I had the misfortune of over hearing some of Rush’s radio show today…he was talking about people apologizing for our use of the bombs in WWII…and actually said something to the effect of “we don’t need to apologize, the bomb ended a war…it showed the world how terrible atomic weapons can be, and made everyone afraid to use them, and it forced Japan into a democracy…it was a win-win situation for everyone!! :)” (The smiley face is to denote the happy-warm fuzzy tone he had as he said this)
Did anyone else manage to stumble across this latest nonsense? For some reason, I wonder if this was from an older show, because I feel like I’ve heard something like this from here before, but all his bullshit kind of runs together after you hear enough of it.
Do you have some sort of reasoning for how it was not a “win-win situation”? Seems to me that it was pretty much the best available solution from both the perspective of the US and Japan.
Gee, I think Rush is a raving Looney Toon most of the times. But damn this almost makes sense to me. He is actually saying how terrible Atomic weapons are. The War did wrap up very quickly. Probably quicker than it would have, definitely with less American Casualties and less Russian Influence. It basically let USA turn Japan into a temporary Vassal state. None of this is too bad.
For instance, the Cuban missile crisis might have become vastly nastier without both sides having a clear and graphic picture of just what a hell bomb does to a city.
Yeah, I can’t really get too steamed up about that. Much as it pains my liberal heart to agree with anything that revolting gasbag says, he’s more-or-less accurate. We were at the tail-end of the most destructive war ever, and Japan was one of the agressor nations that started it. Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war, toppled one of the most depraved regimes in history, and helped establish a democracy with a strong respect for human rights in its place. It wasn’t even the most destructive bombing raid we conducted in the war, merely the most efficient. Yeah, it was a horrible thing, but war is horrible by definition. We no more should apologize to Japan for the atomic bomb than we should apologize to Germany for the conventional bombing runs we conducted over Berlin.
Uh…I guess I didn’t make my point clear, to say that the bombing was a win-win situation for everyone involved, including the civilian populations of the two cities, is a bit off.
Yes, Japan is better off now, and it ended the war, but I’m doubt there is anyone in Japan thinking, “wow I’m glad my grandparents got microwaved.”
It pains me to say this as well, but he has a point.
Capa84- I see where you are coming from and surely the Japanese citizens who survived the attack would agree with you. Yet, as others have pointed out, more was gained in the big picture because of the use of the weapon. Of course, this is all arguable and such (and I am sure someone will argue it).
Definitely, but then much the same could be said for the residents of Rotterdam and Dresden. Each city was largely levelled by bombing campaigns, each with the goal of ending the war (Rotterdam forced the Dutch to surrender to the Germans; Dresden arguably helped to cripple the German war machine). They weren’t atomic, but the biggest difference there is in the nature of the wounds of the survivors, and in lack of the lingering radioactivity.
The atomic bombs definitely sucked, but would things have been better if the Allies did to Japan what they did to Germany? (Flatten their cities and invade overland, I mean.)
This doesn’t, of course, deserve to be said flippantly. Atomic bombings are clearly awful, and it would be nice if no one ever again comes to the conclusion that their use is the best option at hand.
Sure, but you’ve gotta remember that Rush is a conservative. He takes his humor hints off of a president who compares 9/11, economic disaster, and war to “hitting the trifecta.”
I also generally despise Rush but basically agree with his sentiment here, although he did express it rather flippantly. In fact, I’ve often thought that it was a piece of historical luck for humanity as a whole that nuclear weapons were developed precisely when they were, that is, at the tail end of a war. If they were developed between wars, then people would have built a lot of them, and next war, LOTS of nukes. If they were developed right in the middle of the war, again, lots of nukes before the war ends. At the very tail end of a war, they are used, end that war, and then people have a long time to stare at the horror they caused, think about the implications for future world wars, etc.
Oh, and note that this is yet ANOTHER thread in which, despite the frequent accusations of mindless partisanship that are thrown at us, the liberals of the SDMB show themselves willing to agree with a conservative, disagree with a liberal, and NOT toe what is generally thought of as the liberal thought police party line (that being, “dropping the bomb was a horribly criminal act and Truman was evil and ruthless and oh, my, I beat my breast in horror and shame at being an American”.)
Rush’s comments make no sense logically. If the atomic bomb showed to world how terrible atomic weapons can be, as he says it did, then it must have been terrible for someone, so it can’t have been a win-win for everyone. The obvious losers are the people who were killed and wounded by the bomb; also, their relatives and friends.
As impolitic as Rugh’s statement was it has some merit. The choice wasn’t being nuked or not being nuked it was potentially being nuked or continuing to have cities firebombed until the US and possibly the Soviet Union. If yo get a chance see the Robert MacNamara documentary Fog of War. He goes into chilling detail about how he helped Curtis LeMay maximized the effectiveness of the incidiary bombings of Japanese cities. Even counting radiation sickness deaths the incidiary bombings killed and mamed far more people. Perhaps the analogy is closer to the choice of eating a shit sandwich or drinking an entire cesspool.
Liberal*
Of course, Rush can’t have it both ways. The man who originally decided that it would be the best thing overall was a Democrat.*
Good one !!! I imagine Rush swept that fact under the rug !!!
Also, the guy who thought it was worth mobilizing a good chunk of our nation’s workforce, brains and resources into a project that cost a huge amount of money with zero guarnatee of it ever working was also a Democrat.
Gee, I guess Rush Limbaugh didn’t mind government spending for that huh?
[sarcasm]
Also, why did the ferderal government stick its nose into a project that was clearly a states rights issue? Yes, it should have been up to each of the states to develop their own bomb project OR whether they wanted to build an atomic bomb at all.
[/sarcasm]