus of Japanese fascism could never be imposed from above again, as it had been in 1933.
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. - John Kenneth Galbraith
quote:
Hay guys what's going on in this Bloodsage?
That's just stupid. The only way to reach that conclusion is to apply today's knowledge and morality retroactively from the safety and security of our modern superiority.Before making sweeping generalizations about which you haven't the faintest clue, I suggest you read up on morality and warfare, as well as the various treaties and laws in effect at the time.
While perhaps unthinkable due to the myths that have surrounded nuclear weapons over the last half-century, given a similar situation today, it would be quite possible to justify the same bombings given today's laws of war. Killing civilians is not, contrary to popular belief, forbidden--it's just that the expected civilian casualties must be proportional to the expected military gain. Further, in struggles for national survival, it is generally deemed morally permissable to target all phases of the enemy's production chain, including factory workers, the national infrastructure, and whatever else may contribute to the war machine.
Keeping in mind that I am in fact speaking in terms of today's knowledge and morality, safely from the comfort an enlightened and free country--and furthermore, noting that the question is framed in terms of today's knowledge and morality--namely my position on the decision to drop the bombs, that it is perfectly reasonable to use our modern superiority to judge.
The difference between the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the relatively comparable destruction of the city of Dresden earlier in the war is in the nature of the effects. Dresden was destroyed, and ~100,000 caught in it were killed, (surely more injured, but hey) and that was the end of it. In Hiroshima, however, the ~80,000 were killed instantly--but another ~60,000 died of radiation sickness by the end of the year, and all who survived past that suffered from varying degrees of radiation poisoning, as I'm sure you're aware. As for the treaties in place at the time, while nuclear weapons were unknown to international law of the time, the Hague Convention IV, 1907, Laws and Customs of War on Land, Articles 22, 23, already dealt with weapons that poison people. Though, back to the same realm of conjecture as the invasion scenario--if the losers had successfully developed and used the nuclear bomb, and somehow still lost--would those responsible for its use be brought up before Nuremburg and hanged for it, or would they not?
quote:
Pvednes had this to say about Knight Rider:
if the losers had successfully developed and used the nuclear bomb, and somehow still lost--would those responsible for its use be brought up before Nuremburg and hanged for it, or would they not?
Pvednes, if the losers had somehow successfully developed the atomic bomb and still lost, I can promise there would not have been a trial.
The winners would have taken those people that developed the bomb, held their families at gunpoint, and told them to start making bombs for the winning side.
Not to mention that, at the time, bombing accuracy was so poor that the ability to use a single bomb to ensure a target's destruction that that fact alone nearly meets the legal test for proportionality.
You're just buying into the myth that nuclear weapons are somehow inherently legal.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage painfully thought these words up:
You're just buying into the myth that nuclear weapons are somehow inherently legal.
Moi? 
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Pvednes absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Moi?
Yeah, yeah, make fun of my typo. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Yeah, yeah, make fun of my typo.
Freudian slip, totally. 
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Pvednes fucked around with this message on 08-07-2005 at 11:32 PM.
quote:
Everyone wondered WTF when Kait wrote:
You know what's hilarious? I watched "Grave of the Fireflies" for the first time on this day. I had no idea about the anniversary until my father came down and told me about it. I almost didn't believe him -_-
I'm sorry, are you saying that you never heard of the bombs droped on Japan?
Some people are like Slinkys... Not really good for anything, But they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.
quote:
Jackman had this to say about Punky Brewster:
I'm sorry, are you saying that you never heard of the bombs droped on Japan?
Um, what? o.o
quote:
Kait painfully thought these words up:
You know what's hilarious? I watched "Grave of the Fireflies" for the first time on this day. I had no idea about the anniversary until my father came down and told me about it. I almost didn't believe him -_-
Good story, good story.
Anyone who participates in encouraging Kait's derailment will join her in her fate. Mr. Parcelan fucked around with this message on 08-08-2005 at 04:15 PM.
Mr. Gainsborough fucked around with this message on 08-10-2005 at 02:30 AM.
quote:
Maradon! stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
You swooped in to defend Chomsky and Churchill, both of whom are radical ivory tower marxists.I thought that was pretty obvious.
You weren't attacking Chomsky and Churchilll, you were attacking the whole of academia, an extremely large and diverse group, which just happens to include Chomsky and Churchill. This is about as valid as attacking the entire 'clergy' based on the actions of Fred Phleps and Pope Pius, or attacking politicians by pointing out Milosevic and Nixon.
I have only passing familiarity with Churchill so I can't comment on him and while Chomsky has in fact denounced actual Marxism and I wouldn't call him a 'radical' Marxist, his ideas on anarcho-syndicalism do include some Marxist elements, so this time you actually have a slight bit of ground to stand on while yelling Marx as if his name were some sort of terrible curseword.
