A Chunk of Trinitite Reminds Us of the Power of the Atomic Bomb(smithsonianmag.com)
smithsonianmag.com
A Chunk of Trinitite Reminds Us of the Power of the Atomic Bomb
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/chunk-trinitite-reminds-sheer-devastating-power-atomic-bomb-180972848/
61 comments
I think the Rhodes book deserves far more attention. A good companion is to read Robert Buderi's book on radar, which covers other sides of the science-goes-to-war story, and overlaps in places.
I've only read Dark Sun, and agree it's a great book. For some more light hearted looks at the Manhattan Project, a couple of Feynman's books are great. Don't recall the titles offhand, though.
Absolutely loved that book and the sequel. He has another book out now titled _Energy: A Human History_.
One of my favourite books, too. Tangentially, I highly recommend "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. It delves a lot more deeply into the life Oppenheimer than Rhodes was able to, for obvious reasons. Beautifully written, and doesn't have a boring moment.
I second the recommendation for The Making of the Atomic Bomb. That books more or less defined the category of "narrative history" for me. So much better than any other history I had ever read at the time.
Similar story but of a failed physics project is "Project Prometheus" by George Dyson, Richard Dyson's son. It's about the project to use atomic explosions for extremely efficient propulsion. With proper implementation, such atomic bomb thrusters would have allowed for 100,000 ton payloads and a truly space faring society.
It is also an excellent well-paced introduction to the physics of the bomb, from the early 20C to the wartime development.
Oh yes, one of the best books on the subject. Reads like a novel, but the physics side is presented surprisingly well.
"...won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction". Looks good; I'm gonna have to read this one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Making_of_the_Atomic_Bombbest book i read in college
The test site, which is located north of the White Sands National Monument (New Mexico), is open twice a year (the first Saturday of April and the first Saturday of October) to the public [0]. It's also located very close to the Very Large Array (VLA), featured in quite a few movies, which is also open to the public [1].
[0] https://www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/historyculture/trinity-site.h...
[1] https://public.nrao.edu/visit/very-large-array/
[0] https://www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/historyculture/trinity-site.h...
[1] https://public.nrao.edu/visit/very-large-array/
Regarding the VLA - is it as "open" as it appears to be from google maps?
That is, from what I could see, you can almost just turn off the highway the drive to it, and I didn't see any kind of fencing or whatnot; there also seemed to be more than a few "back ways" into it via jeep trails and such.
I've had the idea just to drive out there one weekend, camp overnight, then explore the area for a day or two, then leave. But I don't know if that would be considered trespassing on government property or something?
It just looks like a large collection of space telescopes and mostly empty desert, with a few buildings scattered about, but not much in the way of "people things" - which I doubt are needed except for maintenance purposes (which is probably what few buildings there are there are for).
Other than that, it just looks like a slightly-improved piece of desert landscape - kinda like what wind farms look like and such on the California/Arizona border area (which you can easily drive up to via maintenance roads).
That is, from what I could see, you can almost just turn off the highway the drive to it, and I didn't see any kind of fencing or whatnot; there also seemed to be more than a few "back ways" into it via jeep trails and such.
I've had the idea just to drive out there one weekend, camp overnight, then explore the area for a day or two, then leave. But I don't know if that would be considered trespassing on government property or something?
It just looks like a large collection of space telescopes and mostly empty desert, with a few buildings scattered about, but not much in the way of "people things" - which I doubt are needed except for maintenance purposes (which is probably what few buildings there are there are for).
Other than that, it just looks like a slightly-improved piece of desert landscape - kinda like what wind farms look like and such on the California/Arizona border area (which you can easily drive up to via maintenance roads).
I have not been there for a decade, but back then there were cattle fences along the road and around the telescopes and cows grazing in between. Also: be aware of the rattle snakes if you go camping there.
Also, watch out for the cops and be on your best behavior with respect to speed. When I was out there, I was amazed how many cops would follow me for miles and miles, because I had out of state plates. Other than that, it was a great time, although there's really nothing much else in the area. The drive west from there on 60 gets pretty through the mountains. Make sure to keep your gas tank rather full.
It's that open. I happened to be nearby on one of their tour days in 2017. It was cool in a low-key way. There's a combination office and visitor center where they manage the telescope and do at least some level of processing.
There wouldn't be much for you to see unless you were there for a tour. But there are plenty of public roads where you could totally drive up and see the dishes if you wanted.
There wouldn't be much for you to see unless you were there for a tour. But there are plenty of public roads where you could totally drive up and see the dishes if you wanted.
I went a couple of years ago. You can drive down to it and commune with a few of the antennas and take pictures. There's a small gift shop.
If you visit the Trinity site you'll get grains of Trinitite on your shoes. Can't be helped. But they strongly encourage you not to put it in your pockets.
15or so years ago when i lived in albuquerque, i did that day trip. trinity is weird and eerie, but not in the expected way. it was eerie in its normalcy.
You can order trinitite from United Nuclear. I stuck some in an HPGe and was able to learn some interesting things:
https://www.hscott.net/analyzing-trinitite-a-radioactive-pie...
That's a very fine write-up!
>> The 100-million-degree fireball vaporized the steel tower down to its footings...
This is often discussed, that the tower was turned from solid steel to vapor, but isn't what happened. The tower was no longer standing but was still there to be founud. Many bits were melted and surely some bits disappeared, but the bulk of the metal was still present on the ground after the blast. And this mattered. How close a metal structure could be to the blast was a vital question for project orion (A-bomb powered spacecraft).
This is often discussed, that the tower was turned from solid steel to vapor, but isn't what happened. The tower was no longer standing but was still there to be founud. Many bits were melted and surely some bits disappeared, but the bulk of the metal was still present on the ground after the blast. And this mattered. How close a metal structure could be to the blast was a vital question for project orion (A-bomb powered spacecraft).
For an article about green glass, I wonder why their photo shoot decided to go with purple and pink back lighting? It makes it look sinister but doesn’t show the beautiful green Trinitite can be.
Indeed! Here are some much better images: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Trinitite&iax=images&ia=images
"the second and third atomic bombs after Trinity exploded over Japan and did their part to end a war that killed more than 60 million human beings. “I was one of those who said thank god for the atomic bomb,” Paul told me ruefully."
This myth about the effect of the atomic bombing of Japan just refuses to die for some reason. The atomic bombing of Japan had literally zero effect on Japanese policymaking. By that point in the war, all of the major cities were rubble already, and only insignificant places in the backwoods of Western Japan like Hiroshima were being bombed for want of fresh targets. The fact that these bombs were "new" didn't mean much, and almost no one in power understood any of their implications (nor could anyone inform anyone since their communication lines were extremely primitive by that point, only covering important things like troop movements, battle readiness, materials, and foreign intelligence).
It was the mobilization of the Russians that prompted a Japanese surrender because, much like the Germans knew, it was FAR, FAR more preferable to be occupied by the Americans than by the Russians. The atomic bombs were just a sideshow, and only became important when revealed to the rest of the world.
This myth about the effect of the atomic bombing of Japan just refuses to die for some reason. The atomic bombing of Japan had literally zero effect on Japanese policymaking. By that point in the war, all of the major cities were rubble already, and only insignificant places in the backwoods of Western Japan like Hiroshima were being bombed for want of fresh targets. The fact that these bombs were "new" didn't mean much, and almost no one in power understood any of their implications (nor could anyone inform anyone since their communication lines were extremely primitive by that point, only covering important things like troop movements, battle readiness, materials, and foreign intelligence).
It was the mobilization of the Russians that prompted a Japanese surrender because, much like the Germans knew, it was FAR, FAR more preferable to be occupied by the Americans than by the Russians. The atomic bombs were just a sideshow, and only became important when revealed to the rest of the world.
One quote that I always remember regarding the Japanese atomic bombs, is that survivors of Hiroshima ere in such agony, they begged nurses to kill them.
The survivors of the firestorms caused by the Allied firebombing campaign undoubtedly did the same and there were an order of magnitude more of them, since firebombing was used to level most of Japan's cities in the final phase of the war.
Take care not to fall for over-dramatization by people with an agenda. While the atomic bomb is a fearsome weapon, in that specific regard, its effects were not special.
EDIT: A 2015 Japan Times article expresses it well:
"...On March 10, 1945, U.S. B-29 bombers flew over Tokyo in the dead of night, dumping massive payloads of cluster bombs equipped with a then-recent invention: napalm. A fifth of Tokyo was left a vast smoldering expanse of charred bodies and rubble.
Today, a modest floral monument in a downtown park honors the spirits of the 105,400 confirmed dead, many interred in common graves.
It was the deadliest conventional air raid ever, worse than Nagasaki and on a par with Hiroshima. But the attack, and similar ones that followed in more than 60 other Japanese cities, have received little attention, eclipsed by the atomic bombings and Japan’s postwar rush to rebuild..."
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly...
(And if you find yourself recoiling at the brutality visited upon the Japanese, bear in mind the combined death toll from the Japanese occupations across Asia are nearly triple of even that of the German Holocaust. While nobody's hands were clean in WW2, some hands were much, much dirtier than others.)
Take care not to fall for over-dramatization by people with an agenda. While the atomic bomb is a fearsome weapon, in that specific regard, its effects were not special.
EDIT: A 2015 Japan Times article expresses it well:
"...On March 10, 1945, U.S. B-29 bombers flew over Tokyo in the dead of night, dumping massive payloads of cluster bombs equipped with a then-recent invention: napalm. A fifth of Tokyo was left a vast smoldering expanse of charred bodies and rubble.
Today, a modest floral monument in a downtown park honors the spirits of the 105,400 confirmed dead, many interred in common graves.
It was the deadliest conventional air raid ever, worse than Nagasaki and on a par with Hiroshima. But the attack, and similar ones that followed in more than 60 other Japanese cities, have received little attention, eclipsed by the atomic bombings and Japan’s postwar rush to rebuild..."
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly...
(And if you find yourself recoiling at the brutality visited upon the Japanese, bear in mind the combined death toll from the Japanese occupations across Asia are nearly triple of even that of the German Holocaust. While nobody's hands were clean in WW2, some hands were much, much dirtier than others.)
Conventional firebombing took fleets of B-29 bombers, many flying fairly low (within flak and fighter range), presenting tremendous cost and risk.
The WWII city-leveling low-yield atom bombs were delivered by a single aircraft (plus a non-combat escort).
Today's nukes are launched from armoured bunkers or invulnerable submarines, fly without pilot or crew, include multiple reentry warheads, and can devastate multiple cities from a single launch vehicle.
There is no comparision.
The WWII city-leveling low-yield atom bombs were delivered by a single aircraft (plus a non-combat escort).
Today's nukes are launched from armoured bunkers or invulnerable submarines, fly without pilot or crew, include multiple reentry warheads, and can devastate multiple cities from a single launch vehicle.
There is no comparision.
There's no comparison between modern ICBMs and WWII weaponry, but you overstate things a bit.
B-29s operated with relative impunity over Japan. They had a cruising altitude higher than most Japanese fighters and anti-aircraft guns could reach, could operate at night (Japan had minimal night fighter capability by that point), and only ~150 were lost over Japan to enemy action. (In contrast, the US lost nearly 5,000 B-17s in the war.)
Cost-wise, B-29 design production and production cost $3B. The Manhattan Project cost about $2B.
B-29s operated with relative impunity over Japan. They had a cruising altitude higher than most Japanese fighters and anti-aircraft guns could reach, could operate at night (Japan had minimal night fighter capability by that point), and only ~150 were lost over Japan to enemy action. (In contrast, the US lost nearly 5,000 B-17s in the war.)
Cost-wise, B-29 design production and production cost $3B. The Manhattan Project cost about $2B.
You don't even need to include ICBMs.
In the Vietnam war, the US dropped about 3.5x the number of TNT tonnage equivalent bombs than was used in WW2.
Likewise both Iraq wars exceeded WW2 tonnage, even if you include the 2 nukes dropped on Japan.
Part of this is due to advancements in conventional explosives (lighter explosives with more power than TNT) and larger conventional weapons and increased capacity of bombers. Not sure how many MOABs were used in the 2nd Iraq war, but it was more than one, and theyre about a 20k ton TNT equivalent (more powerful than the little boy nuke).
I dont have any handy citations, but the data is easily googled or on wikipedia.
In the Vietnam war, the US dropped about 3.5x the number of TNT tonnage equivalent bombs than was used in WW2.
Likewise both Iraq wars exceeded WW2 tonnage, even if you include the 2 nukes dropped on Japan.
Part of this is due to advancements in conventional explosives (lighter explosives with more power than TNT) and larger conventional weapons and increased capacity of bombers. Not sure how many MOABs were used in the 2nd Iraq war, but it was more than one, and theyre about a 20k ton TNT equivalent (more powerful than the little boy nuke).
I dont have any handy citations, but the data is easily googled or on wikipedia.
You'd need to include the infrastructure to be able to launch B-29 fleets over Tokyo, which was much of the Pacific Theatre effort. That itself was a major share of the total $288 billion (1945 dollars) US expense of the war itself, far more than the Manhatten Project itself.
Mainland US flights were unable to reach Japan, even from Hawaii or Alaska. Large-scale effort required control of a large portion of the Pacific and both launch and recovery capabilities.
A significant number of aircraft for the Doolittle raids (early in the war) were ditched before they could reach their designated LZs in China. The aircraft, B25B Mitchell medium bombers, could launch from carriers (easier to arrange for than island occupation), but lacked either the range or raw capability to land on the Hornet. The raids were effective as a shock and demonstration of US reach and capabilities, but had minimal direct military effect.
Mainland US flights were unable to reach Japan, even from Hawaii or Alaska. Large-scale effort required control of a large portion of the Pacific and both launch and recovery capabilities.
A significant number of aircraft for the Doolittle raids (early in the war) were ditched before they could reach their designated LZs in China. The aircraft, B25B Mitchell medium bombers, could launch from carriers (easier to arrange for than island occupation), but lacked either the range or raw capability to land on the Hornet. The raids were effective as a shock and demonstration of US reach and capabilities, but had minimal direct military effect.
Winning the war required control of a large portion of the Pacific - it's not like we were doing it just to give B-29s a place to park. The atomic bomb required the same thing, as it was B-29 carried just like incendiaries.
Supporting a single aircraft, or a small flight of seven, is vastly different from the hundreds of aircraft engaged on the Tokyo firebombing raids:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
Dresden required nearly 1,300 bombers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...
The ultimately produced bombs were deliverable via B-29, as that aircraft was available. The carrier-launched Mitchell B25B was also available and had a payload capacity of 3,000 lb., though that is 1/3 the weight of Little Boy (the Hiroshima bomb). Whether or not a smaller package, or alternative delivery vehicle, could have been provided, I'm not sure. Though the challenge might have been surmountable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
Casualties per mission over the European theatre were tremendous. I don't recall the specific per-mission losses, but overall crew survival over a 25 mission tour was on the order of 50%. Japan's defences were less effective, but again, looking at use of atomic weapons generally, the statistics are relevant, and during the planning of the Manhattan Project, use of the bomb against Germany was considered.
http://www.ww2f.com/threads/bomber-crew-survival-rates-durin...
There's also the possibility that smaller flights might escape detection (smaller radar target).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
Dresden required nearly 1,300 bombers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...
The ultimately produced bombs were deliverable via B-29, as that aircraft was available. The carrier-launched Mitchell B25B was also available and had a payload capacity of 3,000 lb., though that is 1/3 the weight of Little Boy (the Hiroshima bomb). Whether or not a smaller package, or alternative delivery vehicle, could have been provided, I'm not sure. Though the challenge might have been surmountable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
Casualties per mission over the European theatre were tremendous. I don't recall the specific per-mission losses, but overall crew survival over a 25 mission tour was on the order of 50%. Japan's defences were less effective, but again, looking at use of atomic weapons generally, the statistics are relevant, and during the planning of the Manhattan Project, use of the bomb against Germany was considered.
http://www.ww2f.com/threads/bomber-crew-survival-rates-durin...
There's also the possibility that smaller flights might escape detection (smaller radar target).
Firebombing over Japan in 1945 wasn’t _that_ risky. Skimming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing..., it seems losses were clearly less than 2% per sortie.
Seven planes took part in the bombing of Hiroshima, six in that of Nagasaki. That means that we can’t say those raids were less risky for US soldiers than conventional bombing.
Also “tremendous cost” applies to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, too, perhaps even more so.
Seven planes took part in the bombing of Hiroshima, six in that of Nagasaki. That means that we can’t say those raids were less risky for US soldiers than conventional bombing.
Also “tremendous cost” applies to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, too, perhaps even more so.
Again: the present situation isn't bombers. It's missiles.
Or drone bombers, if you prefer.
Those are enabled by nuclear weapons. Firebombing via drones would still be tremendously expensive.
Firebombing of European cities (constructed, generally, of much less flammable material than Japanese cities) took more work and was (thankfully) less successful. Dresden notably excepted.
Or drone bombers, if you prefer.
Those are enabled by nuclear weapons. Firebombing via drones would still be tremendously expensive.
Firebombing of European cities (constructed, generally, of much less flammable material than Japanese cities) took more work and was (thankfully) less successful. Dresden notably excepted.
"Again: the present situation isn't bombers. It's missiles."
Who's talking about the present situation? The OP was comparing the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese to the use of conventional weapons against the Japanese in the same war. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are sometimes treated as being qualitatively different from the firebombings of other cities because of the use of nuclear bombs and the OP was disagreeing with that sentiment. Obviously WWII era bombers don't compare with modern ICBMs but no one was saying otherwise.
Who's talking about the present situation? The OP was comparing the use of nuclear weapons against the Japanese to the use of conventional weapons against the Japanese in the same war. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are sometimes treated as being qualitatively different from the firebombings of other cities because of the use of nuclear bombs and the OP was disagreeing with that sentiment. Obviously WWII era bombers don't compare with modern ICBMs but no one was saying otherwise.
You’re getting really off topic.
The parents comment was that the suffering caused by the atomic bombs wasn’t that different than that caused by the fire bombing.
What do drone bombers have to do with that?
The parents comment was that the suffering caused by the atomic bombs wasn’t that different than that caused by the fire bombing.
What do drone bombers have to do with that?
If you look at the responses of individuals directly associated with the atomic project itself (I'm reading a biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, presently), you'll be well aware that the concerns many addressed were not merely of the immediate impacts of the weapon, but of future developments, which would include a tremendous reduction in costs for delivering destruction on an absolutely unprecedented scale.
Costs matter. See the Jevons Paradox. And, as I've said before, scale matters (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13542735#13548498) (and more: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dredmorbius%20"scale%20matters...).
It matters more than very nearly anything else.
Costs matter. See the Jevons Paradox. And, as I've said before, scale matters (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13542735#13548498) (and more: https://hn.algolia.com/?query=dredmorbius%20"scale%20matters...).
It matters more than very nearly anything else.
I think the big difference is the thought of doing all of that with one single bomber, nearly instantly.
To the people on the ground, the fact that an A-bomb could be dropped from just one bomber made no difference. Fire bombing or A-bombing was roughly the same to them. Indeed, fire bombing was probably worse when it came in waves.
There were no medium or large cities left to flatten in August 1946.
I've read before, and I believe, that the Japanese military leaders and emperor were not that impressed with the A-bomb. And why should they have been? They already were ready for a one-condition surrender, and the U.S. did accept it (calling it unconditional, but the U.S. adhered to the one condition).
There were no medium or large cities left to flatten in August 1946.
I've read before, and I believe, that the Japanese military leaders and emperor were not that impressed with the A-bomb. And why should they have been? They already were ready for a one-condition surrender, and the U.S. did accept it (calling it unconditional, but the U.S. adhered to the one condition).
There has also been some debate about the factors that contributed to the Japanese surrender:
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-...
https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-...
I've read enough of that to reach this conclusion:
- the motives for dropping the bombs were various, and it depends on whom you asked, but also dropping the bombs was not that significant a thing to the Japanese (for reasons given above),
- wanting an unconditional surrender seems like a legitimate or plausibly legitimate motive,
- and the Soviet entrance in the war definitely sharpened minds all around.
- the motives for dropping the bombs were various, and it depends on whom you asked, but also dropping the bombs was not that significant a thing to the Japanese (for reasons given above),
- wanting an unconditional surrender seems like a legitimate or plausibly legitimate motive,
- and the Soviet entrance in the war definitely sharpened minds all around.
I think the big similarity is the tortuous killing of innocents to stop the wrongdoing of governments over which they have almost no control.
Yes. Morally, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified and evil. To say so is not to deny the evil of other bombing and destruction campaigns. The old claim that it was the only way to end the war is a utilitarian/consequentialist claim that misses the point which is that evil means cannot be used to accomplish good ends.
I don't know how you can sidestep the question of whether we could have won the war with less hardship. It isn't missing the point it IS a really important point.
Any more complex ethical framework is inevitably only ethical in anyone's judgement until such time as it leads to a bad enough effect that nobody would countenance.
For example bombing cities is a horror whether its with nuclear or conventional weapons. If you could reliably predict that refraining from such unethical behavior would lead to an allied loss would you say that it remained the ethical choice knowing that it led to a greater evil end result?
I would say that any strategy however ethical that led to a Nazi/Imperial Japanese empire across the world would have been an unforgivable evil no matter how high minded.
Logically there is no just reason to desire the suffering of the Japanese people. A solution that also preserved the lives of the Japanese people would be most ethical but what if you have to pick?
Even if the end result is not on net evil like Nazi domination of the globe those whose responsibility is the lives of say the English people seem duty bound to consider the needs of their charges over a foreign power. Is this not ethical too? How does that interact with your ethical framework or utilitarians?
It seems more apt to suppose that a grand unified theory of ethics just doesn't exist. Its always more complicated than you think. It seems that in some cases refusing to sacrifice your personal ethics to prevent greater evil would itself be evil. Shitty right.
Any more complex ethical framework is inevitably only ethical in anyone's judgement until such time as it leads to a bad enough effect that nobody would countenance.
For example bombing cities is a horror whether its with nuclear or conventional weapons. If you could reliably predict that refraining from such unethical behavior would lead to an allied loss would you say that it remained the ethical choice knowing that it led to a greater evil end result?
I would say that any strategy however ethical that led to a Nazi/Imperial Japanese empire across the world would have been an unforgivable evil no matter how high minded.
Logically there is no just reason to desire the suffering of the Japanese people. A solution that also preserved the lives of the Japanese people would be most ethical but what if you have to pick?
Even if the end result is not on net evil like Nazi domination of the globe those whose responsibility is the lives of say the English people seem duty bound to consider the needs of their charges over a foreign power. Is this not ethical too? How does that interact with your ethical framework or utilitarians?
It seems more apt to suppose that a grand unified theory of ethics just doesn't exist. Its always more complicated than you think. It seems that in some cases refusing to sacrifice your personal ethics to prevent greater evil would itself be evil. Shitty right.
I'm not sidestepping the question. I'm claiming that the question is irrelevant because EVEN IF we knew that the war would have been shortened, fewer lives would have been lost, etc, etc, the committing of an evil action for a good end is NEVER justified. If you want a name for the principle behind this moral judgement, I refer you to the doctrine of double effect.
The last bit is, frankly, nonsense. If sound moral judgement is how one determines what is good or evil, then how does the suspension of that moral judgement (what you quaintly and confusingly refer to as "sacrific[ing] your personal ethics") allow you to judge which evil is greater, or what is evil in the first place?
The last bit is, frankly, nonsense. If sound moral judgement is how one determines what is good or evil, then how does the suspension of that moral judgement (what you quaintly and confusingly refer to as "sacrific[ing] your personal ethics") allow you to judge which evil is greater, or what is evil in the first place?
> I'm not sidestepping the question. I'm claiming that the question is irrelevant because EVEN IF we knew that the war would have been shortened, fewer lives would have been lost, etc, etc, the committing of an evil action for a good end is NEVER justified. If you want a name for the principle behind this moral judgement, I refer you to the doctrine of double effect.
And we're claiming that you're wrong. The doctrine of double effect is not the be-all and end-all of ethical thinking, either among theoretical ethicists nor among people wrestling with an ethical dilemma.
You seem to think that dogmatically stating your position proves the point. It doesn't.
[Edit: On re-reading, you stated that this is what you are claiming, not that this is true, so I was a bit harsh. You may have gotten some spill-over from a completely different topic, where a completely different poster was stating the conclusions of a non-mainstream theory as if merely stating them clinched the matter. It's a bit unfair to you that you get the shorter fuse for someone doing that, when you aren't quite doing so.]
And we're claiming that you're wrong. The doctrine of double effect is not the be-all and end-all of ethical thinking, either among theoretical ethicists nor among people wrestling with an ethical dilemma.
You seem to think that dogmatically stating your position proves the point. It doesn't.
[Edit: On re-reading, you stated that this is what you are claiming, not that this is true, so I was a bit harsh. You may have gotten some spill-over from a completely different topic, where a completely different poster was stating the conclusions of a non-mainstream theory as if merely stating them clinched the matter. It's a bit unfair to you that you get the shorter fuse for someone doing that, when you aren't quite doing so.]
Not at all. From the fact that I made an assertion, as everyone here does, it does not follow that I was under any special obligation to defend the principle in question. Contradicting my assertion with incoherent counterclaims and false assertions accomplishes nothing. Same for presumptuously guessing what I “seem to think”. FWIW, natural law theory (from which the principle is drawn), is, at the VERY least, very defensible.
I would guess that, of the people here, something less than 30% would accept natural law as an accepted authority. Of those, I suspect that a large fraction would not accept the doctrine of double effect, or perhaps even know what it is.[1] (I had to look it up; I'd never heard of it before.)
While I disagreed with the substance of your post, it was the form that most annoyed me. (You could say I should focus on the substance, and you'd be right, but... I didn't.) Saying "theory X (that most people don't agree with) says Y about this subject, which supports my position" isn't a very effective argument unless you give reason why people should believe or trust X. As I said, I would hopefully have been less annoyed by it, except that I just ran into the same form on a completely different topic.
[1] Here I am presuming that the doctrine of double effect does not absolutely and automatically follow from natural law. I suspect that natural law is not unambiguous enough for that. I am not an expert, though; feel free to disagree if you think I'm wrong.
I myself do not accept the doctrine of double effect. When faced with a "do I or don't I" decision, inaction is just as much a choice as action, and you're also responsible for the (foreseeable) consequences of the inaction. If Truman had not dropped the bomb, and the US had not invaded, Truman would have borne some responsibility for the continued deaths in China, which his inaction allowed to continue.
Or, to use a different example, if you see the crime happening and you do nothing, you are to some degree complicit. You're not in the same category as the person who commits the crime, but you still have some responsibility.
(Hey, look, I'm giving unsupported assertions too! It's really hard not to, because nobody's got time to go back to first principles, agree on them, and then derive conclusions.)
While I disagreed with the substance of your post, it was the form that most annoyed me. (You could say I should focus on the substance, and you'd be right, but... I didn't.) Saying "theory X (that most people don't agree with) says Y about this subject, which supports my position" isn't a very effective argument unless you give reason why people should believe or trust X. As I said, I would hopefully have been less annoyed by it, except that I just ran into the same form on a completely different topic.
[1] Here I am presuming that the doctrine of double effect does not absolutely and automatically follow from natural law. I suspect that natural law is not unambiguous enough for that. I am not an expert, though; feel free to disagree if you think I'm wrong.
I myself do not accept the doctrine of double effect. When faced with a "do I or don't I" decision, inaction is just as much a choice as action, and you're also responsible for the (foreseeable) consequences of the inaction. If Truman had not dropped the bomb, and the US had not invaded, Truman would have borne some responsibility for the continued deaths in China, which his inaction allowed to continue.
Or, to use a different example, if you see the crime happening and you do nothing, you are to some degree complicit. You're not in the same category as the person who commits the crime, but you still have some responsibility.
(Hey, look, I'm giving unsupported assertions too! It's really hard not to, because nobody's got time to go back to first principles, agree on them, and then derive conclusions.)
To be clear bombing cities is definitely evil. Are you saying that given a choice between global nazi domination and bombing cities you would pick global nazi domination?
Note I am not making this claim just asking the hypothetical.
Note I am not making this claim just asking the hypothetical.
The question needs to be asked whether it’s necessary or even advantageous to bombard a civilian population.
If you don't want to get blown up don't send your nations soldiers to attack other nations. Why should you be safe in your beds while your victim's bed are burning.
I have literally never sent a soldier to attack anyone. I've always voted for the person I thought was least likely to engage in aggressive war. I've participated in antiwar protests while my countrymen were driving around with giant flags on their cars, cheering the destruction of countries that had done us no harm. Nonetheless, my country's government pursues aggression around the world. What should I have done differently to make it so I don't deserve to die?
[deleted]
The Japanese population was largely prepared to fight to the death against any invasion.
The emperor derives his power from the will of the populous.
Saying they have zero control over their govt or the situation is overstating things.
The emperor derives his power from the will of the populous.
Saying they have zero control over their govt or the situation is overstating things.
> The Japanese population was largely prepared to fight to the death against any invasion.
The Japanese military was, clearly since they went so far as to attempt a coup against the emperor to prevent his surrender[0]. I don't know that the Japanese population at large shared the same sentiment by the end of the war. They didn't exactly fight to the death as expected during the occupation.
>The emperor derives his power from the will of the populous.
That interpretation would seem to come from the modern, postwar Japanese constitution, in which the emperor is just a figurehead without real power.
At the time, however, the emperor derived power from a claim of divine lineage from the sun goddess Amaterasu.
>Saying they have zero control over their govt or the situation is overstating things.
Not by much. The whole country was essentially a military dictatorship run by a religious cult overseen by a god-king. Common people tend not to have much influence over the policies of such regimes.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
The Japanese military was, clearly since they went so far as to attempt a coup against the emperor to prevent his surrender[0]. I don't know that the Japanese population at large shared the same sentiment by the end of the war. They didn't exactly fight to the death as expected during the occupation.
>The emperor derives his power from the will of the populous.
That interpretation would seem to come from the modern, postwar Japanese constitution, in which the emperor is just a figurehead without real power.
At the time, however, the emperor derived power from a claim of divine lineage from the sun goddess Amaterasu.
>Saying they have zero control over their govt or the situation is overstating things.
Not by much. The whole country was essentially a military dictatorship run by a religious cult overseen by a god-king. Common people tend not to have much influence over the policies of such regimes.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident
I could see, "the Parliament/President/other elected official derives his power from the will of the populace," but the Emperor? An emperor derives his power from his ability to impose it on others. In fact, so does the elected official; just because people have voted for the one they mind the least doesn't mean they consent to any of the bums.
The Japanese were heavily indoctrinated to view the Emperor as their god-king. That was one reason the occupation went so well, because when MacArthur took over, the Japanese generally treated him as a god-king, which made his policies much easier to implement.
https://books.google.com/books?id=iuA-ZOCpTfIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT...
https://books.google.com/books?id=iuA-ZOCpTfIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PT...
A major difference is also the after effects. A deadly atomic bomb can likely make a place uninhabitable for months or years because of radiation.
Yes! People must keep the context of WWII in mind when ever thinking of those bombs. We can’t let the modern era forget the threat of the other side.
The sequel, _Dark Sun_, about the making of the hydrogen bomb, is OK but has a lot more Cold War espionage than science.
Both worth a read!