What are you reading II?

Okay, now books. I’m reading “Is There a God” by Richard Swinburne and “Why I am Not a Christian” by Richard Carrier. They’re for an online class that was supposed to involve Ryan Bell, the pastor who took a year off from believing in God, but he’s been sort of a no show. Swinburne tries to modernize the old arguments, he allows for an old universe and uses a method that looks a little like science. He fails miserably of course, but it’s still fun reading how Richard Carrier destroys him. I was also hoping for some Christians to show up for the class and maybe try to argue for the value of community or something. We had a brief discussion on that, but we could only play devil’s advocate and it has pretty much fallen apart.
Swinburne’s book is good if you want to see the contemporary state of apologetics, and not from a fundamentalist. Carrier’s is a concise book that addresses just about everything on the topic.

I was going to talk about books, but I have to respond to this. What evidence do you have that no one else does? There was a guy who advised the president who made this argument about saving millions of lives, but not many agreed with him. The Japanese were ready to surrender and it was only a matter of negotiating terms. The mistake Truman made as to be vague about when and where they could use the bomb. Once they did it, he quickly corrected that and created the system of codes and lockouts that we have now.
What evidence do I have that no one else does? Obviously you mean you Lausten. There's plenty and you can find most of it in a college text, but the majority of evidence lay in the hundreds of reports from the State Dept. The Defense Dept. and private coorespondance from Physicists, military leaders, e.g. General George Marshall and staff and President Truman himself not to mention the official reports and statements from the Potsdam Conference. And BTW, that "guy" you mentioned was physicist Leo Szilard and I didn't have to look him up on Google. And Truman knew exactly when the bomb was to be dropped because he gave the orders himself after the Japanese high command refused to acknowledge his ultimatum on unconditional surrender via Article 12 of the Potsdam treaty. He purposefully omitted the text that would have allowed the Emperor to remain on the throne and this coupled with the demand of the admiral of the Imperial Navy to fight on against overwhelming odds led to Truman's decision. General Marshall estimated the Operation Olympic would exact over 700,000 casualties and potentially a million civilian casualties before subduing the Japanese main islands. And this even after the Soviets decided (finally) to kick in and declare war on Japan. So in my book dropping the bombs actually saved more lives in the long run and most historians of the period agree, except for the revisionists whom I detest because the have a personal axe to grind. In the long run it ended the war once and for all and saved thousands of allies and Japanese. Those are the facts as deplorable as they appear to be. And yes, thousands of prison camp survivors wholeheartedly agree. Cap't Jack

Don’t make up historical consensus when it doesn’t exist]

Lausten, read Unbreakable and then see if you feel the same way. Obviously its only one mans story but what he reports has been verified by many others.

Yes, historical consensus does exist and one article disputing legitimate claims and mountains of primary evidence shouldn’t contravene what serious scholars of the period have found to be factual. As I said before Lausten, don’t be drawn in by revisionism, e.g. Revisionists cobbled together what some considered to be a “tell all” accusing Roosevelt of prior knowledge about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor filling in blanks with supposition when no evidence actually exists to prove his claims. Did he know that Japanese we’re going to attack, yes. There were three potential targets but the U.S. Intelligence Dept. Of the Army guessed wrong and believed it would be the Philippines. So no he didn’t know for certain that the Japanese would attack there.
As to Truman waffling about utilizing the bomb let him speak about the subject himself:
http://www.rjgeib.com/heroes/truman/truman-atom-bomb.html
BTW this is what I do for a living. I’ve written papers on World War II and it’s ending and I lecture on the subject as well in the European History classes I teach. I’ve personally inteviewed veterans, civilian survivors in both theaters and met and talked with an eyewitness to the Hiroshima bomb explosion as well as internment camp survivors, once again in both theaters. Using oral historical accounts, primary and secondary evidence and tertiary sources convinces me that Truman knew exactly what he was doing and in my mind was justified in doing it. I also may be a bit prejudiced because if he didn’t I probably wouldn’t be posting this. My father had recuperated from his wound and was returned to active duty with his division which was slated to be in the assault wave to attack Honshu. I can provide you with a biblio. Of sources I’ve used over the years if you’re interested.
Cap’t Jack

I didn’t bother reading your post V.A. If you claim consensus, you have to show some kind of survey that demonstrates it. My article is often cited and claims to have done the survey and found the opposite. As do most articles I’ve found on the subject. You got 'nuthin.

Lausten, read Unbreakable and then see if you feel the same way. Obviously its only one mans story but what he reports has been verified by many others.
The actions of others don't justify immoral actions.

The Other Gods Earth
The Egnima about Alan Turing
Goint to see the movie about Stephen Hawking after he was diagnoed with ALS.

Just finished Law's Believing Bullshit, an excellent read explaining how people can be self deceptive and believe the unbelievable. I just downloaded Bill Nye's new book on evolution Undeniable. . .. I'm also reading historical fiction, nautical that is, fun stuff indeed. Cap't Jack
I am half way through "Undeniable" which was inspired by his debate with Ken Ham. Its interesting but he goes off topic frequently to discuss subjects that are only loosely related to evolution such as Global Warming and GMO's. I'm interested to see what you think I'm amazed you have any time at all to read anything for pleasure, Mac. Lois
Lausten, read Unbreakable and then see if you feel the same way. Obviously its only one mans story but what he reports has been verified by many others.
The actions of others don't justify immoral actions. It depends on how you define immoral. Killing is immoral unless someone is threatening you with bodily harm, when it is no longer immoral. Using a nuclear weapon is no more immoral than dropping hundreds of conventional bombs. The difference is one of degree only. We were at war. Killing your enemy is justified if you believe that it will result in fewer deaths than would occur if you dont kill your enemy. Millions of people died in this war and horrible atrocities were being commited by our adversaries. Its easy to sit safe at home 7 decades later and claim that our forfathers made the wrong decision but its unfair to do so having not lived through thos times.
Sr. Member Total Posts: 1482 Joined 2009-10-21 I didn’t bother reading your post V.A. If you claim consensus, you have to show some kind of survey that demonstrates it. My article is often cited and claims to have done the survey and found the opposite. As do most articles I’ve found on the subject. You got ‘nuthin.
Sorry fella but I don't rely on an often cited article or a survey. Many articles are cited in revisionist history as are popular surveys. My reliance is on primary and secondary sources and those scholars who have done the well documented research. Spin it how you will. No, you got nuthin'. Cap't Jack
Just finished Law's Believing Bullshit, an excellent read explaining how people can be self deceptive and believe the unbelievable. I just downloaded Bill Nye's new book on evolution Undeniable. . .. I'm also reading historical fiction, nautical that is, fun stuff indeed. Cap't Jack
I am half way through "Undeniable" which was inspired by his debate with Ken Ham. Its interesting but he goes off topic frequently to discuss subjects that are only loosely related to evolution such as Global Warming and GMO's. I'm interested to see what you think I'm amazed you have any time at all to read anything for pleasure, Mac. Lois Well to be perfectly honest i cheat. I have a 30-40 minute ride to and from work each day so i susbcribe to Audible and listen to books during the drive. I manage a book every 2-3 weeks. Its just about the only time i have and it makes the ride go faster
I am half way through “Undeniable" which was inspired by his debate with Ken Ham. Its interesting but he goes off topic frequently to discuss subjects that are only loosely related to evolution such as Global Warming and GMO’s. I’m interested to see what you think
I'm just finishing Undeniable and so far I'm liking the book. I'm recommending it to my students as an intro to the evolutionary history of life in general and humans in particular. I believe that's the point Nye is getting at by writing the book in the first place. It isn't just Ham he's responding to but those who may have legitimate questions concerning evolution, and he really spells it out in easily understood terms. He does jump from topic to topic and it breaks the narrative but he's taking the shotgun approach to debunk the creationists and their non-scientific contentions. I especially liked his chapter on race based on skin color. He does a great job of showing that race is really a human construct. Simply put, race doesn't exist. So all in all, for someone new to the deeper questions concerning evolution, it's a great learning tool. After reading this book Dawkins the Ancestors Tale would be a good follow up. So, yeah, I'd recommend it Mac. Cap't Jack
Sr. Member Total Posts: 1482 Joined 2009-10-21 I didn’t bother reading your post V.A. If you claim consensus, you have to show some kind of survey that demonstrates it. My article is often cited and claims to have done the survey and found the opposite. As do most articles I’ve found on the subject. You got ‘nuthin.
Sorry fella but I don't rely on an often cited article or a survey. Many articles are cited in revisionist history as are popular surveys. My reliance is on primary and secondary sources and those scholars who have done the well documented research. Spin it how you will. No, you got nuthin'. Cap't Jack
You can't rely on a single source or just a few and claim it is a consensus. You are just claiming something without anything to back it up.
Just finished Law's Believing Bullshit, an excellent read explaining how people can be self deceptive and believe the unbelievable. I just downloaded Bill Nye's new book on evolution Undeniable. . .. I'm also reading historical fiction, nautical that is, fun stuff indeed. Cap't Jack
I am half way through "Undeniable" which was inspired by his debate with Ken Ham. Its interesting but he goes off topic frequently to discuss subjects that are only loosely related to evolution such as Global Warming and GMO's. I'm interested to see what you think I'm amazed you have any time at all to read anything for pleasure, Mac. Lois Well to be perfectly honest i cheat. I have a 30-40 minute ride to and from work each day so i susbcribe to Audible and listen to books during the drive. I manage a book every 2-3 weeks. Its just about the only time i have and it makes the ride go faster I wouldn't call it cheating and it's a good way to "read" books. I was resistant to it for years, not because I didn't think it was a good idea but because my mind tends to wander when I am listening to audio. That doesn't happen when I'm actually reading, of course. But I recently got a Great Courses CD series on How to Listen to Great Music by Robert Greenberg, and I'm hooked. I don't spend so much time in my car so I have to make sure I listen to all of it. I recommend it if you haven't heard it. I got it from the library. However, I do think our minds process what we read better than what we listen to, though listening to tapes is a lot better than not "reading" at all. When I was commuting by train to my job in New York City, I tried to read classics during the commute because I was more or less forced to read them that way. I read War and Peace and Anna Karenina back to back. I considered that my Russian period. ;) After that I gave myself a break and read somewhat easier classics and short stories. I was glad I read them, though. Lois
You can’t rely on a single source or just a few and claim it is a consensus. You are just claiming something without anything to back it up.
Wow, you really don't read my posts. I offered to give you a Biblio. of sources and you pass me off with this pretentious "last word" brush off. Drop the ego trip Lausten; it's plain to see that you really aren't interested in the subject. You continuously offer the one trick pony response and ask for "consensus" but refuse to go to the sources for verification. Ok, start with these if you're really interested, if not then don't look for further replies. Butow, Robert. Japan's Decision to Surrender Stanford University Press. Coox, Alvin. Japan, The Final Agony Ballantine. Craig, William. The Fall of Japan Penguin books Donovan, Robert. Conflict and Crises: The Presidency of Harry S Truman 1945-1948 W.W. Norton,1977. Ferrell, Robert. Off the Record: The Private Papers of Harry S Truman Harper and Row. Kirby, Woodburn. The War Against Japan Vol. 5 Her Majesty's Stationary Office. Toland, John. The Decline and Fall of the Japanese Empire Random House These are a few of the popular books on the last days but there are many more private and public communiques written by Truman, his advisors and compiled for future researchers on the subject. This argument boils down to the meeting Truman had with his advisors, Joseph Grew and John McGloy to retain the Emperor but Truman wanted it shelved (Potsdam Proclamation Article 12) because the last campaign, Okinawa, was still being fought and he didn't want to see this as a sign of weakness. That's definitely not waffling; he didn't want the Japanese to see this as a rally point to extend the war. The rest fell to Prime Minister Suzuki to decide and he was persuaded to fight on by the Japanese high command, forcing Truman's hand which I've mentioned before. The potential casualty figures convinced him to drop the bomb and even THEN the Japanese refused to surrender. It wasn't until the Nagasaki bomb was dropped that the Emperor finally stepped in and ended it. The rest is history. Cap't Jack

You keep talking about Truman waffling. The more important reason I responded to you was the “millions of lives saved” part. That’s pretty hard to prove.
But since you seem to know a lot about that, I’ve always thought the fact that they did implement the “button” was compelling evidence that it was a military decision and since the government wasn’t happy with what they did, they wanted to take it out of their hands. If not, then what was the reason for the “button”?

When you read this story you also can't help but think that any hand wringing over the dropping of the two atomic bombs is a bit of armchair naivete. I think every academic who questions that choice would change their mind after a single day on one of those camps.
This is on its own of course an erroneous argument, because the link to the end of the atrocities with the dropping of the atomic bombs must be made.
Anyone who "believes" that we shouldn't have used the Atomic bombs couldn't refer to themselves as an academic; even a tertiary examination of the facts would prove that contention false. Without the destruction caused by those bombs the Emperor wouldn't have had the leverage to compel the military leaders to stand down, and millions of more lives would have been lost. To think otherwise is naive.
I am not so sure. My source is Bert Röling, judge in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East] Röling claims the following: 1. All greater Japanese cities we bombed, except Kyoto, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Kokura. The Americans wanted to have a clear picture of the destruction of the bombs, which they could not have when bombing a city that was bombed already. Of course, it would also show the destructive power of the A-bomb to the Japanese and the Russians. 2. The bomb was made especially with the eye on the risk that Germany would make one before the Allies would have one. Funny enough, after German capitulation, work at Los Alamos was intensified. According the Oppenheimer, the aim was to build the next bombs (after the test in New Mexico) before the Potsdam conference. 3. Japan was already at the brink of destruction by conventional bombardments (which included the intentionally creation of firestorms). At some nights 100,000 of people died during the bombardments of Tokyo alone. 4. From his reading of the minutes of the war cabinet, Röling concludes that the civilian ministers wanted to capitulate, but the problem was the Emperor. If he could stay they would agree. The militaries were against capitulation. 5. The Americans knew that if they made clear to the Japanese that if the Emperor could stay, the civilians would want to capitulate. 6. The militaries wanted to continue the war anyway, whatever the A- or conventional bombardments. 7. In this stale position between civilian ministers and military, an exceptional decision was made: let the Emperor decide. He decided capitulation, and a record was prepared for broadcasting. Still, some militaries wanted to prevent the record to be broadcasted, and attacked the imperial castle. They did not succeed, and the recording was broadcasted. This was the factual capitulation of Japan. Röling gives sources for all his points. His book is of 1973 ("Polemologie", in Dutch. Chapter 19 is about the A-bombs). His conclusion is that the decision to throw the bombs was political: to demonstrate the power of the atomic bomb to the world, especially the Russians. (Truman: "If it explodes, as I think it will, I'll certainly have a hammer on these boys". And James Byrnes, Truman's closest foreign policy advisor: "[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia.") So if there was influence of the bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then it was bit more motivation of the civilian government of Japan to capitulate. If you can show me above points wrong, then let me know.

So if we had continued the conventional war, we would not have impressed the Russians, and instead of hostilities ending world wide for a period of time, new ones may have arisen relatively quickly. Whatever the case and regardless of the motivation to use the 2 A-bombs, we do know the results that actually transpired.
As horrible as the use of atomic weapons was for the populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, one could make the case that the fire bombings, in total, were as horrible, in their own way.
I would add that I think it was important to demonstrate to the military faction in Japan, that they did not even have the option to have a glorious fight to the death available, as they were facing the prospect of complete annihilation with no way of effectively defending from it.
Then there is also the matter of the atrocities committed by the Japanese even from the outset of their campaign to demonstrate their self perceived racial superiority and right to dominate all of southeast Asia. That this orientation, eventually, lead to utter defeat, without wiping out the entire Japanese culture, is a good thing, I think.

When you read this story you also can't help but think that any hand wringing over the dropping of the two atomic bombs is a bit of armchair naivete. I think every academic who questions that choice would change their mind after a single day on one of those camps.
This is on its own of course an erroneous argument, because the link to the end of the atrocities with the dropping of the atomic bombs must be made. Not really. My point was that if you were living at that time in the middle of everything that was going on and if you were aware of the atrocities then it was reasonable to drop those bombs even if you had no proof (and of course you never could have such proof) that they would end things earlier or save more lives overall. if there was any chance that using the bombs would help I think it was a rationale decision to take that chance given all the loses we had suffered. I also think it is irrational to treat the first two atomic bombs as though they were something entirely different from what had come before. Would it have been more acceptable if we had done an equal amount of destruction with conventional bombs? Would it be somehow more morally acceptable if 100 bombers had to fly over and destroy the city instead of one bomber? Of course it would be be, but not for any logical reason. Again, you need to put yourself in the mindset of the people living through this if you want to be fair to them and to the decision they made. You can analyze it in a more critical way if your intent is to learn something that may help in future situations but its disingenuous for us to pass moral judgement on them given what they knew and had suffered through at the time without having lived through that ourselves. That's why I think its important to read personal accounts like the one in this book and others before we pass judgement.