Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
tips@gizmodo.com
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | Email | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
Email | AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
Email | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
Email | AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
Email | AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
Email | Twitter
Sean Fallon
Email | Twitter
Jack Loftus
Email | Twitter
John Herrman
Email | Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Email
Chris Mascari
Email
Danny Allen
Email | Twitter
Rosa Golijan
Email | Twitter
Chris Jacob
Email
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Email
Kyle VanHemert
Email
Comment Intern:
Nick Ellenoff | Email
Comment Account Questions:
Comments@gizmodo.com
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/18/09
You guys missed out on a great chop opportunity.
11/18/09
What's the difference here?
11/18/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/18/09
Hmm...interesting choice of words. Well its a free world.
Would be nice when one day in the far flung future we can all move on ang get along. Meh...its all a dream.
11/18/09
Personally I found it offensive, so time to make some pearl harbour jokes!
11/18/09
11/19/09
Yes, because biological warfare going on for years is so much better than a quick limited death toll ending the war. And if you had bothered to read the link you would have understood that the comment was for fun but the event/act was taken very seriously.
Its the same as someone being called a "grammer nazi." A G.N. is someone who is very strict about spelling and grammer, while a nazi committed horrible acts in WWII.
11/19/09
11/19/09
11/19/09
/tila tequila'd
11/20/09
I did read the link. I still found it offensive to refer to Hiroshima/Nagasaki in such a cavalier way. Simple really.
I have no idea what biological warfare you're referring to. In terms of the actual cost of lives - I have never bought the arguments on the US side. Are you honestly telling me there were no low-profile targets they could have attacked first, to make it clear how serious the threat was? There was no empty land outside some city in Japan that could have been bombed first? Or some island off the mainland? Bomb that and then say "look what we did here -- we can do that on your cities as well".
And are you telling me that 2.5 days was sufficient between the bombings? You don't think they could have waited for a week at least for a surrender? Why move the 2nd bombing forward because of bad weather, instead of moving it back?
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
#tips
11/19/09
Oh well... let sleeping subs lie, as they say...
11/19/09
#tips
11/18/09
11/18/09
j/k
11/18/09
Strange to refer to it that cavalierly, when you yourself wrote rather movingly of the horrors of that bomb in the linked post. Let's hear it for deliberately killing 10,000 children to save US soldiers.
11/18/09
[darbysrangers.tripod.com]
11/18/09
The fact that the Japanese were willing to kill civilians, or that the Germans killed huge numbers of Russian civilians, or that the Americans killed huge numbers of German citizens in the firebombings, is morally irrelevant. And the assertion that any successful land invasion would have killed more Japanese civilians than the atomic bombs is, far from being historical consensus (even among the "non-polemical historical community," not that anyone would agree on what that might mean), probably a minority opinion among historians of the 20th century of or WWII. Of course, that's a factual question (as is the question of whether there might have been a third, less destructive approach); morally, virtually everyone agrees that any campaign that needs to kill tens of thousands of children to succeed is a horrific calamity. Diaz seemed to understand that in the earlier post, a perspective that seems missing in referring to the gruesome deaths of thousands of women and children as a "fat tin can full of atoms."
11/18/09
Oh, and a little known fact: shortly after Japan surrendered, a hurricane hit the island which would have decimated the US naval force and extended the war by months. It's not like the people who decided to drop the bombs knew that, but it was fortuitous that they managed to end the war when they did.
11/18/09
"People die in war;" no one "wanted to kill thousands of people;" "desperate times;" "People HATED deeply back then. Get over it;" "let bygones be bygones;" "the fate of Japanese women and children was the responsibility of their leaders, not ours...Pearl Harbor means never having to say your sorry;" the Japanese were "planning to infect civilians with the plague, cholera, dengue, and typhus" and "were willing to kill civilians."
None of these arguments matter if deliberately killing hundreds of thousands of civilians to scare an enemy into surrender is an act of terrorism and a war crime. There is no moral justification for such a thing, and there is no statute of limitations. Now, it may be that such a hideous act was necessary -- but that is far from proven, let alone an historical consensus. Many criminals argue that they were forced to do X, and things would have been worse (especially for them) had they done otherwise, and it's worth arguing over that question here. But at this point it is well known that by summer the Japanese were no longer a serious international threat, so the only question is what course of action would have resulted in the least loss of innocent lives. A full-scale land invasion was clearly not the only alternative, and there were many possible routes to a declaraiton of surrender (look up "Hirohito" on wikipedia for a quick narrative of the final weeks before the bombing).
In any case, there may be historical questions to answer, but the above quoted "arguments" are drek, the sort of thing petty criminals say to justify their acts: "people die;" "he had it coming;" "these are desparate times;" "it was different back then;" "let bygones be bygones;" "his boss/father/friend shouldn't have provoked me;" "he was planning to do worse;" etc, etc. They don't cut it for crooks, and they shouldn't cut it for nations.
11/21/09
So, this batch of defenses include: "infantrymen can be as innocent as anyone else" and "they were civilians as well" -- ie, it's okay to kill children and civilians to protect soldiers, because they're all equally innocent (try that defense in a US court martial); "the Japanese were brainwashed and propagandized to the point that only a very drastic action could reach their leader and cause a ceasefire right from the top" (historically false, and also self-contradictory; aren't the leaders the ones doing the brainwashing?); "the world wasn't as PC as it is today" (ie, the "it's okay to commit war crimes in the past because people didn't know mass murder was bad back then" defense); we annihilated 10,000 children to protect them from what they would have "grown up to be"; the Japanese sunk US ships and the people were eaten by sharks (!); "soldiers, the boots on the ground, are just following orders" (ie, the Eichmann defense; yes, you can defy orders if you consider it a crime; every moral code says so, including the Bible; if you go to jail unjustly, so be it); "Would you rather put through tens of thousands and end the war now? Or let the invasion continue and let many score more die?" (a false dichotomy, since the bombs weren't the only option, and it is not at all clear "many score more" would die [also: guy doesn't know what "score" means]); "the people who fight to defend us should be respected" (apparently, patriotism means loving the troops no matter what they do); "before you say something trashy about someone else you should see what its like first" (ie, you can't know that murder is bad unless you've murdered a bit yourself); and finally, the pithiest version of the toddler defense: "they bombed us first."
Plus, of course, the vacuous ad hominem attacks by those who can't even manage the meagre "arguments" above. Their adjectives aren't even creative enough to quote.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
"The M6A Seiran submarine-launched torpedo seaplanes were designed in response for a 1942 requirement for aircraft to be used in conjunction with the I-400-class submarine carriers of the Japanese Navy. They were of an all-metal construction, with control surfaces covered in fabric. The design was done so that two or three of them could be stowed aboard their submarine carriers, used to attack targets in surprise. Despite the complex folding system with their tails and wings, a seasoned crew could prepare all three aircraft for launch within 30 minutes. Because the submarines would have no means to recover these seaplanes after a mission is carried out, the thought was that the submarine carriers would rescue the air crews and abandon the aircraft. After six prototype aircraft, 20 aircraft of the M6A1 production variant were built."
[ww2db.com]
11/18/09
*now let the idiots rage*
11/18/09
i dont see any promotion of the nuking of japan in the article. it is mentioned that it happened, but if you're seeing racism here... you might want to have your eyes checked. either that or brush up on your semantics.
11/18/09
Is that not what happened? Please tell me if it is not, because if it is.....well, thats exactly what Diaz said, but with different adjectives.
What is your beef with adjectives?
EDIT: Also, in the article Diaz links to pretaining to nuking japan, which is also written by him, the first sentance of that article is:
"This is the place where Humanity reached one of its lowest points in history."
I know. Really, really racist.
11/18/09
There is so much failure in understanding the Internets and grasping sarcasm in these replies.
11/18/09
That we kicked the shit out of. And sank.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
My post was typical barely-related drivel. Reread my post:
1. Japanese sub was a superior piece of technology.
2. We did kick the shit out of it so to speak- we studied it and sank it.
3. Again- they were sunk. They are at the bottom of the ocean by our actions, right?
And Vietnam has not been sunk.
Yet...
#tips
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
Mind that they weren't there when the Japanese surrendered. The US brought them over there and scuttled them.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/19/09
#tips
11/18/09
I imagine that that plan might have been as successful as their firebombing balloon campaign.
11/18/09
11/18/09
Strange question, but since this is a Japaneese sub that was found in American waters, is this the property of the United States or the property of Japan? I feel some super-litigation submarines filled with lawyers coming into port.
11/18/09