RE: The Nuking of Japan
September 12, 2012 at 2:54 pm
(This post was last modified: September 12, 2012 at 2:54 pm by Autumnlicious.)
Were not both Hiroshima and Nagasaki legitimate targets? And what is the difference in morality between dropping an immense warhead or a hundred firebombs?
The USA only had two warheads to waste. To them, it was a hail-mary at forestalling the land and sea based invasion of Japan. A gamble, as the next warhead would be available in a few months. It also was known that the Soviet Union was expanding it's influence and within the USA's best interest to conquer Japan before they did.
One thing people seem to ignore here is that there was a war going on. And that the people involved in that war were no doubt desperate to end it as fast as they could. Combined with total warfare to break a supporting population into submission and pressing national interest in containing a rising super power, one can see why the Great Generation did what they did.
Two warheads. Hundreds of firebombs. I don't really see the difference between the two, especially given to whom both weapon types were targeted at.
The USA only had two warheads to waste. To them, it was a hail-mary at forestalling the land and sea based invasion of Japan. A gamble, as the next warhead would be available in a few months. It also was known that the Soviet Union was expanding it's influence and within the USA's best interest to conquer Japan before they did.
One thing people seem to ignore here is that there was a war going on. And that the people involved in that war were no doubt desperate to end it as fast as they could. Combined with total warfare to break a supporting population into submission and pressing national interest in containing a rising super power, one can see why the Great Generation did what they did.
Two warheads. Hundreds of firebombs. I don't really see the difference between the two, especially given to whom both weapon types were targeted at.
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
