I find the claim that it wasn't an act of war pretty hard to take seriously.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.
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.Two birds with one stone? Actually I'd imagine quite a bit more than just two birds.
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.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.
Look, just accept that nuclear bombs are great, like a normal sensible person, OK?poor old Tea
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.
Details like whether or not being able to destroy an enemy city in one go represents a significant military advantage?I think getting bogged down in details when reading a French theorist is missing the point somewhat.
Details like whether or not being able to destroy an enemy city in one go represents a significant military advantage?
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.
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.Well, what do you think the purpose of him mentioning the anecdote was? What distinction was the Japanese bloke making?