[HN Gopher] Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo
___________________________________________________________________
Nobel Peace Prize for 2024 awarded to Nihon Hidankyo
Author : danielskogly
Score : 220 points
Date : 2024-10-11 09:01 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nobelprize.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nobelprize.org)
| lode wrote:
| This is the organisation that has won the 2024 Nobel Peace Prize:
|
| https://www.ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/
| matt123456789 wrote:
| An excellent choice.
| abe94 wrote:
| One of my friends grandmothers was an atomic bomb survivor - she
| was just a baby when the bomb hit and was blind the rest of her
| life.
|
| One thing I was surprised by was the number of survivors and also
| that there was at least one person who survived both bombs [1]
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi
| lqet wrote:
| > A resident of Nagasaki, Yamaguchi was in Hiroshima on
| business for his employer Mitsubishi Heavy Industries when the
| city was bombed at 8:15 AM, on 6 August 1945. He returned to
| Nagasaki the following day and, despite his wounds, returned to
| work on 9 August, the day of the second atomic bombing. That
| morning, while he was being told by his supervisor that he was
| "crazy" after describing how one bomb had destroyed the city,
| the Nagasaki bomb detonated.
| krisoft wrote:
| > That morning, while he was being told by his supervisor
| that he was "crazy" after describing how one bomb had
| destroyed the city, the Nagasaki bomb detonated.
|
| That is one way to win an argument. Not that anyone would
| prefer that "win".
| zczc wrote:
| The Wikipedia article says there were at least 165 survivors of
| both bombings: "[Yamaguchi] was invited to take part in a 2006
| documentary about 165 double A-bomb survivors".
| jsrcout wrote:
| I, too, was shocked to learn this. I only learned about it
| fairly recently, from my older brother who read a book from the
| school library on it as a child:
|
| Nine Who Survived Hiroshima & Nagasaki Hardcover - January 1,
| 1957
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Who-Survived-Hiroshima-Nagasaki/...
| walthamstow wrote:
| I visited the Hiroshima museum last year. They've got a set of
| stone steps, a person was sat there when the bomb went off and
| they were simply vaporised. The stone steps bear the residue of
| the person, almost like a shadow.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| The atomic bombs weren't close enough to vaporize anyone since
| they were detonated in the air, what you see is disintegration
| which is a little bit different and instead of turning the
| human body into what could be considered "nothing" the
| materials are torn apart and get embedded into the surrounding
| environment. Some vaporization did occur, but only on plants
| and the skin tissue of humans.
| krisoft wrote:
| > instead of turning the human body into what could be
| considered "nothing"
|
| You can't turn material into "nothing". At best you can turn
| it into equivalent amount of energy if you collide it with
| antimatter.
|
| That being said I don't really feel the difference between
| "vaporisation" and "disintegration". In both cases you stop
| being biology and start being physics in a subjective
| instant. (at least from the perspective of your own central
| nervous system, which has not enough time to even detect that
| something has happened)
|
| In both cases you go from a living, breathing, laughing,
| thinking human being into contaminants in the air or surfaces
| around you.
|
| What do you feel is the difference between "vaporisation" and
| "disintegration"? Is it about how big your largest continuous
| chunk is? Where do you draw the line?
| fragmede wrote:
| the specific definition is that vaporization turns solids
| and liquids into gas or plasma, while disintegration means
| being broken into pieces. the difference between a gas and
| a solid, and also fine solids suspended in a gas, is fairly
| well defined.
| krisoft wrote:
| That makes sense! Thank you. Gas or plasma vs solids is
| indeed a well defined difference.
| kachapopopow wrote:
| By "nothing" is that there isn't a piece of you that is
| still you. Disintegration means that we can still find
| pieces of "you" in the environment. Not sure if there's any
| recoverable DNA left thought, that was most likely
| destroyed by the other waves of the atomic bomb.
| matsemann wrote:
| Visited Hiroshima over a decade ago during a school trip, and
| had a local guide that was a survivor. Very powerful.
|
| As a teenager we also visited concentration camps on a school
| trip, and a survivor joined the trip from Norway to Germany. We
| got to know him a bit during the week long trip, and there was
| a session where he told his story. I'll never forget this, and
| I think it affects me to this day.
|
| Soon we will have no Time Witnesses left.
|
| Edit: I remembered a very specific anecdote he told, about how
| him randomly having learned to knit helped when in a
| concentration camp, as some officer wanted something to be
| made, and he then could sit inside and do that instead of
| working himself to death in the quarry. Based on this I managed
| to find his name again now.
|
| Haakon Sorbye, thanks for telling us your story.
| LeonM wrote:
| At that distance you wouldn't be vaporized, but burned. What
| you see on the steps is not vapor deposits, but rather they are
| shadows.
|
| The immense heat and light from the detonation
| burned/discolored the stones, but not in the shadow of the
| person sitting on the steps. Hence why you can see these
| 'permanent shadows' in various places in the city. Some caused
| by humans, but most are just shadows of structures. For example
| bridge railings:
| https://www.atomicarchive.com/media/photographs/hiroshima/im...
| belter wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Shadow_Etched_in_Stone
| tomp wrote:
| Are you sure that's the explanation?
|
| It could be (and I think it's more likely) that the rest of the
| stone was lightened, and the part in the shadow, wasn't.
|
| No "residue of a person", just literally "shadow".
|
| See also:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Shadow_Etched_in_Stone
| pyrale wrote:
| I have no issue with this laureate, but it is sad that the
| comittee could not find someone deserving that is working on a
| more current conflict. I guess this is not a positive outlook for
| the current state international conflicts.
| thimabi wrote:
| At a time when Russia threatens the use of nuclear weapons in
| Ukraine, Israel and Iran escalate tensions, North Korea tests
| missiles and warheads... it is hard not to relate the award to
| these circumstances.
|
| Perhaps the committee thought it was best to express its
| opinion on current conflicts indirectly, as it has done so in
| the past.
| pyrale wrote:
| > Perhaps the committee thought it was best to express its
| opinion on current conflicts indirectly, as it has done so in
| the past.
|
| I do agree, and this is my point: this particular committee
| expressing concern rather than celebrating success is a
| source of lament to me.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| I'm just glad it looks like a legitimately given out award this
| time, instead of giving it to e.g. Peres, Arafat, Obama, Aung
| San Suu Kyi, etc.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Obama is by far the most vapid recipient of the award, but I
| wonder if he is also the best representative for the lack of
| peace given his legacy of "Yes we can, (but we don't)."
|
| The reason we seemingly can't have peace is because we
| deliberately refuse it.
| slightwinder wrote:
| Since over 2 years, we again live now under the constant real
| threat of a nuclear war. Or this is at least what Russia is
| regularly claiming. This is very current as long as Putin
| doesn't get his s** together.
|
| Of course there are other current candidates who would also
| deserve it, but I think it might be also a matter of how hot
| and current the problem is, and how much political impact this
| message would have. Russia and their threats are cooling down
| for the moment, so it's "safer" to send this message, instead
| of anything related to the Middle East, for example.
| keybored wrote:
| > I have no issue with this laureate, but it is sad that the
| comittee
|
| You have no issue but it is sad?
|
| > could not find someone deserving that is working on a more
| current conflict. I guess this is not a positive outlook for
| the current state international conflicts.
|
| Just any issue would be fine for you? Or could it be some
| specific issue that you care abuot.
| thimabi wrote:
| Congratulations to Nihon Hidankyo!
|
| As said in the announcement, even 80 years after those bombs were
| dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we still need to highlight the
| dangers of nuclear weapons.
|
| The threat and use of such weapons is still allowed by customary
| international law. Maybe movements like this will help change
| this sad fact. There has been progress in this direction.
| However, of course, nuclear-weapon states have been vehemently
| opposed to that, although they are obliged to negotiate a general
| and complete nuclear disarmament.
| gus_massa wrote:
| "Customary international law" is written by countries that can
| win a huge wae that are countries that have nuclear weapons, so
| they will not forbid themself the use of nuclear weapons.
| thimabi wrote:
| As the name says, customary international law is not written.
| It arises from international practices that have become so
| widespread that states begin to recognize they have a legal
| obligation to continue them (opinio juris).
|
| Current literature says that the non-usage of nuclear weapons
| has become a widespread international practice, but that the
| resistance of nuclear powers has prevented the formation of
| an "opinio juris" thus far. What is at stake is whether an
| international custom can be formed despite the opposition of
| certain states -- as long as several other states acknowledge
| the custom.
| exmadscientist wrote:
| Doesn't the history of war in the twentieth century
| (because we've got to start somewhere) suggest that
| "international law" means _absolutely fucking nothing at
| fucking all_ when it comes to major wars?
|
| Why bother?
|
| What are you going to do to enforce it, invade the guy who
| just nuked/invaded you/your friends?
| gus_massa wrote:
| But the several other states must have nuclear weapons to
| enforce the custom on a rogue country with nuclear weapons.
| thrownawaysz wrote:
| If I were a gambling man I'd put some money on a chinese
| professor getting the economics Nobel Prize
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| You might want to consider a little more carefully before
| putting money down. There is no economics Nobel Prize.
| thrownawaysz wrote:
| "Although not one of the five Nobel Prizes established by
| Alfred Nobel's will in 1895, it is commonly referred to as
| the Nobel Prize in Economics, and is administered and
| referred to along with the Nobel Prizes by the Nobel
| Foundation. Winners of the Prize in Economic Sciences are
| chosen in a similar manner as and announced alongside the
| Nobel Prize recipients, and receive the Prize in Economic
| Sciences at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony"
| mppm wrote:
| This is indeed a very timely award. I sometimes feel like the
| world has forgotten that nuclear weapons still exist and are
| still on hair-trigger alert to obliterate major cities. Maybe the
| end of atmospheric testing and the success of (now defunct)
| weapons reduction treaties has blunted public perception to the
| ongoing threat that they represent, and to the need to tread
| carefully where nuclear powers are involved.
| vasco wrote:
| If I put a hammer over your head that can fall any minute
| you'll be worrying, but if you're born with the hammer over
| your head and your parents before you as well, it becomes less
| of a thing.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| On an individual level, we all have a variety of hammers over
| our heads. Cancer has killed far more people prematurely than
| nuclear weapons. Something like 500,000 people a year are
| murdered. Traffic/bicycle/pedestrian accidents also kill more
| than nuclear weapons. Even compared to a once-in-a-century
| nuclear war that perhaps kills a billion people, cancer will
| kill roughly a billion in the next century anyway. So, for
| the rational/selfish person, the nuclear threat isn't worth
| worrying about.
| thimabi wrote:
| That depends on where you live. There are people right now
| in certain places who are terrified of the nuclear threat.
| smokel wrote:
| Extrapolating from two samples to "once-in-a-century" does
| not strike me as rational.
| faggotbreath wrote:
| You have no idea what you're talking about. 2 billion
| people will die in the first 70 minutes of a peer nuclear
| exchange.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Why does that figure looks really suspicious to me. So in
| nuclear exchange there is either already fully setup
| blocks or the responding party will pull in others in?
| squigz wrote:
| I'd like to think of myself as a rational person, yet I
| worry about it. Because it's not just a matter of math; the
| effects of a billion people dying at once would be far more
| detrimental than the deaths from cancer over a century.
|
| (One might think this line of reasoning that some people
| apply is a coping mechanism to ignore the reality, but that
| might be a different conversation)
| timeon wrote:
| But it is not just about coping. We as society, can make
| policies to decrease chance of getting a cancer and
| decrease traffic deaths. We just chose not to out of
| convenience and profit.
| w0m wrote:
| it's easier to ignore 100 papercuts than it is to ignore
| missing a hand.
| valval wrote:
| Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever. More mundane
| causes of death aren't paper cuts, and nuclear war isn't
| losing a hand.
| squigz wrote:
| It makes sense to me. You understand it's not meant to be
| taken literally, right?
| petra wrote:
| Everybody dies so there's nothing to fear from war?
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| Chaos , without death.
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| Those other things are also worth worrying about too.
|
| Gee, I hope the people in charge don't think "the nuclear
| threat isn't worth worrying about"
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| If I fall 1 feet one hundred times, I'll probably be Ok
|
| If I fall 100 feet once, I won't.
|
| 1m people dying in 1 day is not the same as 1M people dying
| over a decade.
|
| Also. People generally dont fear death itself. This is
| expressed by people in pallitative care. Its the chaos and
| uncertainty preceding death that is really feared
| wang_li wrote:
| If that one million people dying is followed by 3649 days
| of no one dying from that cause, yes it is.
| kortilla wrote:
| No, abrupt deaths are much more disruptive to society
| specialist wrote:
| Does your risk assessment methodology also account for near
| misses? Agency? Morality? Source of risk? Costs of
| mitigation? Benefits? Something like actuary tables?
|
| Mitigation of bike and pedestrian deaths is cheap. Just
| reform land use, advantage people over vehicles. Oops, now
| you're into culture and values.
|
| Mitigation of cancer deaths is very expensive. Though we
| didn't invent cancer, we feel the moral imperative to
| "cure" it. And yet, while we're mitigating it, we're also
| making it worse. Cross purposes. What's your balance sheet
| for this conundrum?
|
| Drugs kill lots of people. We own that one, right? How's
| the War on Drugs working out?
|
| In conclusion, I wish I could wave away these dilemmas with
| a cute nominator and denominator. But I can barely reason
| about them before my head explodes. So I'm not buying what
| you're selling. Life's a bit more complicated, a bit more
| _empirical_ , a bit less _rational_ , than your tidy
| equations.
| w4 wrote:
| > _So, for the rational /selfish person, the nuclear threat
| isn't worth worrying about._
|
| Until you have children and future generations to worry
| about. Then it suddenly seems quite a bit more pressing
| that their world could be obliterated at a moment's notice
| by a small handful of decision makers.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| So what value do you get out of worrying about the
| nuclear threat, that makes it worth it?
| valval wrote:
| What? I have a son and a wife and I couldn't care less
| about nuclear war or climate change or any abstract and
| distant catastrophe that could face humanity as a whole.
|
| Living in the future is a silly affair. There's only one
| moment and it's the present.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| I once knew an academic who would not fly in an airplane.
| He was invited to a distinguished conference across the
| country, but complained to me that he was too scared to
| fly. "Why?" I ask.. "Terrorists" he replied.. "it is too
| serious. I just can't do it". so a year or two pass and
| then I see this Academic again. While talking he mentions
| that he just returned from a great conference far away.
| "What? I thought you were afraid to fly in an airplane!" ..
| He replies "that was true, I was scared of someone carrying
| a bomb on the flight. But, I calculated the statistical
| odds of there being TWO bombs on a single plane, and it was
| infinitesimal..."
|
| "So now I carry my own!"
| brightball wrote:
| I think for a lot of people, myself included, you try not
| to worry about things you can't control.
|
| "Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something
| to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Write that down." -
| Van Wilder
| jszymborski wrote:
| While this apathy is an important coping mechanism to
| some degree, it's important not to become complacent.
| It's precisely this apathy and hopelessness that
| authoritarian regimes cultivate to prevent action.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| I don't think this registers as apathy in this context.
| Maybe you live in a country that has nuclear weapons and
| can vote for one leader or another. This may or may not
| have some impact on things. Certainly, we cannot
| influence what other countries do with their arsenals.
| Our mental stacks can only run so deep & I'd wager for
| most of us, the things that _are_ in our sphere of
| influence simply take priority.
| jszymborski wrote:
| > This may or may not have some impact on things.
| Certainly, we cannot influence what other countries do
| with their arsenals.
|
| It demonstrably does. Nuclear arms reduction treaties
| have been enacted in the past and it is hard to believe
| that it would have happened without the popular support
| it enjoyed.
|
| Just because we are at a time in history where many of
| those treatise have been weakened or left by the wayside
| shouldn't be a reason for us to forget them and the good
| they did.
|
| > Our mental stacks can only run so deep & I'd wager for
| most of us, the things that are in our sphere of
| influence simply take priority.
|
| It's a challenge to look beyond ourselves, but we must
| have the courage to do so. Many people here have the
| resources to act in the interest of their family, their
| neighborhood, their community, and their country. It's
| hard not to be selfish. We can't all afford not to be.
| Most of us can, however.
| mistermann wrote:
| This makes it sound like regimes like ours necessarily do
| not also engage in it, which seems "a bit off" to me.
| jszymborski wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean by "ours" as this is the
| internet, but yes, to the extent that there are
| authoritarian elements in every government, most
| governments do this to some degree. It's important to
| fight against these authoritarian elements as best as one
| can, especially if you are in a position of influence.
|
| It's also important, however, not to equivocate between
| totalitarian regimes like Russia and (albeit imperfectly)
| open democracies like the USA in instances like this.
| Just because no government is without sin does not mean
| they are all the same.
| mistermann wrote:
| Most people also don't worry about whether what they
| think they have no control over is actually true.
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Worry is unproductive in the sense of feeling anxiety,
| sure, but it's noble to worry at the various hammers in the
| archaic definition to "move, proceed, or progress by
| unceasing or difficult effort, to shake or pull at with the
| teeth."
|
| Some of the hammers such as the hammer representing nuclear
| weapons - are caused by people and can be solved by people.
| There's a big game theoretic hill to climb over, but social
| pressure and advocacy have been effective at making
| progress. Others, like cancer and general senescence, are
| more of a looming threat that's a fundamental
| characteristic of biology, we can (and should) worry at
| them to make incremental progress but we're unlikely to
| suddenly eliminate them. The murder rate is enormously
| dependent on individual location and individual
| relationships. Traffic/bicycle/pedestrian accidents are
| enormously dependent on individual behavior.
|
| Of those threats, addressing the problem of nuclear weapons
| - especially for a member of Nihon Hidankyo, with a
| personal and persuasive story of the damages these weapons
| caused - is probably near the top of the list for actions
| which can have the greatest positive change.
| klibertp wrote:
| Cancer isn't something that humans develop and control.
| It's also very unlikely to kill 20-year-olds. On the other
| hand, it's almost guaranteed if you happen to live long
| enough. Finally, getting cancer doesn't mean that everybody
| around you also gets one. Getting hit by a nuke is
| something that is totally under human control, it's not
| going to discriminate by age or gender, and is likely to
| wipe out most of the humans you care about along with you.
|
| A better comparison would be climate change vs nukes. If
| you have the time to worry about the former, you should
| _also_ worry about the latter since if the nukes go off, we
| won 't even get a chance to get killed by the environment.
| vkou wrote:
| My parents had no problem reminding us that we all live with
| a nuclear sword hanging over our heads.
|
| It just so happens that most people in the West are
| comfortable, are completely insulated from the consequences
| of war, and can't even imagine a _regular_ war happening to
| _them_.
|
| And nuclear war is so much more horrifying and its
| consequences are so much beyond the pale, that people can't
| even think of what it would mean.
| Arrath wrote:
| Oh I can imagine it happening. I'm currently working in
| Pearl Harbor and find myself hoping that I'll be on-base if
| the balloon goes up, thus avoiding any post-apocalyptic
| survival bullshit in a brilliant flash.
| macintux wrote:
| > It just so happens that most people in the West are
| comfortable, are completely insulated from the consequences
| of war, and can't even imagine a regular war happening to
| them.
|
| One of my great disappointments after 9/11 was that U.S.
| citizens were not, by and large, asked/expected to make any
| sacrifices (other than our liberties). It felt that if we
| were at war, we should all be contributing, but it seemed
| to me that our value as consumers was more important than
| as citizens.
| jsbg wrote:
| maybe your parents aren't old enough to remember how much of
| the population could expect to die in wars before nuclear
| weapons (i.e. mutually assured destruction) existed
| layer8 wrote:
| No, it's simply the end of the cold war that made it a
| possibility less present in the media. The cold war was cold
| because making it hot would have meant going nuclear. So the
| possibility was always closely linked to the state of cold
| war. Globalization has blurred the picture considerably.
| cchi_co wrote:
| I agree completely. The award serves as a crucial reminder of
| the ever-present threat of nuclear weapons
| mc32 wrote:
| Totally agree this is very relevant today. We have heads of
| state in the EU and to some degree people in the USG with very
| cavalier approaches to the ideological war between the West and
| the BRICS.
|
| I really don't know what the F* they are thinking but they keep
| pushing further and further and hope there is no elastic snap.
| It's like they forgot about diplomacy with enemies --at the
| height of the cold war, at its Apex in the Cuba Missile Crisis,
| we had communication with the enemy --it was inconceivable we
| would not have communications with them but now it's a wild
| west of bluster and provocation. I'm not saying were not right
| in tamping down aggression, but you have to be cognizant of the
| perils that exist.
|
| Quite striking is strident opponents of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki
| decision have few qualms about the prospects of current
| escalation. It's insane.
| mppm wrote:
| I'm not sure why this got downvoted. The point is not to bow
| to Putin in all matters, but to treat the matter with
| _extreme seriousness_ : Take time to do proper background
| research, evaluate your sources, give serious consideration
| to the Russian narrative -- without necessarily agreeing of
| course, allow for a margin of error both in your own
| judgement and for stray missiles entering the detection
| radius, etc. If it still seems like a good idea to take a
| stand afterwards, OK. But let's please not cause a nuclear
| war over Facebook likes and political brownie points.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| I haven't downvoted it, but one issue with parent's post is
| that it applies double standards to our nations' responses
| to those of the Cold War. During the 20th century, the
| _public_ impression of diplomacy was the very same 'wild
| west of bluster and provocation' - only nowadays, we get to
| see more behind the scenes of the Cold War as files are
| declassified and then-current affairs become history. The
| propaganda from the American and Soviet leadership was no
| more nuanced historically than it is now from contemporary
| leaders like Putin and Trump (and since parent mentioned
| the EU, we could include European figures such as von der
| Leyen here as well).
|
| I predict that future history books will observe a certain
| amount of care and diplomatic engagement in our era that
| isn't visible from the press releases and the ways in which
| politicians _want_ to be seen.
| nrml_amnt wrote:
| What is the Russian narrative? How to give consideration
| for something that is not even meant to be sensical?
| mppm wrote:
| Ah... NATO expansion? Alleged discrimination against the
| Russian majority in Eastern Ukraine? Alleged foreign
| interference in the Maidan revolution? Not that I'm
| trying to start a discussion here, but dismissing the
| other side's arguments as "not even meant to be sensical"
| is _exactly_ what I was arguing against.
| thereisnospork wrote:
| Being non-sensical is the point of that school of
| rhetoric.
|
| Briefly summarized: Power is being able to say something
| false, that the audience knows is false, that the speaker
| knows the audience knows is false, and that the audience
| knows that the speaker knows the audience knows is false
| -- but the audience can't/wont speak up.
| wk_end wrote:
| None of this is a legitimate _casus belli_ in any sense
| of the term. You're suggesting we ought to take seriously
| the geopolitical equivalent of "he looked at me funny".
| mc32 wrote:
| I would you say the Cuban missile crisis was made up by
| the Kennedy admin? The establishment was ready to war if
| the missiles were not removed. Being in our "backyard"
| and sphere of influence (LatAm) we didn't take to it too
| kindly.
| wk_end wrote:
| I would say that the Cuban Missile Crisis, indeed, would
| not have constituted a good reason to invade Cuba. US
| foreign policy during the Cold War was often pretty
| indefensible.
|
| But there's still a number of things about this situation
| that make the comparison flimsy. The relationship between
| the west and Russia was - and actually still is -
| significantly less tense than the relationship between
| the Soviets and the west during the Cold War, for one.
|
| But moreover, the way everything went down was very
| different.
|
| In the CMC, the Soviets installed their missiles, the US
| caught wind of this, and pursued a diplomatic solution.
| The public was, generally, made aware of what was going
| on and what was at stake.
|
| Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn't even
| applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres,
| offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy. Russia built up its
| forces along the border in secret and launched a surprise
| invasion. From the jump they've been offering shifting
| explanations for the "special military operation" - is it
| about NATO expansion or "de-Nazification"? - which is one
| reason why we shouldn't take any of those explanations
| especially seriously.
| ultimafan wrote:
| >Ukraine was not made a member of NATO - it hadn't even
| applied. At no point did Russia even rattle any sabres,
| offer red lines, or pursue diplomacy.
|
| To be fair, without saying that their position is a
| defensible one- they've been pretty vocal about Ukraine
| not becoming aligned with the West for almost 20 years
| now if not longer, and politicians in the West have been
| vocal about the exact opposite for at least as long. I
| see people saying online that what's happening now was
| completely irrational and unexpected but that's not
| really true. We know it's a sore point for them and have
| been goading them with a "will we won't we" over a clear
| red line they've drawn for a long while now.
| https://www.rferl.org/a/1079726.html
| nradov wrote:
| I don't know why you're bringing BRICS into this. Brazil and
| South Africa aren't nuclear powers (at least not anymore, and
| South Africa is an irrelevant failed state anyway). India
| isn't engaged in any sort of ideological war with the West.
| Their nukes are purely defensive to deter China and Pakistan.
|
| That leaves China and Russia. We learned during the Cold War
| that a policy of aggressive containment is effective and this
| should continue. Don't give them an inch.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| BRICS? What ideological war is South Africa, India, and
| Brazil waging against the west? Members of Brics such as
| India and China are closer to war with each other then they
| are to war with the West.
| wdr1 wrote:
| > I sometimes feel like the world has forgotten that nuclear
| weapons still exist
|
| I don't understand this. Between Iran and the Russia/Ukraine
| conflict, they seem to be very top of mind for many.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| The entire purpose of nuclear armaments is to make certain wars
| too nasty to fathom engaging in. If their organization didn't
| exist at all, we'd still have exactly the same number of
| nuclear war casualties since the 1940s.
| Hammershaft wrote:
| Interdependence via global trade makes it unlikely that
| without nuclear weapons we would have nearly the number of
| wars we had in the 1940s.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| In 1913, Norman Angell published a book called "The Great
| Illusion" in which he argued that the use of military force
| had become economically futile due to the
| interconnectedness of international finance and trade.
| World War I started one year later. Trade and
| interconnectedness probably have a net positive effect on
| reducing war, but not a reliable guarantee.
| valval wrote:
| Thats not a thing though is it? Sanctions aren't affecting
| Russia in any capacity.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| Sanctions are hurting Russia financially. Putin doesn't
| care because he can extract wealth from oligarchs in
| whatever manner he sees fit. That's the benefit of being
| a dictator who has a wealth of knowledge on how to watch
| his own back after his career in intelligence work. He'll
| just tell his people to create some propaganda and
| everyone will fall into line.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _Sanctions aren't affecting Russia in any capacity._
|
| Definitely false. They were never the slam dunk that they
| were supposed to be, and it's true to say their effect
| has been significantly blunted. But that's not the same
| as "no effect". It's just turned out to be a
| comparatively mild one (but important nonetheless).
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| It's a bit unclear to me why you need an organization that
| advocates against nuclear weapons. I'd argue the "nuclear taboo"
| is just the product of.. I don't just seeing one nuclear test
| video? It doesn't take the cataloging of witness testimony to see
| it's terror (though that may be important in its own right)
|
| I'm not intimately familiar with Japanese self-perceptions - but
| from the outside it seems like post-WW2 the country really leaned
| into a view that "nuclear weapons are terrible" to the point of
| distraction - instead of a more self-reflective "nationalism is
| terrible" or something along those lines. There seems to be much
| less anxiety about preventing getting into a similar situations
| that triggered WW2: neo-colonial military bullying and domination
| of neighbors, xenaphobic oppression of ethnic groups, sycophantic
| following of cultural leaders etc. and an intense worry about the
| more tangeable use of nuclear weapons - which I'd argue is
| something that even if it were to come to pass would almost
| certainly never involve the Japanese people.
|
| I wonder how this seeming diversion of public attention is
| perceived in Japan itself.
|
| As I understand it, the anti-nationalist narrative was repressed
| due to anti-communist agendas of the occupation forces (ex:
| freeing of nationalist war criminals)
|
| Would be curious to hear from anyone Japanese on the topic
| nabla9 wrote:
| The general human tendency to focus on single short term events
| seems to be the main cause.
|
| Let's compare using Wikipedia as a source:
| Atomic bombings in Japan: 50,000-246,000 casualties.
| Air Raids in Japan: 241,000-900,000 killed,
| 213,000-1,300,000 wounded, 8,500,000 rendered homeless.
|
| Mass killings of large civilian populations should not happen.
| I don't personally see nuclear weapons as worse than incendiary
| bombs or artillery. It's the number of casualties that makes it
| horrible.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I agree. I've been to the Hiroshima Peace Park or whatever
| it's called in English numerous times, but I can't say I've
| been anymore moved by it than any other demonstration of
| human brutality.
|
| I can't register a difference between a nuclear bomb and,
| say, a GBU-12 Paveway conventional bomb. They both destroy
| and kill brutally, the magnitude is irrelevant and it would
| be great if we never have to use either of them.
| faggotbreath wrote:
| A nuke and a pave way? That's like comparing a 22lr to a
| 155mm HE shell.
| defrost wrote:
| The evidence we have is
|
| * one early bomb is more or less equivilant to one
| conventional HE + incendiary raid.
|
| * 2,000+ _other_ bombs have since been detonated, a good
| number of which were orders of magnitudes more destructive
| than the early "first gen" bombs used on Japan.
|
| Nuclear war with the larger weapons that followed would be
| considerably worse than incendiary bombs, in physical
| destruction, in immediate deaths, and in injuries and
| following mortalities.
| nabla9 wrote:
| It's all about scale. Not about the type weapons
| themselves. All the testifying of the horrors seems
| irrelevant.
|
| Using nuclear weapons only tactically against counterforce
| targets would not be that horrifying.
| gabaix wrote:
| The Hiroshima museum, while advocating for a nuclear free
| world, has an interesting take on why the US dropped the bomb
| on them.
|
| According to them, the US dropped the bomb because they wanted
| to show their strengths against the Soviets. It makes little to
| no mention of the bloody battles in the Pacific.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > instead of a more self-reflective "nationalism is terrible"
| or something along those lines.
|
| It used to bother me a lot, until I realized that
|
| - the US purposefully left the Emperor in place with only a
| slap on the fingers ("you're not a god anymore...except for
| those who still believe you are")
|
| - all surrounding countries have incentives to to keep
| distances from Japan (in particular as long as the US are
| there, Japan and China will never be allies, same for Russia),
| Taiwan being the exception.
|
| I see no future where Japan nationalism is truly solved, short
| of these two things also getting solved. And boy is there no
| end in sight to this.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >the US purposefully left the Emperor in place with only a
| slap on the fingers
|
| This was a deliberate political decision in an effort to not
| repeat the grave mistake of how post-WW1 Germany was handled
| which essentially led to WW2. Denying Japan of their identity
| and dignity would have risked an eventual WW3, and the US did
| not want to even entertain the possibility.
|
| It also didn't help that practically all of Japan were not
| going to see their Emperor deposed or worse; Japan was
| willing to compromise on literally everything _but_ the
| Emperor in making peace with the US and the west, and the
| extended Imperial family along with all the other nobles
| thereof lost their titles and powers in the post-war
| occupation and restructuring.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I think we're mostly in agreement. It was a strategic move
| and it might have helped a lot letting Japan get back on
| its feet. And it's also the move that left the deep deep
| nationalism in place and it's still here today.
|
| Perhaps there was no way to have one without the other, but
| at least I want to look at it as a series of cause and
| consequences.
|
| Crazy popular anime girl representations of WW2 battleships
| is the most funniest form of that reality IMHO.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I'm Japanese-American, so I can throw two cents in your hat.
|
| Post-war Japan is against nuclear weapons to an absolute, but
| it must be admitted that the response to nukes in particular is
| just as much a kneejerk reaction. NHK literally _spams_ the
| entirety of August with anti-nuclear propaganda every year.
| Japan 's anti-nuclear stance is also hypocritically at odds
| with relying on the US nuclear umbrella for national security.
|
| More rationally, post-war Japan is against wars of any and all
| kinds to an absolute. This goes as far as refusing to defend
| the US in the event of an attack on the US-Japan alliance; this
| was only changed recently in the last decade or so after strong
| pressure from the US to reciprocate the US's defense
| commitments to Japan.
|
| Nationalism is a... complex topic. You will be considered a
| crazy person if you wave the Japanese flag or put up a flagpole
| on or around your house, but at the same time loyalty and
| reverence to the Emperor still remains strong and the country
| is politically and culturally very conservative/liberal with a
| very interesting mix of individualism and conformity. Most
| Japanese ex-pats actually leave Japan because they are more
| progressive and can't stand the conservative culture.
|
| Japan is actually quite welcoming of foreigners, but there is a
| hard gentlemen's agreement that if you're in Japan you do as
| the Japanese do. Those who can adapt are welcomed, those who
| can't/don't are excluded and ejected sooner or later.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I'd argue the "nuclear taboo" is just the product of.. I
| don't just seeing one nuclear test video?
|
| And yet some high ranking military planers were seriously
| pushing for employing nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Do you think
| they just haven't seen any nuclear test videos?
|
| > It's a bit unclear to me why you need an organization that
| advocates against nuclear weapons.
|
| Because humans keep building, and fielding nuclear weapons. Not
| sure where you live, but chances are good your taxes are used
| to build, and maintain nuclear weapons and the means to carry
| them.
| tgv wrote:
| In "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Rhodes, a poignant point
| was made, originating from people like Bohr, who were definitely
| on the peaceful side: without demonstrating the effect of the
| atomic bomb, the "nuclear taboo" would not have come into
| existence, and the first large conflict between nuclear powers
| would have seen a terrible outcome. The use of the bomb was
| inevitable, so it was sadly better to use it in a restricted war,
| before the US and the CCCP would use them against each other and
| the rest of the world.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| That might have been a better argument if the USSR[0] had had
| the bomb in 1945[1]?
|
| Lagniappe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRLON3ddZIw#t=15s
|
| [0] first test: 29.08.1949
|
| [1] a year in which the US and USSR were, however tenuously,
| _still allied_
| cbolton wrote:
| Does it matter? It was probably obvious to the scientists
| working on the bomb that other countries would get it too
| sooner or later, including countries at odds with each other.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| I don't know.
|
| Could Hirohito (Suzuki, etc.) have been convinced by bombs
| dropped elsewhere?
|
| (our physicists were able to back-of-the-envelope; should
| their physicists have needed hundreds of thousands of
| civilian deaths to calculate what an A-bomb could do?)
|
| So I think it's not obvious (multiple books have been
| written on the subject) what could or should have been done
| or not done back then; now, from my point of view, those
| cards have been dealt, for good or for ill.
| tgv wrote:
| Hirohito was apparently convinced after the bomb on
| Hiroshima, the cabinet and military staff still wanted to
| fight on after the bomb on Nagasaki. They even tried to
| block his radio speech.
|
| Personally, I think it was tragic, but there was not much
| choice. Forcing Japan to its knees by conventional means
| would have been a prolonged bloodbath (with the Soviets
| getting in the game as well), with probably a higher
| death toll.
| smsm42 wrote:
| > Could Hirohito (Suzuki, etc.) have been convinced by
| bombs dropped elsewhere?
|
| Not likely, Tokyo was firebombed to ashes and it didn't
| move him to surrender.
| thimabi wrote:
| But was it really obvious? From what I can tell, much of
| the nuclear arms race happened thanks to espionage. Had
| information on warheads and the like been properly
| contained, maybe other countries would not have so easily
| developed the bomb.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _Had information on warheads and the like been properly
| contained, maybe other countries would not have so easily
| developed the bomb._
|
| The Soviets had people inside the Manhattan Project / Los
| Alamos. As the US made progress that information was fed
| to the Soviets/Russians.
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Fuchs
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_spies
| tgv wrote:
| Not so easily, but they would have done it. Once it was
| known, there wouldn't have been any way to stop Stalin.
| His paranoia knew no limits. And then there would have
| been dozens, hundreds when the war would break out,
| nobody would be scared to use them.
| smsm42 wrote:
| Unfortunately, democracies have their downsides. One of
| them is that "properly containing" things is extremely
| hard. Soviet spy network was vast and infiltrated all
| tiers of US society, and without instituting some
| extremely draconian policies, compared to which McCarthy
| would look like a hippie, I don't see how it would be
| possible to prevent it. Especially given a lot of top
| scientists were, unfortunately, if not communists
| themselves than quite friendly with communists and would
| probably refuse to cooperate with any draconian regime
| that would be capable of suppressing the communist
| networks.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Japan was better off in the long run being occupied solely by
| the US instead of a split occupation with the Soviets like
| Germany. If we hadn't dropped the two bombs, the Soviets were
| set to invade northern Japan.
| smsm42 wrote:
| They were allies by necessity, but I don't think there were a
| lot of illusions about where things age heading. After all,
| the official doctrine of the Communist Party has always been
| that every non-communist regime has to be violently
| overthrown and replaced by a communist one. USSR didn't have
| the bomb not because they didn't want one, but because they
| were incapable of building one by themselves, and stealing
| all the details by means of vast spy network they had in the
| US, and then recreating them on their side, took time. If
| they had the capacity, they'd do it as fast as possible.
| istjohn wrote:
| > And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him
| through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither
| have ye pity:
|
| > Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children,
| and women...
|
| Ezekial 9:5-6
|
| > Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they
| have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant
| and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
|
| 1 Samuel 15:3
|
| > And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the
| face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping
| things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed
| from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that
| were with him in the ark.
|
| Genesis 7:23
|
| Two and a half thousand years later, human nature is unchanged.
| How easily we make peace with wholesale slaughter.
| octopoc wrote:
| All those examples are from a single ancient culture. Why did
| you pick only from that culture?
| istjohn wrote:
| They are quotes from the most important text of our Western
| culture, the sacred scripture of the world's largest
| religion.
| onursurme wrote:
| And similar things are still going on today
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| Not sure if that organisation is making progress, sounds like a
| smoke bomb, to please people who care about these meaningless
| rewards
|
| https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/385216...
| kaon_ wrote:
| At home I have a book telling stories of Dutch WW2 survivors
| still living today. One of them was an eye witness account of the
| Hiroshima bomb. He was a POW and worked in a quarry or mine on
| the outskirts of town. He saw a single plane fly over. A bomb
| dropped with a parachute attached. Moments later he was flung to
| the back of the quarry and the city was gone. I would never have
| guessed there were eyewitnesses like this, let alone coutrymen of
| mine.
| LeonM wrote:
| Which book is it?
| Metacelsus wrote:
| Little Boy didn't have a parachute. Maybe he was mis-
| remembering that.
| dogben wrote:
| There were instruments dropped by parachute.
| tephra wrote:
| IIRC those were dropped by a second plane accompanying the
| Enola Gay.
| cchi_co wrote:
| Just how widespread the effects of World War II were
| trescenzi wrote:
| The book Hiroshima by John Hersey has many accounts like this.
| It's a short read and follows six people and covers the first
| year after the bombing. I'd highly recommend reading it if such
| accounts are interesting to you.
| tirumaraiselvan wrote:
| It was published in New Yorker
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31/hiroshima
|
| Fun fact the cover image if this edition was kind of a decoy
| (perhaps to accentuate the shock):
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1946/08/31
| ralfd wrote:
| Wow, brutal!
|
| As an aside I would never had guessed this artstyle was a
| 40s cover.
| evanjrowley wrote:
| My opa was also a Dutch POW and I believe he was working in
| that same mine on the same day. When it happened, he was deep
| in the mine, which was evacuated because people inside
| initially thought the blast was an earthquake. Being a POW was
| without question extremely hard, but it was the bombing of
| Hiroshima that resulted in PTSD lasting many years after the
| war. He survived, retiring in Florida, and passed away in the
| late 80s. Some US government scientists asked if they could
| study his body, believing radiation exposure affected his long
| term health. It seems they were correct because his bones were
| found to have a slightly blue tint to them.
| hammock wrote:
| You may be interested in the 1945 Project - which collects the
| stories of hibakusha,[1] or atomic bomb survivors:
| https://www.1945project.com/
|
| There is also Yoshito Matsushige, a survivor and the only
| photographer who was able to capture an immediate, first-hand
| photographic historical account:
| https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/yoshito-mats...
|
| [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibakusha
| jojobas wrote:
| Nuclear weapons are not used not because they are morally
| unacceptable, but rather because of MAD and their limited
| efficiency when used against armies.
|
| If you wanted to give a Nobel Prize to someone for preventing
| nuclear wars, give it to Nuclear Winter researchers and military
| analysts.
| psychoslave wrote:
| Nice to see they do somehow recognize the whole association of
| people and not push to much about a single person. But the
| committee is trapped with the rules that push for this ridiculous
| individual centric point of view which is so out of touch with
| measurable realities considering what forces actually come at
| play to anything with large social impact.
|
| Also on a side note:
|
| >the most destructive weapons the world has ever seen.
|
| Well, first thing, this is a quite restrictive anthropocentric
| and restrictive POV for what count for a weapon. Putting appart
| all things that triggered previous mass extinction as they might
| not really fit the expectation of weapon and "ever witnessed as
| implied agent", ok. But let's consider European invasion of
| America: while this was not intended and per design, it somehow
| greatly leveraged on bacteriological weapons.
|
| Currently humanity is also at war with biodiversity, and the
| scale is massive and worldwide, using a large panel of tools.
|
| Of course we are more prone to empathy to our fellow humans, and
| nuclear weapons are abominations.
| belter wrote:
| Tsutomu Yamaguchi survived both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic
| bombings...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsutomu_Yamaguchi
| LightBug1 wrote:
| a.k.a. Tsutomu "Wolverine" Yamaguchi
| Strawberry76 wrote:
| A good one this year. Some past recipients, not so good...
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| Phenomenal choice. While 80 years is nice- it's a blip on the
| timescale of history.
|
| I personally think we're a button click away from going back to
| the stone age. I know others will disagree, but it's not
| something you wanna take a gamble on.
|
| I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining on
| other heavenly bodies.
|
| And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers are
| extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency.
| mordae wrote:
| Stone age? Hardly. More like 18th century.
|
| I am more worried that we do not have that many attempts at
| rebuilding, because coal and oil are finite. OTOH a slower 2nd
| iteration might actually work better than this one.
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| "I know others will disagree, but it's not something you
| wanna take a gamble on."
|
| Far more important than 18th century vs stone age debate is
| the fact that there are people in charge that would lead us
| down either path.
| verisimi wrote:
| > there are people in charge that would lead us down either
| path
|
| Must you follow?
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| Would love not to. But I'm not the decider whether we
| head down the path of nuclear armageddon.
| bonzini wrote:
| If we lost access to electricity, we'd be completely screwed;
| we can't even get drinkable water in many places without
| electricity.
|
| For example where I live there is water around 10-20m depth,
| but it's polluted (it may be usable for agriculture but not
| for human consumption); you'd have to dig a well over 100m
| below the surface.
| generic92034 wrote:
| The standards for what is fit for human consumption might
| drastically change in a post-apocalyptic scenario, though.
| kortilla wrote:
| Boil it
| fifilura wrote:
| > And also why wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers is
| extremely foolish and should be stopped with great urgency.
|
| The strict interpretation of that foreign policy is that any
| nuclear nation is free to invade any non-nuclear nation and
| abuse its citizens.
|
| Where do you draw the line? If for example an ally is invaded
| by a nuclear nation. Should you intervene or just call peace?
|
| Does the rule-of-law between countries have any relevance?
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| You're claiming "wars or proxy wars between nuclear powers"
| are _not_ "extremely foolish" and should _not_ "be stopped
| with great urgency"?
| fifilura wrote:
| Yes but how?
|
| Obviously the invader is not going to stop the war and say
| "this was foolish". So it is up to all other nations to bow
| down and let them have their piece of the world.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Yeah, this is also a big concern of mine. Nuclear weapons
| haven't been used since ww2, but there also hasn't ever been
| total war between two nuclear powers.
|
| The current climate in Russia and the Middle East may change
| that.
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| The current situation will not lead to nuclear war.
| palata wrote:
| > I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self sustaining
| on other heavenly bodies.
|
| I think this is a very naive take.
|
| * We can't really live on another planet in the solar system. *
| Look at how far the next star is and realise that we won't get
| there anytime soon (probably at all). * What's the point of
| surviving on another planet, without any other species? *
| Without considering the risk of nuclear war, we are in the
| process of destroying life on Earth.
|
| The resources we put on that project are mostly wasted. We
| should try to live on Earth, I hear it's a nice place.
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| I don't personally believe we should colonize other heavenly
| bodies _because_ of a potential nuclear apocalypse, but the
| negation of that is no reason to abandon space travel either.
| Every time we have launched a mission into deep space we have
| learnt more as a species about what makes Earth 'tick'. We
| can also do a lot without actual space travel - maybe if more
| people had heeded the observations of the greenhouse effect
| on Venus in the 60s, for instance, we would have less of an
| issue cleaning up our own atmosphere now.
|
| I'm not confident that our place is in the stars, but it
| would be narrow-minded not to give living out there a go.
| palata wrote:
| > maybe if more people had heeded the observations of the
| greenhouse effect on Venus in the 60s
|
| We know pretty well what's happening on Earth and we have
| for decades. It's not like we just realised 5 years ago
| that we have a problem. We have not done anything (and we
| still aren't), but we knew, that's for sure.
|
| > I'm not confident that our place is in the stars, but it
| would be narrow-minded not to give living out there a go.
|
| In terms of survival as a species, anything that's not
| about solving our biodiversity and climate problems is a
| loss of time. I'm fine if some people work on it (just like
| it's good to have people working in art), but a lot of
| those researchers and engineers working on space
| exploration may actually be more useful to the species if
| they worked on the actual problems we have.
| nyc_data_geek1 wrote:
| This precisely. We're in fact nowhere close to a
| sustainable off world human habitat, with all the
| inputs/outputs such requires, not to mention the
| ecosystem needed to sustain such in perpetuity.
|
| If people are really interested in perpetuating "the
| light of consciousness" among the stars, they'd be
| working themselves to death to make life sustainable here
| on Earth, where we're from, which still presents far more
| hospitable conditions relative to anywhere else in the
| Universe we've so far identified. Say you're a
| billionaire with such an interest - wouldn't your funds
| be somewhat better directed ensuring we don't annihilate
| ourselves in a mad max hellscape locally, before we
| suffocate in the void when the O2 machine breaks down and
| we can't source replacement parts because Earth is now a
| wasteland?
|
| The Great Filter is us, and so far, doesn't look like
| we're making it past.
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| I think this is a very naive take.
|
| We could live on Mars. Just a matter of time. Let engineers
| iterate.
|
| We would obviously bring species here at home with us to
| Mars. And then new species would flourish too.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| I don't think people understand just how un-feasible life
| on Mars would be. It's got 1% of the atmospheric pressure
| as Earth. It's -65 degrees Celsius. It'd be more feasible
| to try colonizing the Moon or Antarctica.
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| We have permanent presence in Antarctica. Depends on your
| exact definition of "colony", but a narrow definition of
| it is barred by international treaty, I think.
|
| Moon is definitely a great first step. I originally said
| "other heavenly bodies".
|
| You sound like someone in 1900 saying "We can't fly,
| we're too heavy" or "We can't be in space it's got 0%
| atmospheric pressure".
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Antartctica has a permanent presence that's totally
| dependent on regular supplies delivered from other
| continents. They don't grow their own crops, have their
| own industry.
|
| We couldn't fly until the early 1900s, primarily because
| we didn't have engines with power to weight ratios
| sufficient for heavier-than-air flight. The concept of
| flight via the Bernoulli principle was known for a long
| time, and when engines improved people did start flying.
|
| The lack of atmosphere on Mars largely prohibits any self
| sufficient colony. Colonies could be limited to
| pressurized habitats. But again, at that point we might
| as well focus on colonizing the moon which is much
| closer. I guess if we have a mechanism to somehow pump
| mars full of air, colonization would become more
| feasible. But it's a lot harder to work around the law of
| conservation of mass, than it is to improve internal
| combustion engines. No, it's not like people doubting the
| feasibilityy of heavier-than-air flight.
| porbelm wrote:
| We have an atmosphere.
| palata wrote:
| > It'd be more feasible to try colonizing the Moon
|
| And just as useless.
| layer8 wrote:
| Don't forget the radiation.
| dsign wrote:
| >> I think it's one of the reasons we have to be self
| sustaining on other heavenly bodies.
|
| This is not a joke. But every time anybody brings it up a mob
| shows up saying that we _must_ make it work here on Earth, and
| we should all go to hell if we can 't. But we only need a few
| madmen in power for the rest of us to not matter.
| fifilura wrote:
| I imagine that if you can colonize other planets you can also
| target them with nuclear weapons.
|
| It is like saying that the solution to all problems is
| colonizing Antarctica.
| Manabu-eo wrote:
| It's much easier to intercept said nuclear weapon because
| instead of minutes you would have months to do it. And
| attacking Mars outside the few months every two years that
| have the most favorable transfer windows would also be much
| more difficult. It's a non-trivial advantage.
|
| Of course, if you have nuclear weapons already on Mars that
| can be remotely triggered from Earth this doesn't apply,
| but hopefully we can avoid that...
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| Yes- but raises an interesting problem of nuclear energy.
| Might be very important/useful in space.
|
| The book series "The Expanse" does an amazing job of
| showing what a war in space would look like, and the role
| of nuclear energy.
|
| Interestingly, nukes become small fry compared to
| slinging asteroids at planets.
| timeon wrote:
| Point is that if we can not behave on Earth how can we do it
| in other place.
| fragmede wrote:
| it's an open question as to how interplanetary politics
| will actually go. it's possible that ancient squabbles
| between countries will carryover, but hopefully they won't,
| which means that a terrorist's nuclear bomb causing MAD on
| Earth wouldn't necessarily carryover to MAD on a
| terraformed Mars and Lunar colonies, as we saw with the
| Russians who boarded the ISS in blue and yellow. But even
| if it doesn't, Earth being hit by an asteroid is another
| scenario that being a multi-planetary species would prevent
| our extinction in.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _it 's possible that ancient squabbles between
| countries_
|
| Don't forget with-in countries.
|
| If another planet becomes another 'country', they'll have
| internal disagreements.
| protomolecule wrote:
| >as we saw with the Russians who boarded the ISS in blue
| and yellow
|
| That's just the colors of one of the top Russian
| universities from which all three cosmonauts had
| graduated. [0]
|
| [0] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskovskii_gosudarstven
| nyi_tekh...
| addaon wrote:
| > Point is that if we can not behave on Earth how can we do
| it in other place.
|
| If we have a 90% chance of behaving in any given century,
| we are doomed on earth. If we have a 10% chance of behaving
| in any given century, a continuous heritage is possible in
| a galaxy (re-)populated by slowships.
| palata wrote:
| Except that the current state of physics says that we
| just can't possibly reach another galaxy. Period.
| addaon wrote:
| > Except that the current state of physics says that we
| just can't possibly reach another galaxy. Period.
|
| Yes, that's exactly why my comment limited itself to
| discussion of population of /this/ galaxy.
| palata wrote:
| The next star is already way too far for our theory. You
| may as well study telekinesis.
| palata wrote:
| > But every time anybody brings it up a mob shows up saying
| that we must make it work here on Earth
|
| Yeah, we must. As in: it's not rational to even consider that
| becoming self-sustaining on other heavenly bodies is an
| alternative.
|
| It's fun, it's interesting, it's many things. But it's not an
| alternative.
| kortilla wrote:
| Of course it's an alternative. A self sustaining colony
| could be the only thing that survives a massive pandemic.
| palata wrote:
| Well if it was possible, it would be an alternative. But
| it's not, period. Counting on it happening in your life
| time is simply preposterous. But you know what might
| collapse during your lifetime? Our civilization. Pretty
| likely.
| layer8 wrote:
| The point is that making it work on Earth is orders of
| magnitude easier than making it work on Mars (or wherever).
| And by that I don't mean that it's easy by any stretch, but
| that establishing a self-sustaining colony on another planet
| is so much harder. In addition to the extremely challenging
| extraterrestrial environment (much more challenging than
| anything we have on Earth, including in the case of
| terrestrial nuclear catastrophe), all the problems that we
| have on Earth due to human nature will travel with us to any
| other planet if we don't manage to solve them here.
| mihaaly wrote:
| Humanity en masse are superficial ignorant pretentious idiots.
| They are so pretentious that they pretend they are not
| pretentious and they care a lot ('It is utmost important for us
| [arbitrary lie here]'). Except Trump kind of people. They
| honestly and proudly announce that they give no fuck about
| anyone but themselves.
| psychoslave wrote:
| >Humanity en masse are superficial ignorant pretentious
| idiots.
|
| Oh I see how I can perfectly fit this role sure, I tell you
| so as the most humble entity that universe ever spawned.
|
| It was of the outmost importance for me to deliver this lie:
| I don't care about anyone, humanity can go extinct, self
| included, and it doesn't trigger any emotion in me.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _I personally think we 're a button click away from going
| back to the stone age._
|
| One reason to use less oil now is to perhaps preserve it in
| case we need to 'reboot' civilization in the future in case of
| a future cataclysm.
|
| We were only able to reach beyond (near-)subsistence living
| because of cheap energy, first coal and later petroleum. All
| the easily accessible stuff is now kind of gone, so if there's
| another collapse (which may be more likely to be global in
| nature: see pandemics), then depending on how much knowledge we
| lose it could be hard to get back to the say level without the
| previously cheap/easy energy.
|
| In past collapses (Europe: Western Roman Empire, Black Death)
| we were able to eventually recover because we at a simply
| technological level that could keep going even with the loss of
| a lot of knowledge.
|
| > _I think it 's one of the reasons we have to be self
| sustaining on other heavenly bodies._
|
| I think this will be impossible given advanced countries can't
| even be self-sufficient on Earth.
|
| Is there oil on those heavenly bodies? Probably no, so you're
| importing your lubricants and seals/o-rings. Advanced fabs? No?
| Well you're importing your electronics. What kind of silica is
| there, because if you don't have the right kind of sand, you're
| mot making your own solar panels. How much radioactive material
| (uranium, plutonium, thorium, _etc_ ) is around if you want to
| try nuclear power.
| lutorm wrote:
| There is _so_ much coal... I wouldn 't worry about running
| out of that.
| throw0101c wrote:
| > _There is so much coal... I wouldn 't worry about running
| out of that._
|
| It's not just about quantity, but accessibility: early coal
| was on the surface in the UK, and when they depleted that
| they had to create pumps to drain the mines--which led to
| all sorts of discoveries when it comes to pressure, which
| got translated into steam engine advancements.
|
| In the past you could almost literally stick a straw in the
| ground in parts of the US and suck oil out of the ground.
| You have to go further afield in many cases now.
| palata wrote:
| > I think this will be impossible given advanced countries
| can't even be self-sufficient on Earth.
|
| And that's only after you've passed the fact that it's
| impossible for us to reach the next star.
| EasyMark wrote:
| So like usual I offer up "what's your alternative" ? Is it to
| ignore Russian's invasion of countries? Ignore Iran's chaos it
| wants to sew constantly in the Middle East? It's easy to say
| "just be peaceful" but history shows that countries are not
| peaceful towards one another, they constantly want to take
| other's resources, or force their way of life on others, or
| settle some vague issue they have with another country (or
| people there). I think most people would love if countries
| would just stop attacking others. right now we don't have the
| tech to live on "other bodies", that is pie in the sky. I would
| love if nation-states just stopped the nonsense and were good
| to one another and their inhabitants, but that has never been
| the case.
| quotz wrote:
| Irans wants to sew chaos? The whole conflict with Iran
| started because the US and UK installed a puppet government
| (Pahlavi) so they can control the oil. After Pahlavi was
| ousted, the religious extreme took control, and cut ties with
| the west as a result. Its more like the west wanted chaos and
| started this whole mess
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| It's this same mentality that got us in trouble in
| literally all conflicts of the past 40 years. One day it's
| gonna get us blown up and I hope it's not over the Donbas.
| exoverito wrote:
| The CIA was actively involved in the Maidan revolution, which
| sought to pull Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence
| and into the EU / NATO. Obviously this is antagonistic
| towards Russia, especially when they have so few natural
| barriers to defend against invasion of their land. Look at
| how quickly the Wagner group reached Moscow after defecting
| from the Ukrainian front.
|
| If the shoe were on the other foot, and China had supported a
| revolution in Mexico and was setting up military bases, the
| American government would not take it lightly. The US would
| cook up some reason to wage war against Mexico as a
| continuation of the Monroe Doctrine. These wars are not about
| good and evil, as much as it's about empires and power.
| cynicalpeace wrote:
| You realize achieving a compromise is not simply "ignoring"
| or surrendering to Russia?
|
| Putin and Biden haven't spoken in years. I would say you're
| proposing ignoring the situation until it becomes even more
| of a powder keg in a decade or two.
|
| Alternative is accepting some territorial losses,
| compromising, soldiers go home. Doomsday clock ticks back to
| 5 minutes to midnight.
|
| You're acting as if this is the first time anyone has annexed
| territory. Do I like it? No. But you gotta manage with the
| cards you're dealt and that territory is not worth decades
| long conflict with two major nuclear powers.
| aguaviva wrote:
| _You realize achieving a compromise is not simply
| "ignoring" or surrendering to Russia?_
|
| Depends on the degree of compromise.
|
| What kind of compromises do you think Ukraine should make
| at this point in order to win "peace" with Russia?
|
| Specifics needed please, especially in regard to: (1) the
| proportion of currently occupied territory Ukraine would
| need to grant permanent recognized sovereignty to Russia
| on; (2) the proportion of the the estimated 1T in material
| damage caused to Ukraine that Russia would need to pay
| before sanctions are lifted; and (3) the matter of some 20k
| abducted citizens, mostly minors that Ukraine asserts (with
| a high degree of credibility) are currently behind held by
| Russia?
|
| Because it's the specifics that matter.
|
| (BTW, future NATO status is mostly symbolic at this point;
| items (1)-(3) are what really matter).
| anigbrowl wrote:
| _Alternative is accepting some territorial losses,
| compromising, soldiers go home._
|
| This is just _machtpolitik._
| walrushunter wrote:
| Yeah, we should just stop all wars. Great idea! How has nobody
| thought of this before???
| melasadra wrote:
| As some other commenters have pointed out: It is lamentable that
| the focus is almost always on the atomic bombing itself instead
| of why it came to that point at all.
|
| Many Asian countries feel scant sympathy toward Japan. From
| Indonesia to Malaysia to the Philipipines or even worse and for
| much longer, in Korea and China. In each of these countries the
| Japanese perpetrated massacre, forced labour, gang rape and
| forced prostitution in the millions. Even European women who were
| stranded in their former colonies were not spared. In fact their
| diaries are the foremost historical sources.
|
| Their brutality is such that the hatred towards colonialist
| European nations were ameliorated and pretty much forgotten these
| days. It's sickening to me that outside East and Southeast Asia
| itself, most of the world only remember Nagasaki and Hiroshima
| when it comes to casualties in the Pacific theatre of WW2.
|
| This sympathy felt even more misplaced considering even to this
| very day, unlike Germany, Japanese historiograpy deliberately
| downplays Japan brutality during occupation or that there was any
| aggression on their part at all. Most Japanese college mates in
| the US that I've talked to were not even aware that Japan
| occupied my country for years resulting in millions of
| casualties.
| yread wrote:
| There are also well-maintained shrines (like Yasukuni) to the
| Japanese war criminals frequented even by high-level
| politicians (former PM went there, current ministers went
| there). Imagine that in current Germany!
| glandium wrote:
| The Yasukuni situation is more complex than "the shrine for
| war criminals". A lot more people are enshrined there, the
| war criminals are a tiny fraction (and were only added in
| 1978, while the shrine was established 109 years earlier). To
| give you an example of an important and less controversial
| figure enshrined there: Sakamoto Ryoma. There are 2+ millions
| souls enshrined there.
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| [flagged]
| gus_massa wrote:
| What about right wing dictatorships backed by the CIA?
| wtcactus wrote:
| Is there any right wing dictatorship backed by CIA that has
| nuclear weapons?
| aguaviva wrote:
| _while Iran has them,_
|
| Present tense, you say?
| dang wrote:
| Can you please make your substantive points without name-
| calling and flamebait? We've had to ask you this before!
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| What's name calling?
| Timari wrote:
| I watched the film "Threads" last night, anyone in any doubt
| about the horrific consequences of a nuclear exchange should
| watch it. The speed at which society falls apart is simply
| terrifying. Those poor souls unlucky to be in a war zone will
| understand better than I ever will. The world needs a new order.
| tomp wrote:
| This is a bad choice.
|
| Nuclear weapons are the biggest cause of the last 80 years of
| peace between major world powers.
|
| The best way to stop nuclear weapons from ever being used again,
| is to keep lots of them, in as many countries as possible
| (mutually assured destruction).
| thimabi wrote:
| Nuclear weapons have not prevented major world powers from
| engaging in proxy wars. As we can see today in the Middle East,
| proxy wars can make things dangerous and more likely to lead to
| an unwanted escalation.
|
| Mutually assured destruction works best when the number of
| involved parties is limited. If every state were to have a
| warhead of its own, many risks would increase: those of
| miscalculation, nuclear proliferation to non-state actors, etc.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| What if a fanatical leader has them? Castro said he would have
| nuked the US if he could and didn't care if Cuba gets
| destroyed.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg
| protomolecule wrote:
| >What if a fanatical leader has them?
|
| Like Nixon, you mean? [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory#Richard_Nixon
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Not at all. A fanatic wouldn't feign it, they'd do it. Self
| destruction be damned.
| protomolecule wrote:
| So why mention Castro?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Because the person I responded to said that if everyone
| has nukes we are safer because of MAD but if Castro had
| nukes he would have used them!
|
| Fanatical leaders don't give a damn about MAD
| protomolecule wrote:
| How do you know that Castro would've used them?
| zorked wrote:
| The linked video, which is a claim by somebody who isn't
| Castro, said that he recommended using them as a response
| to a US attack - not unconditionally. It's the principle
| of MAD, and the same as the US doctrine.
| exmadscientist wrote:
| It is, as so often the case, a classic prisoner's dilemma
| problem [0]: "no nukes" is pretty clearly superior to "any
| nukes at all", but "they have nukes but we don't" is game over,
| so... nukes for all (major world powers)!
|
| It's awful, but that's the prisoner's dilemma for you. I have a
| hard time respecting any anti-nuclear activist who doesn't at
| least acknowledge this facet of things, even if "no one has
| nukes and no one can easily get them" really would be best for
| the world.
|
| [0]: if anyone hasn't seen it before, the interactive
| https://ncase.me/trust/ on the iterated prisoner's dilemma is
| _excellent_
| tomp wrote:
| No, I disagree.
|
| There hasn't been a hot war between nuclear powered states,
| ever.
|
| This is pretty obviously superior compared with the previous
| "no nukes" era, that had _plenty_ of hot wars...
| jhbadger wrote:
| Define "hot war". There have been plenty of fighting in
| border regions of India and Pakistan in recent years, and
| both have nukes. India since 1974 and Pakistan since 1998.
| whatshisface wrote:
| Chinese troops and Soviet planes were there in Korea.
| MisterBastahrd wrote:
| If the past 8 years have shown us anything, it's that we are
| capable of electing incredibly stupid people who likely would
| get us into war if being blown back into the stone age
| weren't a possibility. I like nuclear weapons for that
| reason. It scares tyrants into complacency on the larger
| scale.
| keybored wrote:
| God, spare the world from nerds and their game theories.
| There have been enough nuclear trigger close calls already.
| ranger207 wrote:
| I'm also of the opinion that MAD has been the largest single
| greatest cause of peace in the past 80 years, but I disagree
| that this award is bad. The reason we haven't seen a single use
| of nuclear weapons since then, not even relatively small ones,
| is because of the nuclear taboo that organizations like this
| have engendered
| linhns wrote:
| That's not applicable to the mullahs in Iran. If they have
| they'd use it on Day 1.
| hackable_sand wrote:
| Just don't use nuclear weapons
| ericmcer wrote:
| I kind of agree, but we have way too many bombs just floating
| around.
|
| How many nukes does a country need to have readied in order for
| mutually assured destruction to be relevant? I feel like 100
| would be enough to deter any aggression, and if two countries
| unload their full arsenal at each other would not end life on
| earth.
|
| Russia and US have closer to 10,000 between them which could
| pretty much end humanity on any day.
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| How did you come up with the number 100?
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I recently went to the Hiroshima museum. I had originally thought
| that people simply vaporized when the bomb hit, but that is not
| the case. The museum shows how people's skin simply sloughed off
| and some were holding parts in their hands as they walked around
| to find their loved ones.
|
| But the worst part was radiation poisoning. Many that did not
| initially get hit and burned directly went towards the center of
| the city to find their families and over the course of days,
| months and years, they almost always died a slow, painful death,
| with their teeth falling out and their skin and organs becoming
| necrotic.
|
| Truly, everyone should visit Hiroshima or Nagasaki at some point,
| if only to understand what true horrors nuclear weapons create.
| And those are only atomic weapons of the 1940s, the hydrogen
| bombs we have today that fuse instead of fiss are orders of
| magnitude more powerful, but at least those under their effects
| (near the epicenter) will die a quick vaporized death
| instantaneously.
| mppm wrote:
| As an addition (and correction) to this, powerful thermonuclear
| weapons don't vaporize anyone either. They are targeted for
| high-altitude airbursts and kill through a combination of burns
| and building collapse, plus secondary fires, infection and
| breakdown of emergency services. The majority of the victims
| would not die an instant death.
|
| For more information:
| https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html
| seatac76 wrote:
| I had a similar experience, looking at the contorted metal
| lunchboxes and other household items was more terrifying, I
| always used to think things just go poof.
| justinpombrio wrote:
| Regardless of how big a bomb is, there's going to be a distance
| at which it's no longer immediately lethal. Inside that radius
| you die quickly, outside you die slowly.
| cchi_co wrote:
| The Hibakusha's firsthand accounts and efforts have kept the
| horrors of nuclear war alive in the world's consciousness,
| helping to build a lasting taboo against the use of such weapons.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Of course the reminder of the impact there and the ongoing risk
| is nice but is this really a relevant and current choice? Why not
| last year? Why not ten years ago? What success have they even
| had? Considering where we are right now. This isn't a group
| making an impact on the ground anywhere right now. Many of the
| winners in recent years have been civil & human rights activists
| in real fights on the ground in their countries/regions. The
| public will take the reminder but mostly shrug the news off.
| istjohn wrote:
| This discussion proves the importance. We are so far from
| properly appreciating the horror of nuclear weapons. One would
| think that after nearly eighty years Americans would be able to
| apprehend our crimes against the innocents of Hiroshima and
| Nagasaki with clear vision.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| The chances of a nuclear bomb being used in the next 30 years is
| at least 90%. That's an opinion so don't ask for a link.
|
| Why? Purely because of the combinatorial math of proliferation,
| and the likelihood of either an accident or a crazy person
| getting control of a bomb.
|
| I wish it weren't so, but eventually your luck runs out.
| hruzgar wrote:
| So US has nuclear bombs, but japan is somehow not allowed to make
| their own? Seems like controlled oppression to me
| khuey wrote:
| Japan is free to withdraw from the NPT at any time.
| retrocryptid wrote:
| i'm confused. what does Hidankyo have to do with large language
| models?
| hit8run wrote:
| It's such a shit show put on by a bunch of sycophants. Barrack
| Obama and Yasser Arafat are also peace prize winners
| hsavit1 wrote:
| yeah the peace prize has completely lost any credibility that
| it may have had.
| deanCommie wrote:
| The Hiroshimia/Nagasaki situation is one of the best examples I
| can think of with plenty of evidence of the "history is written
| by the winners" concept.
|
| It has been justified repeatedly over the years both in terms of
| relativism ("The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people, yet
| isn't so controversial"), and in terms of hypotheticals becoming
| certainties ("The empire was never going to surrender without a
| massive fight. The US anticipated unprecedented losses from an
| invasion of the main island, and is still giving out purple
| hearts printed in anticipation of this invasion")
|
| In the end the historical narrative was that dropping the bombs
| was necessary to end the war, as written by the winners.
|
| The reality is that we just don't know what would've happened if
| the US waited. Japan was not an active threat any longer. What
| was? The Soviet Union that would've certainly "helped" invade
| Japan, and would've also demanded to carve it up post-war the way
| they did with Germany.
|
| From evaluating the overall evidence it seems pretty clear that
| this is what was driving the urgency to drop the bomb, not once,
| but twice.
|
| The irony is that it's entirely possible that for the population
| of Japan this ended up a better outcome than having half of it
| face the "East Germany" scenario for the next 40 years.
|
| And while the "blight" of having actually used nuclear weapons to
| kill civilians may be on the US forever as the only nation to
| have done so, the horrors of Hiroshima or Nagasaki almost
| certainly helped prevent nuclear weapon usage throughout the cold
| war. If they were never tried, it's almost certain that either
| the US or the USSR would've been itchy to be the first in some
| future engagement, and then who knows what would've happened.
|
| So the truth is messy. My position is that the Hiroshima/Nagasaki
| bombings were NOT necessary to end WW2 and did not reduce the
| overall bloodshed within THAT conflict. But this action
| counterintuitively helped improve Japan's prosperity over the
| rest of the 20th century and may have reduced the likelihood of
| an actual nuclear war over the rest of the Cold War.
| hereme888 wrote:
| I think these organizations are too idealistic and out of touch
| with reality. Nuclear weapons will never go away. Neither will
| alcohol, drugs, or AI.
|
| Also, those bombs saved a lot of lives. I know many will
| disagree, but it's true.
| bastawhiz wrote:
| I don't think that negates the work that these organizations
| do. The degree to which nuclear weapons are developed and
| proliferated is not binary.
| parl_match wrote:
| > Also, those bombs saved a lot of lives. I know many will
| disagree, but it's true.
|
| This is a hotly, perhaps one of the most hotly contended,
| modern questions of World War II. To say what you said so
| blithely betrays your ignorance on the subject.
|
| General modern consensus suggests that the first is up for
| debate for various reasons, but that the second one really
| didn't do much to change the Japanese government's course.
|
| Regardless if you disagree with that above statement or not,
| positioning your uninformed opinion as fact is a bad look.
| historyartifucj wrote:
| "Modern opinion" is not based on fact. The consensus is that
| the bombs saved the Allied forces mass casualties because
| they did.
|
| It is politically motivated historical revisionism to suggest
| otherwise. Fringe, conspiracy theory historians with an axe
| to grind blew this theory of of thing air and it took root
| with anti-American types.
|
| We have the first-party documents from the Japanese High
| Command to confirm this. Beyond, little known is that rebels
| in the command structure attempted a last minute coup to
| prevent the surrender.
|
| Japanese hardliners nearly took over and continued the war in
| spite of their God-Emperor and his desire to end the
| slaughter.
| aegypti wrote:
| A specific strain of 20th century revisionism considers their
| use questionable in academia, it isn't remotely a consensus
| (outside JP) and it certainly isn't modern.
| keybored wrote:
| > I know many will disagree, but it's true.
|
| I know you will disagree, but you are wrong.
| istjohn wrote:
| Suppose we grant your premise. Indiscriminately massacring
| entire cities of men, women, and children saved the lives of
| some soldiers. That's barbaric.
| matthewfelgate wrote:
| - Liberal democracies should have Nuclear Weapons. -
| Dictatorships and Communists countries shouldn't.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-11 23:00 UTC)