version

Well-known member
Read something in Virilio earlier where he said a Japanese friend told him he could never forgive America for Hiroshima being an experiment rather than an act of war.
 

version

Well-known member
He doesn't elaborate, as you'd expect, but I took it as meaning it wasn't necessary and therefore a particularly egregious example of the militarisation of science Virilio's often railing against.

One of his hobby horses is that science has gradually lost its conscience and become this unethical process of cruelly pushing limits for the sake of it.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Two birds with one stone? Actually I'd imagine quite a bit more than just two birds.
Well to the extent that it was for a purpose other than the obvious one of pummelling Japan into submission, I'd say it was at least as important to the USA as a demonstration to the Soviets as it was for an observation of the effects.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
He doesn't elaborate, as you'd expect, but I took it as meaning it wasn't necessary and therefore a particularly egregious example of the militarisation of science Virilio's often railing against.
Right, but this sounds a lot like the "Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway" nonsense that you often hear from a certain kind of crank. The fact that it took a further nine days from the Hiroshima bombing - by which time Nagasaki had been nuked too, of course - for Hirohito to announce the surrender pretty much demolishes this argument.
 

version

Well-known member
Right, but this sounds a lot like the "Japan was on the verge of surrendering anyway" nonsense that you often hear from a certain kind of crank. The fact that it took a further nine days from the Hiroshima bombing - by which time Nagasaki had been nuked too, of course - for Hirohito to announce the surrender pretty much demolishes this argument.

I think getting bogged down in details when reading a French theorist is missing the point somewhat.
 

version

Well-known member
Details like whether or not being able to destroy an enemy city in one go represents a significant military advantage?

Well, what do you think the purpose of him mentioning the anecdote was? What distinction was the Japanese bloke making?
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
I think the point is clear: the fact that the bomb was not only a military maneuver but that it also served other functions, like field testing a scientific advancement and gesturing dominance to geopolitical adversaries abroad, is understandably upsetting, even beyond the sheer destructiveness. The additional motives piled onto the destructiveness can be seen as insult added to injury.
 

Clinamenic

Binary & Tweed
Anyway I know little about the history of the bomb, so maybe the details there are off. But anyway I get the point that this Japanese guy was apparently trying to make, according to Virilio according to Version.
 

version

Well-known member
I think the point is clear: the fact that the bomb was not only a military maneuver but that it also served other functions, like field testing a scientific advancement and gesturing dominance to geopolitical adversaries abroad, is understandably upsetting, even beyond the sheer destructiveness. The additional motives piled onto the destructiveness can be seen as insult added to injury.

Right, but I wanted Tea to think about it and answer. You've ruined it now.
 

version

Well-known member
Virilio's warnings of 'experimental warfare' do strike me as a bit redundant, mind you, as my impression is that more or less all warfare is experimental. There's always new gear being field tested and war itself is a great engine of technology.
 

Mr. Tea

Let's Talk About Ceps
Well, what do you think the purpose of him mentioning the anecdote was? What distinction was the Japanese bloke making?
First off, it sounds like this guy has a general hate-boner for science, so if it's just an unsourced, anecdotal quotation, I'd say there's a good chance he made it up.

Now it would be daft to say that the Americans weren't intensely interested in the effects of the bomb on a real target, but to claim that that was the only (or even the main) reason for dropping them on Japan ignores the fact that it achieved its strategic aim, which was to force Japan to surrender. In the absence of which, the Pacific war could conceivably dragged on for months or even years. And as I said, an important secondary aim was to demonstrate the effects to the Soviets, whose own nuclear project was already well underway by that time.

Lastly, I find Japanese outrage over the bombings more than a little hypocritical, given that the total death toll was a drop in the ocean next to Japanese atrocities prior to and during WWII - atrocities that included experimentation on live human subjects, ironically enough.
 
Top