18 votes

August 6th, 2020 is the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan

21 comments

  1. [4]
    AnthonyB
    Link
    Those of us in the United States are all too familiar with the popular belief that the bombs were the decisive factor that forced the Japanese to surrender, so I would encourage everyone to...

    Those of us in the United States are all too familiar with the popular belief that the bombs were the decisive factor that forced the Japanese to surrender, so I would encourage everyone to examine some of the compelling work by historians that make the case for the Soviet Union's deceleration of war being the main reason for Japan's surrender (here is an example from Tsuyoshi Hasegawa). As the years pass, it seems as though people are more likely to have a more critical view of the use of nuclear weapons - unlike my great-grandmother, a life-long republican who went to her grave thinking Truman was the greatest U.S. president because of his decision to drop the bombs - but the prevailing thought is still that they were a necessary evil. Understanding that the bombs were not the "necessary evil" that ended the war is a necessary step if we're ever going to truly recognize the horror that took place 75 years ago.

    13 votes
    1. [3]
      vord
      Link Parent
      'History is written by the victors' History as taught in public American schools works very hard to paint America as the Universal Force of Good(tm). The reality of that is murky at best. Every...

      'History is written by the victors'

      History as taught in public American schools works very hard to paint America as the Universal Force of Good(tm).

      The reality of that is murky at best. Every country has some skeletons in their closet, but I'd wager the US has more than most.

      We conceal the genocide of Native Americans.
      We lie about the nature of the Civil War.
      We always paint world affairs as US vs Them.
      From its inception, the USA uses the UN as a tool to justify its actions, and ignores it when the UN disagrees.
      The USA only cares about mistreatment of citizens when their political enemies do it.
      The utter dismissal of the Soviet Union's advancements, contributions, and losses. Including highlighting their problems while ignoring our own.

      8 votes
      1. [2]
        Seven
        Link Parent
        So I was raised in the American public school system, and I distinctly remember having a unit about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I was in 5th grade. During these couple weeks or so,...

        So I was raised in the American public school system, and I distinctly remember having a unit about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki when I was in 5th grade. During these couple weeks or so, I remember studying a lot of short stories and books about people who lived in Japan during that time; most notably, I remember reading (Sadako and the Thousand Paper Cranes)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadako_and_the_Thousand_Paper_Cranes], a story about a girl who, years after the bombs were dropped, died of leukemia caused by the radiation from the blast. At that time, the dropping of the atom bombs were presented as an unambiguously bad thing. Later, during middle school and high school, there was more talk of "it was a necessary evil" and "it ended the war" and all that. I found it weird that the public school system had seemingly changed its mind about the morality of the bombs, but there was still talk about how conflicted the scientists of the Manhattan Project were, and overall, I don't think there was much of a super-positive spin on the bombings. Also, for some of the other things you mentioned, (genocide of Native Americans, Civil war, etc.), the school system did a pretty good job as painting the Americans or settlers or whatever as bad in those situations. Or at least, they didn't paint them as good. This could just be because I've been raised in California, however, so I don't know how things are in other parts of the country.

        8 votes
        1. vord
          Link Parent
          Perhaps it was just a timing and location thing. I went to public school in deep-red PA in the 90's. Columbus was a universal hero, the founding fathers were infallible. Thanksgiving was about...

          Perhaps it was just a timing and location thing.

          I went to public school in deep-red PA in the 90's.

          Columbus was a universal hero, the founding fathers were infallible.
          Thanksgiving was about celebrating how friendly immigrants were with the natives.
          Nukes were the 'necessary evil that ended the war'
          Malcom X? Who is that? You must be confused and mean MLK and how only nonviolence protest works.
          Manifest destiny was a good thing.
          Civil war was about state's rights.

          It is true that it wasn't necessarily 100% positive. But it was always shrouding the negative in a 'but it was needed for the common good' narrative.

          And while sometimes there are hints of truth that, there's also a lot of deception which all helps build the nationalist narrative (and exceptionalism) which is so deeply ingrained in the broader population of the USA.

          6 votes
  2. [6]
    Surira
    Link
    I've been to both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums and, barring the OKC Bombing Memorial, they were the most powerful museum experiences I've had in my life. Highly recommend visiting one, if...

    I've been to both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums and, barring the OKC Bombing Memorial, they were the most powerful museum experiences I've had in my life. Highly recommend visiting one, if not both, of them if you ever can make your way to Japan. Plus, Nagasaki was one of my favorite cities in the country, so don't miss it. Crazy it's been 75 years and we are barely making any progress on de-nuclearization. I tried studying the SALT treaty and making the case to strengthen/renew it back in college, but no one gave a damn about the topic (and that hasn't really changed at all since I was studying the topic...).

    6 votes
    1. [5]
      p4t44
      Link Parent
      Although there is plenty more to do, the fact that there has been no use of atomic weapons since 1945 is somewhat of a victory alone. Also that 39% of the world population lives in nucleur weapon...

      we are barely making any progress on de-nuclearization

      Although there is plenty more to do, the fact that there has been no use of atomic weapons since 1945 is somewhat of a victory alone.

      Also that 39% of the world population lives in nucleur weapon free zones, and that global nucleur weapons stockpiles have, and continue to, dramatically decrease from 1985 peaks are both areas of considerable progress.

      The successor to SALT was signed in 2011, is still in place.

      Of course there is still plenty more to do, I don't think it is right to say no progress has been made.

      10 votes
      1. [2]
        Deimos
        Link Parent
        Axios just published an article about exactly this, with a nice chart: How the world's nuclear stockpiles have shifted since Hiroshima The peak of their chart is in 1986, with over 60,000 global...

        Axios just published an article about exactly this, with a nice chart: How the world's nuclear stockpiles have shifted since Hiroshima

        The peak of their chart is in 1986, with over 60,000 global warheads. The estimated total now is 9350.

        5 votes
        1. vord
          Link Parent
          (being snarky, apologies) Approximately 9350 more than needed, and about 100x more than needed to utterly destroy humanity's chances of survival on this planet. We've come a long way, but still a...

          (being snarky, apologies)

          Approximately 9350 more than needed, and about 100x more than needed to utterly destroy humanity's chances of survival on this planet.

          We've come a long way, but still a ways to go. I suspect getting that number under 100 is going to be very hard, esp if anybody lies about it.

          3 votes
      2. asoftbird
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        No use in combat. Testing continued way into the 60s afaik, and a lot of environmental damage has been done due to those tests. Fallout in Nevada, whole areas in Russia poisoned with people still...

        Although there is plenty more to do, the fact that there has been no use of atomic weapons since 1945 is somewhat of a victory alone.

        No use in combat.
        Testing continued way into the 60s afaik, and a lot of environmental damage has been done due to those tests. Fallout in Nevada, whole areas in Russia poisoned with people still living there, the pile of atomic waste at the bikini atoll(?) that is at risk of leeching into the ocean, etc

        Edit; way into the 2010s since NK has been doing some nuclear tests quite recently.

        4 votes
      3. Surira
        Link Parent
        Ahh I made a mistake in my comment and meant to write about the CTBT (comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty), which was never ratified. It would have stopped testing of ever more powerful...

        Ahh I made a mistake in my comment and meant to write about the CTBT (comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty), which was never ratified. It would have stopped testing of ever more powerful warheads, because as vord mentions below, even if we've removed a large number of warheads, we could still destroy the world many times over with these ever more powerful weapons.

  3. patience_limited
    Link
    Helen Caldicott, M.D. is a respected and very long-serving nuclear disarmament advocate - here are her thoughts on the anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

    Helen Caldicott, M.D. is a respected and very long-serving nuclear disarmament advocate - here are her thoughts on the anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

    6 votes
  4. [8]
    mrbig
    (edited )
    Link
    I’m gonna say something likely unpopular: I’d really like to see an estimation of the death and human toll of not using the bomb. Would a regular bombing campaign be any less tragic? What about...

    I’m gonna say something likely unpopular: I’d really like to see an estimation of the death and human toll of not using the bomb. Would a regular bombing campaign be any less tragic? What about ground occupation? The bomb is certainly horrific, but it’s also an effective deterrent. Japanese forces were loyal and fanatic. What would be the death toll of a regular confrontation?

    5 votes
    1. [7]
      Kuromantis
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Operation downfall has a variety of estimates, most in the range of a few hundred thousand (for the US only, Japanese casualties aren't estimated that often), similar to the US civil war totals,...

      Operation downfall has a variety of estimates, most in the range of a few hundred thousand (for the US only, Japanese casualties aren't estimated that often), similar to the US civil war totals, which seems to be equivalent or slightly superior to the death tolls IRL.

      In the long term though, MAD stopped the US and USSR to going to war with eachother, so I agree with you that, unless you believe a war-torn, US-occupied, forcibly democratic Weimar germany-esque Russia is less dangerous than Russia today (something I, admittedly, would like to believe) , nukes are probably a net good (and even if you discount the US and USSR, India and Pakistan would probably bloody eachother too) for society.

      2 votes
      1. [3]
        vord
        Link Parent
        There is something to be said about nukes being the great equalizer the way guns are. But it's too dangerous, because MAD is worse than any number of human casualties. Yea, it would suck to have...

        There is something to be said about nukes being the great equalizer the way guns are. But it's too dangerous, because MAD is worse than any number of human casualties.

        Yea, it would suck to have lost millions in a hypothetical WWIII in the 60's or 70's. But I think I'd take that over the perpetual threat of the planet being annihilated on a whim.

        And the US and USSR did go to war. In Korea and Vietnam. Nothing like a good ole proxy war.

        4 votes
        1. [2]
          Kuromantis
          Link Parent
          Oh yeah, that's definitely one of the worse aspects of nukes and MAD, all the wars are meaningless and just a way to send a bunch of young people to die. That's pretty fair, the nukes definitely...

          And the US and USSR did go to war. In Korea and Vietnam. Nothing like a good ole proxy war.

          Oh yeah, that's definitely one of the worse aspects of nukes and MAD, all the wars are meaningless and just a way to send a bunch of young people to die.

          There is something to be said about nukes being the great equalizer the way guns are. But it's too dangerous, because MAD is worse than any number of human casualties.

          Yea, it would suck to have lost millions in a hypothetical WWIII in the 60's or 70's. But I think I'd take that over the perpetual threat of the planet being annihilated on a whim.

          That's pretty fair, the nukes definitely make WW3 kind of a last, final war (the Einstein saying about WW4 being fought with sticks and stones goes here), and you could argue that going to war with the USSR and occupying it would destroy Russia so much they would have no choice but to comply with whatever the US has to say (and with the exception of high prejudice and the political system being the same as today, 1960s America was a great place to live and pretty competent politically) and they would probably not commit the mistakes of WW1.

          In the other hand, if that war were after Reagan took power (seems realistic given the Soviets knew that they had no chance and the fact that the US public forgot the new deal was the reason Reagan was elected, so they could have forgotten WW2 and pushed for WW3 too, and Europe would not go along with a war until then), a Reagan/H.W Bush administration would definitely have turned Russia into a Weimar Germany, and we would probably have a Hitler to compare cultural conservatives to today.

          1 vote
          1. vord
            Link Parent
            Agree... I think that generally applies to any of the Republican presidents since WWII, and probably even some of the Democrats....so that's like a 50/50 chance of a bad WWIII with subsequently...

            A Reagan/H.W Bush administration would definitely have turned Russia into a Weimar Germany, and we would probably have a Hitler to compare cultural conservatives to today.

            Agree... I think that generally applies to any of the Republican presidents since WWII, and probably even some of the Democrats....so that's like a 50/50 chance of a bad WWIII with subsequently bad blood afterwards.

            However. Even if we lost 1 billion people in every World War, I still think it's a net win over potentially killing 7 billion in one go.

            Trump has the button to end the world. Is this a good thing? Repeat that statement for each and every world leader.

            1 vote
      2. [3]
        mrbig
        Link Parent
        Haven’t had it yet, but if this gloss over Japanese casualties (as you imply) it’s pretty much useless.

        Haven’t had it yet, but if this gloss over Japanese casualties (as you imply) it’s pretty much useless.

        1 vote
        1. [2]
          Kuromantis
          (edited )
          Link Parent
          Well, if one sides' casualties aren't even counted and the results are already on your side, that only strengthens your point, right?

          Well, if one sides' casualties aren't even counted and the results are already on your side, that only strengthens your point, right?

          1 vote
  5. monarda
    Link
    Kitsap county in Washington state has the largest concentration of deployed nuclear weapons in the U.S. Since the 80s a small group of activists have frequently protested at Bangor. Every year...

    Kitsap county in Washington state has the largest concentration of deployed nuclear weapons in the U.S. Since the 80s a small group of activists have frequently protested at Bangor. Every year they protest on the Hiroshima anniversary, but paused it this year due to Covid.

    Kitsap's nuclear legacy: county has grown under its protectors and protesters

    The group,Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action

    4 votes