You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
74 years ago today, the United States detonated an atomic bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. There are some pictures of this event from the air, and a few from the ground, and many of the aftermath. But this is the one I find most affecting.pic.twitter.com/xPD7DPpkkL
This teacher and his students were at the Noboricho Elementary School, located 0.7 mi / 1.1 km from ground zero. The smiles are so human, so genuine, so unpolitical. These are the main victims of war. (To acknowledge this is neither an anti-US, nor a pro-Japanese statement.)
After the war ended, the US sent scientists to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to learn what they could about the effects of the bombs. Records of school children provided a key dataset for calculating the casualty-distance curves of the atomic bombs.pic.twitter.com/MutDE9Z58E
It was the child deaths that affected Harry Truman the most, too. When he ordered no further atomic bombing, on August 10th, he invoked "all those kids" as the justification. Throughout his life Truman would refer to the bomb as a killer of "women and children."pic.twitter.com/tsyLF0iar2
There are many ways to think about the damage caused by the bomb. Structural damage is a potent way to illustrate it. As is the art of survivors. But it's that first photo (which is from the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum) that really gets me — all that joy, snuffed out.pic.twitter.com/HI79JhD0UE
This isn't meant to be a naive statement. "War is hell." I know the causes of WWII, and the reasons why the atomic bombs were seen as an expedient and necessary action by those who were involved in dropping them. I do not absolve the Japanese militarists for their role in this.
In principle, if you think the bombings were necessary, you should still be able to accommodate that belief without ignoring any of the above. In reality, I find most defenders want to look the other way when it comes to the consequences. To do so is to take an incomplete view.
Even Truman, the endless defender of the bombings, seemed to harbor deep unhappiness about their collateral damage. In Dec. 1945 he referred to the bomb as "the most terrible of all destructive forces for the wholesale slaughter of human beings" — he didn't whitewash it.
One can invoke, of course, the hypothetical lives the bomb saved. Because they are hypothetical, they can be nearly as many as you want them to be (and the defenders of the bombings revised that number upwards and upwards over the years), and whomever you want them to be.
But I can't help but feel that the actual dead deserve a bit more attention, versus the hypothetical dead. I know: your grandfather was slated to be in the invasion, you might not be here, etc. (Assuming the war didn't end prior to November 1945, which it may well have.)
But even in that situation you've still got to reconcile with the costs. You've got to say, "I am OK with all of those children having died, so that I may live." I find that a defensible statement. But I rarely hear people say it — because it's hard.
I guess that's my argument, here: if you want to defend the bombings, that's fine with me. There are certainly arguments to that end. But you can't ignore the consequences of them. To do that puts us in a dangerous place; an "ends justify the means" that overlooks the "means."
Truman managed to defend the bombings, while being very open about the horror, once he learned of it. He turned that into a desire not to have nuclear weapons be used ever again, if it was possible. He's a more complex figure on this than his detractors or defenders tend to know.
Now do Pearl Harbor, the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March, Iwo Jima and the rest of the countless Japanese atrocities. You fucking tool.
Pearl Harbor was military-on-military — not the same scale. Most civilian deaths were caused by AA fire. It's a different issue altogether. Ditto Iwo Jima. Distinguishing between military-on-military actions, and the slaughter of civilian populations is important.
But, as I've already written, one can certainly talk about Japanese atrocities in World War II and still feel sympathy with the innocents in Japan who died. I think it's important to do both. If that makes me a "tool" in your book, feel free to mute me — that's your choice.
Perhaps he should also tweet out the tragic deaths of innocent Aryan German children who were victims of Allied firebombing to make sure to focus that the MAIN victims in WW2 were children of Axis powers, not the Holocaust or Asians civilians of Japan's brutality.
Tragic? YES. This would have NEVER happened if Pearl Harbor didn't happen. We dropped leaflets warning of the bomb. We gave them ample time to surrender. War sucks - but lets not forget who started it.
We didn't actually drop leaflets with warnings about atomic bombs prior to using them. This is an internet myth. I've written on this at some length, with official documentation. One can defend the bombings if one wants, but don't do it with a myth. :-)http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/04/26/a-day-too-late/ …
The innocent will always be the victim s of war. Because the ones who want war quietly sit in the safe house and wait till it's over with to collect the spoils...what a cruel world
It is worth noting that “innocent” people dying in mass numbers in war is still relatively new. Prior to industrialization, most fatalities in war were other combatants.
That's not quite true; noncombatants did still suffer and die. Rape, assaults on villages by soldiers, famine, homelessness, disease. Not killed directly by a weapon perhaps, but dead nonetheless from upheaval caused by war.
Absolutely- sorry, I should have been more clear. Non-combatants dying directly from combat is somewhat new, but non-combatants have always suffered from the consequences of war and combat.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
