The distillery, being built like a fortress to withstand earthquakes, somehow remained standing. Opa used to say that if he ever got nuked again, he'd want to be surrounded by sake barrels—apparently, they make for excellent shock absorbers.
Every New Year, he'd tell us about "the time I survived a nuclear blast with nothing but a sake buzz." He'd chuckle, pour himself a small glass of the weakest beer he could find, and toast to "the power of fermented rice."
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
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...
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.
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.
(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)
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
"Worrying is like a rocking chair. It gives you something to do, but it doesn't get you anywhere. Write that down." - Van Wilder
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Living in the future is a silly affair. There’s only one moment and it’s the present.
Gee, I hope the people in charge don't think "the nuclear threat isn't worth worrying about"
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.
"So now I carry my own!"
I don't understand this. Between Iran and the Russia/Ukraine conflict, they seem to be very top of mind for many.
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).
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.
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.
I don't think you're paying attention. Bush's invite of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO in 2007 (against the opinion of France and Germany) was probably a cause of Russian invasion into South Ossetia.
And just about recently a newly chosen top NATO chief has been promoting path for Ukraine to enter NATO (and so-called "West Germany model"), despite that Putin clearly demanded Ukraine neutrality and NATO's own rule about not admitting members with an ongoing territorial disputes.
I can hardly imagine how could Russians be clearer about opposing NATO expansion.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
For more information: https://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html
> 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.
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
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.
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.
Not likely, Tokyo was firebombed to ashes and it didn't move him to surrender.
The Soviets had people inside the Manhattan Project / Los Alamos. As the US made progress that information was fed to the Soviets/Russians.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
It is like saying that the solution to all problems is colonizing Antarctica.
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...
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.
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.
Said every dipshit Luddite 50 years ago about basically everything we enjoy on a day to day basis.
(Even more were proclaiming it 70 years ago.)
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.
Yes, that's exactly why my comment limited itself to discussion of population of /this/ galaxy.
Don't forget with-in countries.
If another planet becomes another 'country', they'll have internal disagreements.
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/Московский_государственный_тех...
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.
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.
Must you follow?
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.
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.
And that's only after you've passed the fact that it's impossible for us to reach the next star.
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.
But who will inhabit those other bodies? Humans? The same species that destroyed earth in your scenario? What makes you think that living on Mars would suddenly make everybody peaceful and enlightened?
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.
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.
This is just machtpolitik.
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).
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?
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.
He's more jingoistic than Dick Cheney?
At least Trump's lies have killed less people than Victoria Nuland's
The world is not black and white.
And that also gives you the right to choose what part of the grayscale you want to be, good on you!
It's difficult to say how you can stop such wars if you don't know what the war is.
When you start getting attacked personally, you know whoever's attacking you is losing the argument.
Short story: current regime in the Russian Federation quite definitely is, may more so in fact, and has fascist, revanchist, genocidal ideology to boot. You may want to look further into its history (and that of the Russian/Soviet empires, which it sees itself as the natural successor to), and into the writings/thinking of the folks the helm of that regime in more detail sometime.
Sabotaging negotiations in Turkey
That's a myth, as you will easy verify for yourself by doing adequate research into the topic.
Forget about Dick Cheney. Instead look into who's been drip-feeding you false narratives like the above, and why.
Davyd Arakhhamia, Ukraine’s chief negotiator at Istanbul, said "[Boris] Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the NATO powers] are not"
We've all been drip-fed by the military industrial complex since at least 9/11 that war is necessary. Look what it got us- millions dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Ukraine, Israel, Gaza. Not to mention our countless soldiers killed and injured on the line of duty.
It's evil, no I will not forget Dick Cheney.
Rather, it's a characterization of what he said -- whose original provenance seems to be difficult to track down, and there are conflicting versions available, which of course got copy-pasted all over in both left- and right-wing outlets (as well as by the Kremlin of course). But both Johnson and Arakhmiya have strenuously denied this characterization in any case, when directly asked about the topic:
“This is nothing more than nonsense and Russian propaganda,” Johnson said in an interview with the Times.
His words were confirmed by the head of the pro-presidential Servant of the People party faction, David Arakhamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation at the Ukraine-Russia talks in Istanbul in March 2022. ... Arakhamia denied that the Ukrainian delegation was allegedly ready to sign such a document, and Johnson stopped Kyiv.
It's evil, no I will not forget Dick Cheney.
You can build an anti-shrine to him on your bedroom wall, and throw darts at it every night if you want to. The unfortunate point here is that it seems you've allowed him to become a bogeyman, just like the big bad old MIC. And when I'm saying "forget about him", I don't mean in the literal sense. Of course we have to remember assholes like Cheney and the evil they did, what Eisenhower said way back when and all that.
But the bigger point is: that doesn't mean we have to let these ghosts not only dictate our narratives, but completely override our understanding of events in the present moment. More to the point -- if you'd like to yourself a huge favor, and just forget about all these good/evil narratives altogether. Instead focus on the facts of who said what, and when, and what really happened as a result.
Which in the case of the current Ukraine war, really aren't that complicated or hard to figure out.
At some point a name was put to the anonymous source, could be one of the many journalists who have investigated this quote, as you yourself admit there are lots of sources on this topic.
But that single quote aside, it's not like they're saying this in secret. Even Victoria Nuland and Foreign Affairs said some version of the same thing.
Nuland says the West didn't want to basically disarm Ukraine, and Foreign Affairs did an investigation of the negotiations (Ukrainska Pravda's investigation was better) and said the West didn't want to provide security guarantees to Ukraine.
And they all say it out loud that they don't want give an inch.
Good/evil moral compass is enormously important, especially when faced with war. It's precisely this flippant view towards morality that leads normal people to justify horrific acts of violence.
Murder, war, invasion bad.
Family, health, love, business good.
It really is that simple and the moment you stray from that, you stray towards everything we want to avoid.
I understand there are moments you MUST go to war. If I were Ukrainian I would be 100% on the war effort.
But I'm not Ukrainian. I'm American. Russia didn't attack America and I have a say in where my tax dollars go.
All I can say at this point, and which I feel I'm entitled to, is: "Now let that sink in". (Can't delve into Nuland angle right now, maybe another day).
What would stop other nations from pursuing their own nukes if that's the case? It also would make any military alliance such as NATO moot, there are only 3 nuclear powers in the alliance, any other country in the alliance which gets invaded by a nuclear power wouldn't be able to call for help since we want to avoid nuclear confrontation.
This only spirals more and more, countries without nukes are at a massive disadvantage, they will naturally seek nukes to protect themselves, just increasing the odds that a nuclear exchange will happen by sheer statistics.
> This is why I will be voting for the candidate who was not endorsed by Dick Cheney.
Proving my point that you don't think very rationally at all.
I'm claiming that continuing the proxy war between a jingoistic US government and a (probably) jingoistic Russian government could spiral into a nuclear exchange, and that the US government should be less jingoistic. Being jingoistic doesn't reduce the chance of nuclear war.
I doubt we're going to convince each other, so I would challenge readers of the two claims to decide for themselves what makes more sense for preventing nuclear armageddon.
The "long term" vision you're proposing is a decades long entrenched conflict with multiple nuclear states. Literally every single foreign policy disaster of the past 40 years has been orchestrated by following this exact playbook, by the exact same people.
The "long term" vision I propose is normalizing relation with these nuclear states and we do business with them all without telling everyone how to live.
This is actually how long term peace is achieved. We shouldn't be the world's policeman. We do much better as the world's businessman.
You are only considering a narrow point in time, think ahead in terms of 20-50 years the repercussions of allowing an annexation to happen uncontested.
Right now it's Ukraine, let's say next is Iran acquiring nuclear weapons over the next 20 years and moving towards Basra in Iraq + Kuwait for their oil fields, in this scenario they are a nuclear power, arming themselves for 20 years (and they already have ballistic missiles), to avoid a nuclear escalation between Iran and USA + Israel a negotiated peace happens. The Saudis see that happening and now they feel the need to arm themselves with a nuclear weapon, just in case Iran thinks of continuing this campaign.
Multiply this across many other nations under similar low-level confrontations, African nations fighting for water sources, one of them arms themselves with a nuclear weapon (let's say Sudan) to have leverage to control a massively important water source, what's going to stop others around it to not arm themselves (like Eritrea) to not get invaded?
It's a spiral, the moment you allow a nuclear power to use that status to force the hand of an opposing nation at war you open a can of worms. Since 1945 the world has been trying to control proliferation through other means, wars of annexation have been shunned, you really don't want that to come back into a world armed with nuclear weapons.
I don't have an answer, I don't think anyone does. Putin has changed the world with this invasion, you are choosing to vote for Trump on a flimsy argument, you don't even know what the fuck he will do since he's a massive liar. On top of that you're jeopardising your country's democracy based on wishful thinking of what you project Trump will do, it's all from your head, not from his words.
You also have an example of what happens when some countries are more powerful than others: the veto at the UN Security Council. The UN is essentially unable to do anything that is against the interest of US, Russia or China (it just happens that France and the United Kingdom usually agree with the US). Imagine US, Russia and China having the same power but with 1) the actual ability to wipe enemies off Earth, instead of just blocking UN processes; 2) anybody able to join the club "just" by investing into nuclear proliferation. Doesn't seem good.
China also used it a lot more sparingly than Russia and the United States, I must say, but probably that's also because some China issues don't even reach the Security Council.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-revokes-russias-r...
Since we're off-topic already can I just emphasize this point? Pretty much everybody I know who has or will vote for Trump is like this. For example, I knew one guy who voted for Trump because he thought Trump would legalize marijuana.
If Trump actually liked working and writing laws, he'd have probably legalized marijuana.
His second term will be filled with fanatics rather than Bush-era appointees.
Trump's running as hard as he can (which isn't very, he isn't convincing) from the proudly published (and terrifying!) Project 2025 stuff, but they aren't running from him, and there are reasons for that.
Dick Cheney is voting for Harris, that's the equivalent of Norman Osborn voting for Peter Parker.
I don't think he'll succeed that quick, but that's way better than pushing for further conflict.
And again, under his administration we saw more peace than any president since at least Clinton.
Over a bunch of neoliberal theories proposed by the architects of the last number of catastrophic wars? No thanks.
The left/Democrats/progressives used to be anti-war. But they've been entirely co-opted as a result of Trump derangement syndrome.
You're pushing forward a neoliberal wet dream that he wants the whole eastern bloc.
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.
The current climate in Russia and the Middle East may change that.
Now that it appears the world is once again creeping towards nuclear stand-off this time with a very large non-zero chance that a country pushed towards existential crisis will not hesitate to detonate a nuclear device, it makes the people justifying Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuking as completely deranged.
I urge y'all to visit Hiroshima and see first hand the horrors of nuclear terrorism. When you attack civilians directly, its terrorism no matter what side of the fence you are on.
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]
That is one way to win an argument. Not that anyone would prefer that "win".
Nine Who Survived Hiroshima & Nagasaki Hardcover – January 1, 1957
https://www.amazon.com/Nine-Who-Survived-Hiroshima-Nagasaki/...
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.
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.
Why bother?
What are you going to do to enforce it, invade the guy who just nuked/invaded you/your friends?
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?
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
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...
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 Sørbye, thanks for telling us your story.
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.
No one goes around expecting New York City to attone for the events that led up to 9/11.
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.
I don't think your hypothetical assumption that 20th century peace could not be made without using nukes in WW2 is valid.
Why not even turn it up and say that future peace from nuclear weapons is impossible without living through the global thermonuclear war? Clearly, most people can imagine dangers of that, so they are perfectly capable of imagining dangers of only 2 nukes being used, without them actually being used.
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.
If you wanted to give a Nobel Prize to someone for preventing nuclear wars, give it to Nuclear Winter researchers and military analysts.
I just had an argument about madness that is MAD: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41776112
Actually, it would be interesting if someone researched the relationship between gun culture and acceptance of MAD. Both on national (cultural) and individual level.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/385216...
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.
The reason we seemingly can't have peace is because we deliberately refuse it.
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.
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.
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents."
Also global assholes cover each other's ass and there are quite a few of them.
"I died, I swear, when the ABC said we're going to war, I really believed we wouldn't fight no more" Edge of the World Pt. 3 by Pond
Every other sentence is an appeal to fear.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Also, your account has been posting comments like this a lot, where by "like this" I mean low-information and high-inflammation. This is not what HN is for and undermines what it is for, so it you could please stop this, we'd appreciate it. You're still welcome to make your substantive points thoughtfully, of course, but it you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules (such as avoiding snark and flamebait), we'd appreciate it.
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
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...
I don't think this point of view is at all defensible. The "game theory" I am referencing is the most basic thing, the very foundation of that discipline, and if you don't think it is applicable, I posit the following scenario:
Consider the Cold War-era state of affairs (because we seem to be heading back that way, at least a little bit), with the following variations:
A. Nuclear weapons do not exist.
B. USA has nuclear weapons. Russia does not.
C. Russia has nuclear weapons. USA does not.
D. Both USA and Russia have nuclear weapons.
Suppose you're an American. (WLOG, so adjust appropriately.) Now rank those four possible scenarios in order of your personal preference.
Personally, I'd rank C dead last. If you don't... why?
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.
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.
Like Nixon, you mean? [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory#Richard_Nixon
Fanatical leaders don't give a damn about MAD
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.
I know you will disagree, but you are wrong.
Ironically enough you calling these "nuclear weapons" only serves to confuse people and soften the nuclear taboo.
You know very well that depleted uranium rounds are neither nuclear weapons nor dirty bombs and claiming so only creates confusion.
The US' military usage of DU (not just in ammunition but also armor) has been controversial and you're free to critique it, but that's not what you're doing. Instead you lied and created these fictional "nuclear weapons" that the US is supposedly spreading everywhere, which is just not true.
Ukraine is the perfect example of what actually happens when a country discards its nuclear arsenal.
So yes, Japan is absolutely hypocritical and the Nobel Peace Prize has been the most vapid of all the Nobel Prizes, but for once this Peace Prize is actually trying to say something meaningful in an ever violent human world.
That's silly. Ukraine never had a nuclear arsenal. Ukraine had nuclear weapons on their soil, but they were managed, and controlled by forces loyal to Moscow. Had forces loyal to Kyiv tried to force their way into the silos they would have been repelled and a war would have broken out there and then.
Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal as much as Turkey has a nuclear arsenal because the USA stores nuclear warheads in Incirlik.
Posession is nine tenths of the law, after all-- it would've been quite possible to just lock down a few silos and refuse to hand the weapons over. Russia as a state was highly disrupted at that point, and would've had a hard time opposing this effectively.
I'm not disputing that this would've been a very costly move for an already poor nation (in potential economical sanctions and also maintenance of the arsenal itself). Maybe the external political/economical pressure resulting from this would've ripped Ukraine apart some other way.
But I'm highly confident that Russia would not have risked annexing territory from an country with a few nuclear ICBM silos. No need even to have full control/launch capability, as long as there is sufficient doubt (on Russias side).
I can't imagine a chain of event that would lead the US to get out of Japan volunteerly [0], nor Japan being able to kick the US out forcibly. It's just outside of the realm of possibility right now.
[0] they won't even move out of Okinawa as the whole island loathes the US base and gives the middle finger to their own gov to get them out.
From the guidelines: "When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
- Liberal democracies should have Nuclear Weapons.
- Dictatorships and Communists countries shouldn't.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
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.
* 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.
Using nuclear weapons only tactically against counterforce targets would not be that horrifying.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.