|
|
|
|
|
|
by chrissam
2764 days ago
|
|
|
Your argument boils down to "everything is political". I understand that some people think this -- but I don't. I believe the goal of this writing is to convey to the reader the scale of the bombings and some fraction of their effects on the populace. A secondary aim is to evoke emotion in the reader. I think that's it, I don't see a political aim. It's facile to say "war is immoral". Inasmuch as anything is immoral, war certainly is. But it's unclear to me how we ought to apply that axiom because it's unclear to me that the world would be better off today if the US hadn't entered the war, or the atomic bombs hadn't been dropped, or if the Allied policy had been something other than pursuit of unconditional surrender. |
|
|
Nuclear weapons would have been developed whether or not the US developed them. Thankfully, it was the US, and not Germany or Japan - either of those countries would have used them indiscriminately.
Since the development of nuclear weapons, they have been the greatest force for peace in world history. We had two horrific world wars in the space of just 25 years. Now, we're almost 75 years past 1945 without one.
Fingers crossed that sanity prevails and the major powers continue to be dissuaded by MAD.