Another industry where deregulation "worked"

[z0sa]

Ok. It wasn't nukes. It was conventional. The underlying and more important point had nothing to do with the type of ordinance used but rather that their infrastructure was destroyed in the war.

... which, while plausible, I find unconvincing. How much contemporaneously modern infrastructure do you think sprung up in 1930s-40s Japan? The country exploded onto the scene and needed assloads of raw materials, which is a great part of the reason they invaded Manchuria and the rest of the Pacific. It was a calculated risk based on a projected future manufacturing capability from the captured resources and workforce..

Also, I find it hard to write off/switch "nuclear weaponry" with "conventional" weaponry, which you evidently find easy. Besides the obvious (Japan didn't surrender because of incendiary bombs and wouldn't have, by most accounts), the nuclear contamination was a long winded threat and debilitation. The fires of the bombs from WW2 were out within days, if not hours; how long did the effects of the nukes last?

... but, back to Bouton's thread, guys.. lol

[MannyIsGod]

... which, while plausible, I find unconvincing. How much contemporaneously modern infrastructure do you think sprung up in 1930s-40s Japan? The country exploded onto the scene and needed assloads of raw materials, which is a great part of the reason they invaded Manchuria and the rest of the Pacific. It was a calculated risk based on a projected future manufacturing capability from the captured resources and workforce..

Also, I find it hard to write off/switch "nuclear weaponry" with "conventional" weaponry, which you evidently find easy. Besides the obvious (Japan didn't surrender because of incendiary bombs and wouldn't have, by most accounts), the nuclear contamination was a long winded threat and debilitation. The fires of the bombs from WW2 were out within days, if not hours; how long did the effects of the nukes last?

... but, back to Bouton's thread, guys.. lol

What does it matter how long the effects lasted? A bridge that is destroyed is destroyed. The point being made here is that Japan lost a great deal of infrastructure due to bombing which in turn led them to rebuild it. Surrender conditions are completely irrelevant. I'm not even sure what you're point is.

If they needed materials before WW2 thats fine. That doesn't change that all the we destroyed in one way or another had to be rebuilt after the war.

Much of our own infrastructure predates WWII, Zosa. Had that infrastructure been destroyed its easy to see why what replaced it would be newer.

[z0sa]

What does it matter how long the effects lasted?

Would you generally consider building, or rebuilding anything in the middle of a nuclear wasteland?

A bridge that is destroyed is destroyed. The point being made here is that Japan lost a great deal of infrastructure due to bombing which in turn led them to rebuild it.

Who's point? LnGrrr perhaps implied it, but was also convinced the nukes "laid the way."

You have yet to make a point, only defend what you believe to be, LnGrrr's.

Perhaps you should make your position more clear.

Surrender conditions are completely irrelevant. I'm not even sure what you're point is.

I only responded to the fact you seem to ignore the destruction the nukes did, focusing on the "positive" aspect of destroyed infrastructure.

What good is rebuilding if the entire area is contaminated, and it's inhabitants dead, mutilated, or worse?

If they needed materials before WW2 thats fine. That doesn't change that all the we destroyed in one way or another had to be rebuilt after the war.

Uh, yeah. What's your point? That they should have been happy they got nuked and firebombed?

[z0sa]

Much of our own infrastructure predates WWII, Zosa. Had that infrastructure been destroyed its easy to see why what replaced it would be newer.

Oh, I realize. You've moved the goalposts a bit. I argued specifically against the nukes being beneficial.

[MannyIsGod]

....if you think LnG thought that nukes were a good thing for Japan then I don't know what to tell you.

[z0sa]

....if you think LnG thought that nukes were a good thing for Japan then I don't know what to tell you.

Eh, he said what he said. I don't think he thinks they were a good thing overall for the Japanese. Just wondering what he read, and what evidence he has for the nukes "laying the way."

[LnGrrrR]

Zosa, Manny got my point, that the destruction of infrastructure was what led the way for the building of newer infrastructure.

I misspoke by saying "nuked" and obviously should have said "bombed". That's why I tried to point our earlier that nuclear contamination was in no way a good thing.

Sorry for mucking things up, mea culpa. Also, on a personal note, I don't think the way we used the nukes was justified.

[MannyIsGod]

Zosa, Manny got my point, that the destruction of infrastructure was what led the way for the building of newer infrastructure.

I misspoke by saying "nuked" and obviously should have said "bombed". That's why I tried to point our earlier that nuclear contamination was in no way a good thing.

Sorry for mucking things up, mea culpa. Also, on a personal note, I don't think the way we used the nukes was justified.

Pesky liberal.

[z0sa]

I didn't mean to nitpick. The idea genuinely intrigued me - at least, if there was evidence for that.

As for the more general 'bomb' argument, it may have "laid the way", but at what cost? I think that ties into the nukes thing a bit. Would it have been better if we simply nuked as early as possible, without trying to conventionally bomb them into submission first?

[LnGrrrR]

I didn't mean to nitpick. The idea genuinely intrigued me - at least, if there was evidence for that.

As for the more general 'bomb' argument, it may have "laid the way", but at what cost? I think that ties into the nukes thing a bit. Would it have been better if we simply nuked as early as possible, without trying to conventionally bomb them into submission first?

Understood zosa, no harm no foul.

There's a good debate on whether it was justified to drop nukes. I disagree with the idea that, because Japan would never give up and the population would fight as well, that justifies it. I would expect any country to do the same. For me, killing civilians is rarely justified, and should be avoided at all costs. Others look at the data and suggest that thousands more troops could have been lost prolonging the war. Definitely no "easy" answers there.

I think that if we had shown them the power of the nuke, threatened them and gave them a chance to capitulate, I'd feel better about it. I'm still very leery of nukes due to the damage they cause long-term.

And yes, I'm pretty sure that Japan would rather have had an older infrastructure instead of getting bombed. Just pointing out how bombs may have "laid the way" as you put it.

[LnGrrrR]

Pesky liberal.

Of course.

[CosmicCowboy]

From a selfish standpoint I'm damn glad they nuked Japan. My dad was a Marine Corsair pilot flying combat missions from Okinawa over Japan and he's totally convinced he would have eventually been killed if they had to go through with the invasion...He was coming back from every mission with bullet holes/shrapnel in the plane.

[LnGrrrR]

From a selfish standpoint I'm damn glad they nuked Japan. My dad was a Marine Corsair pilot flying combat missions from Okinawa over Japan and he's totally convinced he would have eventually been killed if they had to go through with the invasion...He was coming back from every mission with bullet holes/shrapnel in the plane.

Totally understandable CC. Glad your Dad made it, and thanks for his service. I'll assume he was an officer, so send him a virtual salute from this AF E-5 (soon to be E-6).

[boutons_deux]

Alert: Thread Drift Continuation!

apropos the American murder of Japanese civilians, (and German civilians). aka, terrorism: killing civilians to achieve political ends.

Suprise -- The Very Dark Side of U.S. History


http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/148451