Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#161

Post by nxzero »

kctess5 wrote: post #49
lotharbot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he's implying that "why it isn't documented" might be "because it didn't happen" ("it" being serious offers of surrender by Japan that reached the ears of US decision makers.) And that asking "why wasn't it documented?" presupposes that it did happen, which makes it a leading question.

Yep.

I'm not assuming that it did happened, I'm assuming that if you're going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, that every attempt to reach a outcome that does not require it should be tried and documented.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#162

Post by JoeAltmaier »

nxzero wrote: post #161
kctess5 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep.

I'm not assuming that it did happened, I'm assuming that if you're going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, that every attempt to reach a outcome that does not require it should be tried and documented.

Does 'years of war and 50 millions dead' count as an attempt? Rather than an armchair, the decision-makers were coming from a viewpoint that included more of their friends dying horribly every week. As Tibbets, the guy that flew the mission said about critics of the event, "Those people never had their balls on that cold, hard anvil. They can say anything they want."

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#163

Post by freemore »

kbart wrote: post #155
freemore wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today, Chinese government says that Japanese army killed 300,000 people in Nanking. In reality, Nanking's population had been doubled at that time. Plus, there were only 200,000 people from the beginning. I still think there had been something small massacres though, why can't we find dead bodies for 300,000 people? Talking about comfort women, the system was not only Japan. USA and South Korea had also introduced ex…

I didn't downvote you, but such claims really require good sources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitutes_in_South_Korea_for...

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#164

Post by lujim »

hugh4 wrote: post #60
hasenj wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. I mean there are ways to end a war without total destruction. And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment.

>I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. Great idea! Now, how do we persuade the other side to sign that agreement?

Since we have our pens out we should also sign something outlawing poverty, disease, and Mondays.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#165

Post by lujim »

bluejekyll wrote: post #83
hugh4 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. Great idea! Now, how do we persuade the other side to sign that agreement?

You're making the assumption that you -need- the other side to sign an agreement. Japan was completely contained by the US at this point in the war. This was a decision to hasten the end of the war, but did we ever actually leave? We still have bases in Japan. This was about hastening an end with a guarantee that the US would have full control of Japan. Please don't misunderstand me though, Japan needed to be defeate…

So maybe just a tug o' war or a water balloon fight to decide the winner of the Pacific War?

We could have used those 1 million Purple Hearts we produced for the invasion of Japan for anyone who stubbed a toe during all the festivities.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#166

Post by lujim »

hasenj wrote: post #53
ksou32 wrote: post #40

It's very easy to judge past America 60 years from the moment. Say you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon to end the war ?

I think would much rather my leaders just sign some sort of an armistice agreement rather than annihilate "enemy" civilians. I mean there are ways to end a war without total destruction. And the logic of killing civilians to save soldiers is just .. no comment.

Well to be fair soldiers are humans and aren't just completely disposable. Read "With the Old Breed" by Eugene Sledge to see the fun and games a 19 year old kid from Mobile Alabama got to have as a US Marine in the Pacific. Spoiler alert, his experience was probably about as bad as anything a human could endure.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#167

Post by krapp »

nihonde wrote: post #159
krapp wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None. But AFAIK the US is obligated by treaty to defend Japan against any external military threats, meaning any potential conflicts Japan might have with its neighbors would be fought on Japan's behalf by the US. Japan is ostensibly pacifist because it's "military" isn't Japanese, it's American.

I guarantee you that "Japan is ostensibly pacifist" because the people who live here right now have no interest in war. The only signals of war and conflict here are American. No normal people in Japan are interested in the territorial conflicts with China, or constitutional debates about self-defense, or where to stage American military hardware, except that they would like all of that nonsense to end so that they c…

The ironic thing is that I agree with you far more than I disagree with you, and I'm anything but "programmed to see America as the great liberator of the world". I would like nothing more than for the US to reduce its global military presence, because I think the age of nuclear superpowers and the "Pax Americana" is coming to an end, and, as you said, the US is becoming the problem.

However, you seem to be incapable of perceiving Americans as anything but mind-controlled militarists, or of seeing Japan's relationship with the US military as anything more complex than a violent foreign intruder forcing its will onto a pure and innocent yamato nadeshiko, so I'm going to stop trying to engage you in thoughtful conversation on this topic.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#168

Post by krapp »

dmfdmf wrote: post #151
krapp wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a joke, but to be honest, I always make exceptions for self-contradiction and the possibility that I am unaware of my own ignorance. I believe humans are by nature contradictory, we're wired for bias confirmation, not truth. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

"I was just joking" ...always the refrain of the scoundrel when called on their BS, at least in my experience. It is a strawman to imply that my position is that no one is allowed any contradiction or errors whatsoever. The issue is not errors of knowledge or mistakes but the failure to correct such errors when they are found. An honest man works to correct his errors and contradictions, i.e. is consistent, while the…

>It is a strawman to imply that my position is that no one is allowed any contradiction or errors whatsoever.

It's also a strawman to imply that I ever implied that.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#169

Post by ksou32 »

sangnoir wrote: post #154
ksou32 wrote: post #40

It's very easy to judge past America 60 years from the moment. Say you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon to end the war ?

Added additional context to your question: > Say as an armed soldier, you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. > Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon on civilians to end the war ? I know WWII blurred the lines on what counts a legitimate target (military installations, civilian-manned factories, entire towns like the firebombing of Dresden). As a soldier, would you…

Most of the men in WW 2 were drafted.

In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Truman's duty is to American boys who are dying in a war Japan started. He's wasn't the president of Japan

You also have to factor in with any negotiation Japan may of argued they still owned Korea, as they'd had since 1910

In the Battle of the Bulge children were drafted,they magically become disposable war machines.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#170

Post by ksou32 »

sangnoir wrote: post #154
ksou32 wrote: post #40

It's very easy to judge past America 60 years from the moment. Say you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon to end the war ?

Added additional context to your question: > Say as an armed soldier, you're about to be shipped out to run up a hill and killed by Japanese machine guns. > Wouldn't you prefer Truman use a super weapon on civilians to end the war ? I know WWII blurred the lines on what counts a legitimate target (military installations, civilian-manned factories, entire towns like the firebombing of Dresden). As a soldier, would you…

Most of the men in WW 2 were drafted.

In that case I see no difference between a solder and a civilian. Truman's duty is to American boys who are dying in a war Japan started. He's wasn't the president of Japan

You also have to factor in with any negotiation Japan may of argued they still owned Korea, as they'd had since 1910

In the Battle of the Bulge children were drafted,they magically become disposable war machines.

Post reply on HN