this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
304 points (96.6% liked)

World News

37361 readers
2158 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 29 points 3 months ago (8 children)

The bombings has to be seen in the context of the unimaginable horrors orchestrated by the Japanese state that had to be stopped, at almost any cost.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Almost... Another way to see it is they burdened future generations as an expedient measure to save the lives of the people now in the past. Another another way to look at the bomb is preventing another world war.

An interesting historical point is Japan had largely been defeated by the time the bombs were dropped. And they had the option to bomb an uninhabited (or very lightly) part of Japan's territory as a show of force. But, instead they specifically chose to irradiate civilians.

[–] piecat 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

They burdened future generations?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Because future generations have to safehold and not misuse extremely destructive knowledge. We have a world where North Korea has nuclear weapons, but do they have the ethics to use them responsibly, understanding their full potential? Do the other countries with nuclear bombs have that ethical responsibility, especially over generations? Cuz that big red button is going to be around for a while.

[–] piecat 5 points 3 months ago

If it weren't the USA, it would have been the Nazis or Russians who invented it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yes, I would say the threat of dying in nuclear hell fire (if you were lucky) a bit of a burden.

[–] Telodzrum 2 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It is also interesting that the movie focuses on the scientists developing the bomb over everything else. There is a removal of the protagonists from seeing the destruction of their work, but that was done on purpose by the military. Even within that, you see a discussion of morality of the bomb by its developers and that the scientists, in almost all cases, have a more nuanced understanding of the destructive power they are developing and the ethics of using such a device.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (2 children)

I think that's always the way. Compartmentalisation. Though I don't blame the film for not showing the horrors taking place in those cities. At the time Oppenheimer wouldn't have access to those images, and so I guess neither do we. On the other hand - unless I miss remember - we do get to see him watching a film reel. So, maybe they could have shoehorned the scenes of destruction. But, personally, I think it's enough to see the effect it has on Oppenheimer. Any more could be classed as prurient voyeurism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ilmagico 11 points 3 months ago (5 children)

This is of course just my opinion, but no horrors, imaginable or otherwise, that the Japanese could've possibly orchestrated at the time, with the means they had available, would've come close to the devastation caused by the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[–] Sweetpeaches69 23 points 3 months ago (17 children)

Look up the Rape of Nanking. Studying that alone made me believe the bombs were warranted. That's not even including Unit 731, and the fact that the Japanese government still will not acknowledge their attrocities.

The bombs were a sad necessity to stop the monstrosities.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Telodzrum 12 points 3 months ago

It’s fine to believe that — I’ve been wrong before, too.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (12 children)

Of course, thats your prerogative, but then, quite frankly, you don't know enough about Japanese war crimes.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (18 children)

Fight war crimes with war crimes

load more comments (18 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (20 children)

I disagree. The proliferation of Fascist ideology, in Asia alone, would've far eclipsed the devastation of two nuclear payloads.

load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Is there a Japanese film like Oppenheimer but from their perspective? I've seen plenty of stuff that feels influenced by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, including the horrors from a perspective unique to people who have first hand experience; but it's all fictional.

Like, is there maybe a movie about the dude who survived both bombs?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I don't have a full grasp of it but Barefoot Gen (1983) is on my watch list and deals with the topic of atomic bombs

E: Ah... you wanted a documentary. This isn't it.

[–] T156 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Also that the alternative was burning cities with the people still in them, and they'd seen that, which was have been more horrifying and slow than a nuclear conflagration.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Alterforlett 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Not trying to downplay what Japan did, but I don't think that's why they dropped the bombs. Russia was closing in and the US didn't seem keen on having to divide up Japan like they did in Europe. I'd say it's more likely civilian targets were bombed to put social pressure on the emperor and government to accept defeat.

These bombs don't discriminate, so even put into context like you say, it's still not a good argument

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)