Brutkey

Taggart
@mttaggart@infosec.exchange

re: nuclear war

@infoseclogger@infosec.exchange The literal target of the bomb was the bridge at city center so I don't think that it's a stretch to say maximizing civilian casualties was an objective. And as far as Hegseth, I think it's pretty reasonable to call out the mindset of the second highest link of the current Chain of Command, and one of four people who directly advise the President in the event of a nuclear launch.

Eddie.
@infoseclogger@infosec.exchange

@mttaggart@infosec.exchange

This group couldn't punch in their iphone unlock codes much less nuclear codes.

The #1 priority was knocking out the industrial base, both in Hiroshima and then Tokyo (overcast weather diverted to secondary Nagasaki). Dropping the bomb in the city center provided the best odds of knocking out the infrastructure.

My issue isn't with the fact casualties were horrific (they were), it's the knowing misrepresentation of the why, and the insinuation that the two regimes that started this process (Germany and Japan) should have been allowed to remain and rebuild with negotiated exits, which would have left the surviving SS and 731 dodging accountability and hiding history. And the misrepresentation that in the current crisis that the US is the one who has been jockeying about nuclear usage when it's been Putin.

If an author has to knowingly misrepresent an argument to make a point, they weaken their own point.

Taggart
@mttaggart@infosec.exchange

@infoseclogger@infosec.exchange Frankly I think you're also misrepresenting the full justification, and the destruction of the city (aka civilian casualties) was absolutely a consideration. That's partially why Kokura was discounted.

And while glib, the jab about the current regime undercuts the reality that they are indeed in power and do indeed have launch authority.

I'll also add that your framing of the article ignores entirely the role of the Soviet Union in Japan's posture in 1945, which is the actual crux of the argument.

https://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#e

Eddie.
@infoseclogger@infosec.exchange

@mttaggart@infosec.exchange

I pointed out the author's ignoring of the main reasons for the damage. I don't deny the role of the Soviets in the decision. And my argument wasn't about the full justification, it was about the author blatantly ignoring the primary reason why the cities were chose. If civilian deaths were the primary goal, Osaka would have been bombed first.

In grade school the Russians were barely mentioned in the battle of Berlin when it was nearly all them. I acknowledge bias when it occurs.

My takeaway is that when attacked the original victims should only fight to a stalemate to restore the previous status quo. In the current Israel//Hamas conflict, we're seeing what nearly 60 years of not having a clear victor has wrought.