Hiroshima (1946)
newyorker.com
Hiroshima (1946)
1–10 of 196 posts
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#2It must have been a surreal experience, to walk through the burning remains of your world, without an explanation as to "How".
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#3> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed.
However I may feel about the bomb having been used, I don't doubt it saved more lives than it took. As for all the civilians and children and other non-combatants, I doubt the tragedy would have been less without the bomb. It's hard for me to reconcile how such an obvious force of destruction could be more desirable than an invasion, and that's probably because it's very hard for me to understand the destruction an invasion creates. An invasion's impact isn't as easy to put into neat pictures and anecdotes as a singular experience that a bomb explosion creates.
There's some question if the ramp up of the Soviets on their eastern border had more to do with Japan's surrender than the atomic bombs we dropped. I'm not sure there's a clear answer there.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#4It must have been a surreal experience, to walk through the burning remains of your world, without an explanation as to "How".
Even with an explanation to "How", "Why" is the more common question when faced with intentional and extreme tragedy against yourself and loved ones.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#5It must have been a surreal experience, to walk through the burning remains of your world, without an explanation as to "How".
Even with an explanation to "How", "Why" is the more common question when faced with intentional and extreme tragedy against yourself and loved ones.
Having gone through Katrina and been deployed for Fukushima, I assure you, there is plenty of time for the survivors to contemplate all the questions. That is arguably part of the tragedy of survivorship: facing down all the questions, and knowing with cruel certainty there will be time to face them.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#6> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…
> I don't doubt it saved more lives than it took
> I'm not sure there's a clear answer there.
You need to investigate your beliefs. I will not make a stand, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... a long going debate.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#7> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…
They sure teach the kids well in US schools.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#8It must have been a surreal experience, to walk through the burning remains of your world, without an explanation as to "How".
Even with an explanation to "How", "Why" is the more common question when faced with intentional and extreme tragedy against yourself and loved ones.
I think the "why" would have been obvious to anyone -- there was an ongoing, active war in which both sides had been bombing each other and killing civilians, and Hiroshima was contributing significant production toward the war effort.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#9> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…
By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it.
Iraq invades Kuwait? Nuke it.
North Korea developing weapons of mass destruction? Nuke it.
Why mess around with invasions.
Note the scientists who developed the bomb begged the US government to first drop one off the coast of Japan to demonstrate to them what they were facing.
Instead we killed tens of thousands of civilians on purpose, not once, but went back a second time. The lucky ones were vaporized instantly. The unlucky ones died over weeks in horrible pain from radiation and mass organ failure.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#10> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…
> However I may feel about the bomb having been used, I don't doubt it saved more lives than it took.
There's absolutely no clear answer to this question, even among military historians, so I'm not sure how you can have no doubt about it.