does nuclear weapon force Japan to surrender or it is the soviet ?

I am left with a very strong feeling that this is a new narrative of the past written specifically with the present in mind.

The notion of realising that you are being overwhelmed on all fronts and your best interests are best served by negotiating the best surrender deal you can with one adversary of the othe,r is a no brainer. If the timing of the Japanese surrender was dictated by the time it took to broker such a deal, it would not come as any surprise.

The OP's article then reads more like spin in an effort to shore up a Pacific alliance that is going to come under sustained and increasing pressure over the coming years. Spats with China and the DPRK's ongoing Nuclear Weapons Programme will all put pressure on Japan to go Nuclear, which of course would be contrary to the US interest viz a viz the Re-Pivot to Asia. A subliminal message from a US source saying that Nuclear weapons were never the problem then and so will not be the solution now, are par for the course!

Expect plenty more of the same for the foreseeable future.

jobjed said:

Truman had two choices, a land invasion of Japan or drop atomic bombs. Both options would have resulted in significant Japanese deaths, both civilian AND military (in fact, Japanese civilians were prepared to arm themselves like militia anyways). The land invasion not only would have cost Japanese lives, but also American lives as well.

The decision to drop the atomic bombs were fully justified, and probably spared the lives of those who would have died in a land invasion. Truman is first and foremost an American, he chose to commit to a decision to save the lives of his OWN countrymen, something I expect every patriot to do, American or not.

His decision to drop the atomic bombs also avoided the need for a land invasion, which after Okinawa, the US military was extremely weary of. A land invasion would also devastate Japan much more so that two flattened cities as the entire country would be flattened. Japanese should count themselves lucky that the neither the USSR or the USA had the opportunity to engage in warfare on their home islands.

Click to expand...

No, there is no point in time where killing is someone's "only" or "one of the few" options. Truman could wait it out and not done either. On a rational level, Japan had already lost the war. Japan had lost its ability to conduct and sustain the war effort and was in no way still a threat to American people. If you presume Japanese leaders were rational, you should think they were looking at a way to surrender because further bloodshed of their people were meaningless. If you cannot make that presumption, than there is no way you can guarantee Japan would surrender after you drop the bombs. If they didn't surrender, then what do you do? drop more bombs? where did it end? remember that line from The Bourne Ultimatum "we stop when we have won", that is the statement of a man deep in madness and had disregarded any rationality or morali but a singular gratification from his supremacy to other humans, do you want to go down that road?

And should we even look at the act on a moral level? I don't care what do you take to be moral, but at least we can agree on what moral isn't. It (at very least) isn't arbitarly killing and inflicting suffering on other people and people you don't know. And that's exactly what Hitler did and Stanlin did and Mao did and Truman did. Of course they all had great cover stories. They all had some great formula that shows once the killing was carried out we would be landed on a much better world. What they did is put their calculation and judgement of "good" above other people's lives, essentially making themsalves the judge of good a.k.a. God. Once you have done that, you are nothing but evil. Moral judgement won't get to you; Rationality won't get to you. If you're the judge of good, then there is no point paying attention to anyone and any rules but the will of yourself. You said Truman is an american and a patriot, so he probably did the thing "the american way" to defend american lives. Then wouldn't you say the same thing about Hitler? That Hitler is German (though he's Austrian)and a patriot and did what he did in the best interest of "his OWN countryman". So, should Hitler not be regarded as a criminal but as a hero?

Alas, we live in a world as a result of that event. So, for you to see that droping atomic bomb on the civilians of another country is evil is just as hard as for a German living under Nazi regime to see systematic extinction of Jew was wrong. But IMO, you should scew your head on stright and realize not everything that benefit your life could be regarded as moral and good. That would make you a exceptionally better human being.

ahadicow said:

No, there is no point in time where killing is someone's "only" or "one of the few" options. Truman could wait it out and not done either. On a rational level, Japan had already lost the war. Japan had lost its ability to conduct and sustain the war effort and was in no way still a threat to American people.

Click to expand...

You're making a big assumption here. How would Truman know that Japan had lost its ability to sustain the war? The Japanese judged that the Chinese were finished after they conquered Beijing. They thought the rest of China would fall within 3 months.

War is messy, and decisions are not made with the clarity of hindsight. Truman wasn't a prophet, he couldn't see into the future. All he could do was make a decision based on the imperative of winning the war and using the knowledge that he had at the time.

who is more assumptious?

A. a person that don't commit mass murder because his moral intuition tells him not to

B. a person that commit mass murder on the premise that "Japanese leaders are so insane that they would drag this show onto land invasion phase, but just sane enough that once we dropped the bomb they would realize resistance is futile and surrender to us thus yielding us a better overall human headcount."



just to add: war is messy, morality is messy too, that's why it's a good advice not to be involved in any war. I'm not judging Truman, he's already dead. I'm saying what he did was wrong and until we can reach a concensus on that, someone could point to his example to say:"you know, using nuclear weapon on civilians is permissible and the right thing to do on some circumstances...." History repeats itself when we don't want to take its lesson.

ahadicow said:

who is more assumptious?

A. a person that don't commit mass murder because his moral intuition tells him not to

B. a person that commit mass murder on the premise that "Japanese leaders are so insane that they would drag this show onto land invasion phase, but just sane enough that once we dropped the bomb they would realize resistance is futile and surrender to us thus yielding us a better overall human headcount."

just to add: war is messy, morality is messy too, that's why it's a good advice not to be involved in any war. I'm not judging Truman, he's already dead. I'm saying what he did was wrong and until we can reach a concensus on that, someone could point to his example to say:"you know, using nuclear weapon on civilians is permissible and the right thing to do on some circumstances...." History repeats itself when we don't want to take its lesson.

Click to expand...

We only fear nuclear weapons today *because* of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have MAD because we've *SEEN* what nuclear weapons can do.

You say you're not judging Truman, but immediately after say what he did was wrong. Kind of contradictory, don't you think?

Add to that, your very next statement is to force a judgement on a historical event in order to conform to a particular value system. That's what they call revisionism.

solarz said:

We only fear nuclear weapons today *because* of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have MAD because we've *SEEN* what nuclear weapons can do.

You say you're not judging Truman, but immediately after say what he did was wrong. Kind of contradictory, don't you think?

Add to that, your very next statement is to force a judgement on a historical event in order to conform to a particular value system. That's what they call revisionism.

Click to expand...

"not commiting mass murder" is a value system? I'm not aware of that. Enlighten me on what value system killing hundreds of thousands of civilians are a-OK?

Judge means sitting on a court and passing sentence. Truman's dead, therefore, no one can pass him any sentence. I am however, saying what he did is wrong. That's not passing judgement because it is not up to my judgement that mass murder is wrong, it is self-evident.

I cannot "pass judgemen"t on historical event either. Passing judgement means reaching decision, I didn't decide for Truman to not drop the atomic bomb, he decided to drop them. So, it is Truman who pass the judgement, who reached the decision that those victims of Atomic bombs did not deserve to live. I said whoever take upon themslaves to pass that kind of judgement is putting themslaves on the position of God. That kind of behavior in western culture is regarded as evil.


about revisionism, it was once widely held that Black people are inferior and deserve to be enslaved. Today it is widely held that was wrong. I guess that make all of us revisionist?

solarz said:

We only fear nuclear weapons today *because* of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We have MAD because we've *SEEN* what nuclear weapons can do.

Click to expand...

Are you saying Truman had forseen that without using atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we would never grown a fear for nuclear weapon and end up in nuclear mutal destruction, so the lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are small price to pay? that again we are insane enough to produce nuclear weapon but just sane enough to refrain from using them eventually?

=Are you out to make Truman a God? know anything, do anything and always right so he has the licence to kill?

ahadicow said:

"not commiting mass murder" is a value system? I'm not aware of that. Enlighten me on what value system killing hundreds of thousands of civilians are a-OK?

Judge means sitting on a court and passing sentence. Truman's dead, therefore, no one can pass him any sentence. I am however, saying what he did is wrong. That's not passing judgement because it is not up to my judgement that mass murder is wrong, it is self-evident.

I cannot "pass judgemen"t on historical event either. Passing judgement means reaching decision, I didn't decide for Truman to not drop the atomic bomb, he decided to drop them. So, it is Truman who pass the judgement, who reached the decision that those victims of Atomic bombs did not deserve to live. I said whoever take upon themslaves to pass that kind of judgement is putting themslaves on the position of God. That kind of behavior in western culture is regarded as evil.

about revisionism, it was once widely held that Black people are inferior and deserve to be enslaved. Today it is widely held that was wrong. I guess that make all of us revisionist?

Click to expand...

The word "murder" is itself a value call. Would you call a soldier killing invaders in the defense of his family and homeland a murderer?

The atomic bombs were dropped in a context of war. War against one of the most barbaric imperialist forces in recent history. An imperialist force that kills thousands, if not tens of thousands, of innocent civilians each day it is in power. The bombs were dropped in the hope that their awesome destructive power will shock this enemy into surrendering and thus ending the war as quickly as possible.

You can pass moral judgments all you want, it is a luxury you have in peace time. In war, the only concern a leader should have is to defeat the enemy as QUICKLY and EFFICIENTLY as possible. *ANY* other consideration only leads to more deaths and suffering.

ahadicow said:

Are you saying Truman had forseen that without using atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we would never grown a fear for nuclear weapon and end up in nuclear mutal destruction, so the lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are small price to pay? that again we are insane enough to produce nuclear weapon but just sane enough to refrain from using them eventually?

=Are you out to make Truman a God? know anything, do anything and always right so he has the licence to kill?

Click to expand...

Ridiculous. Not sure what leap of logic brought you to this conclusion, but consider this: there are still people arguing over the reality and consequences of global climate change, despite overwhelming scientific data. Now imagine what would go on in people's minds if we've never actually used a nuclear weapon.

no, murder is not value call, murder is a fact call. If you made up your mind about extinguish another life, you're a muderer. simple as that. Do you feel better if I subsitute the word "murder" with the word "kill". It doesn't make the meaning in realty any different, but perhaps you have been too trained by your culture to use euphmisms to step around those facts.

to answer your question, yes, solders are killers(murderers), all of us are killers too becuase we are product of evolution that is in our DNA. Study showed that premediated killing is an unique capability among primates. We and handful other primates alone has the ability to murder.

Your evolution and genetic make up motivates you to "win", to gain supremancy over other humans, it also entangle that motive with the motive to have sex. violence and sex are interwined in our brain, we want to "win" over other males by violence and take possession over womans, because that how best to pass down DNA in our natural enviroment.

along came civilization which brought us morality and rationality. But their hold onto our behavior is limited and shaky, once in while, our instincts took over, and we pursue the gradifcation of our neurel centers that respond to sex and violence with total disregard to any consequences and any price to pay in future and in others.

That's the "context of war" you're talking about. Our culture did a great job to cover up war which is basically unlimited and unchecked violence. It made up war fantacies that allienate your enimies. Those fantacies enables you to see your opponents as non-humans. They are "imperilists, imbeciles, heretics, non-believers, forces of evil, terroriests" etc. Once you are able to see you opponents as non-human, your moral and rational facilities are inhibited and you can fully tune in to your nature which reveals itself in its full violent, euphoric and virile glory and you would feel more alive then ever.


There are someone who were saying no to this. the most ancient one we can remember is called Jesus Christ. He didn't end up living a very good and happy life so maybe you shouldn't try to be like him.

Anyway, I think this debate was held long enough and I said all that I wanted to say. If you think I was passing judgement maybe I was, I pass the judgement that this man, Truman, doesn't deserve a good reputation after he died. that's not a very big judgement comparing to the judgement he had made to those japanese died of A-bomb. I don't understand why being in a war(experiancing killing people) would give me the right to judge who should live and who should die, that doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps when I was put in a war and become a little insane because of that, I won't worry about judgement and just go on killing, that I can imagine.

ahadicow said:

no, murder is not value call, murder is a fact call. If you made up your mind about extinguish another life, you're a muderer. simple as that. Do you feel better if I subsitute the word "murder" with the word "kill". It doesn't make the meaning in realty any different, but perhaps you have been too trained by your culture to use euphmisms to step around those facts.

Click to expand...

You can stop right there, because you are now making up your own definition for words.

mur·der (mûrdr)
n.
1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.
3. A flock of crows. See Synonyms at flock1.
v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v.tr.
1. To kill (another human) unlawfully.
2. To kill brutally or inhumanly.
3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances.
4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language.
5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.

Click to expand...

So no, not all killings are murders. If you think all killings are equally wrong, then I'm not going to argue with you except to say that I disagree completely.