Anyone else have a problem with the A-bomb bit? - Empire of the Sun (1987) Discussion

[–] Livio_De_Pupe 14 years ago

Perhaps he ment it in a way that this act has been one of the most shameful to be ever committed by mankind and God definitely has took record of this and never will forget it.

I think it was a well written line and speaks volumes!

reply

[–] senob44 14 years ago

I hope he took a picture of the Japanese terrorizing and laying waste to any territory they could get their hands on in China, SE Asia and the Pacific for the better part of a decade as well. I think it is an agreed-upon point that they had to be stopped. Was it better using the a-bombs or continuing to fight them and their fierce nationalism and determination for years; all the way down to the last able-bodied solider they had? I guess it's open to interpretation.

reply

[–] Livio_De_Pupe 14 years ago

Save that comment for biased history books. I'm not defending Japan for what they did in China but no civilian would ever deserve to endure such a terror just because they were born under a nationalistic country's flag. There is nothing that can justify the usage of a weapon of mass destruction. And not just one but two of them were used!! I would understand your comment if you are of chinese decendency; if not, you simply are at the wrong end of the discussion.

reply

[–] senob44 14 years ago

It's a difference of opinion we have is all. Be it the life of a Japanese citizen, Chinese citizen, or any other innocent, they are equally undeserving casualties of war. And it doesn't matter what descendency I am, I would rather see human lives spared than killed. My math tells me that causing Japan to surrender resulted in less deaths than otherwise would occur.

Anywhere from 7-16 million ended up dead in China, another 5 million in the Dutch Indies and French Indochina combined. That's civilian totals, and also left out are many other places laid waste to. Other than the weak "biased records" argument, how else can you trivialize the horrors of Japanese imperialism? Isn't it better the war ended when it did without millions more dying as it dragged on? A Japanese life is not worth any more than anyone else's, and although no one should ever endure such a terror, how else could the ongoing horrors of millions of others be stopped? Don't they count too? Japan was the aggressor in the Pacific campaign, and once they surrendered, the terror to the region would be stopped. Including putting their own people in the line of fire.

I'm interested in what your theory would be to resolve the situation? How else would Japan be convinced to surrender, or would you have the war continue? After all what's the chances the Japanese would cause another 20 million deaths in the subsequent 5 years? They couldn't possibly keep their pace, right?

I'm not defending anyone dying, but the war had to STOP somehow. When Japan saw that the H-bomb was in the US's arsenal, the war did stop. I agree partially to the complaint about the weapon being used twice, but a hasty surrender prior to the bombing of Hiroshima would have prevented the bomb being dropped on Nagasaki. The US should not be blamed for the senseless deaths of millions throughout eastern Asia, the blame rests almost exclusively on Japanese imperialism. It's a bitter pill for some to swallow, but place the blame where it is due.

reply

[–] Aimbotv3 14 years ago

So in summary, you're saying that dropping the atomic bomb was the lesser of two evils. I agree.

reply

[–] thingmakersback (1370) 2 years ago

Totally agree. It is as simple and as awful as that.

The only alternative was what would surely have happened, with some variation. Allied forces would have been withheld, after the horror of Okinawa, and air power would have continued to sow every Japanese city and town with explosive and incendiaries... Vastly more would have been killed and, given more time, the Soviets would probably have landed troops, before or after American troops. The result would have been countless Japanese deaths and a North and South Japan under permanent occupation.

reply

[–] Royalcourtier 9 years ago

The war in the Pacific was not solely due to Japanese imperialism. The attack on China was, but the general war was caused by the USA. If the US had not blocked Japan's access to oil it would not have been forced to go to war against the USA.

reply

[–] joegerardi (383) 6 years ago

Seriously? Denying the Japanese American oil and steel was wrong?

So you're saying that no one has a right to decide whom they will sell to?

Oy. I see a liberal rant coming from this braciole soon.

..Joe

reply

[–] Foster (878) a year ago

FDR wanted to get into the war in Europe, The only way to get out of the depression, he didn't care about China, BUT he couldn't get the Germans to attack the US so he Sanctioned Japan till they had no choice, KNOW that Germany would declare war On the US also

reply

[–] JimmyPSX 12 years ago

Japan had to option to not let the second one be used...they refused to surrender...so they got smacked again...and a ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in the deaths of millions...atomic bombs saved lives...and that is a fact

The Arizona Music Show
http://www.ArizonaMusicShow.com

reply

[–] JimmyPSX 11 years ago

that's nonsense...the way Japan operated during WW2 there was no such thing as a civilian in that country

The Arizona Music Show
http://www.ArizonaMusicShow.com

reply

[–] bbethany7-699-48220 9 years ago

Bbethany7 No such thing as a civilian? Millions of children, women, the aged, doctors, nurses, chefs, farmers, teachers,
clerks, firemen, monks, infrastructure maintenance workers, movie makers, actors, invalids, and so on. They are civilians,
not active in the military.

reply

[–] timc-20 8 years ago

I would've destroyed all of Japan's remaining planes and navy. Especially focusing on submarines. I would then have blockaded Japan to prevent any shipping (we had the navy there and easily could have done that). I would then have bombed the civilian population with food and clothing. And, I would have kept it up until they invited us in for a meet and greet. I think it would have taken 4 months max.

Obviously, we WANTED to drop those two bombs.

reply

[–] bbethany7-699-48220 8 years ago

Bbethany7 Would have, could have? It wasn't your determination at the time. I am still pissed off that 70+years later we still keep a massive number of military oersonnel in Japan, Germany, and a 100 other countries. This is Imperialist insolence. We have become the villains, feared whereever we invade and occupy. Enough already.

reply

[–] joegerardi (383) 6 years ago

Women, the aged, and yes, even the children would have fought invasion. Look to the battle of Okinawa for a glimpse of how the battle would have been fought. They were prepared to give their lives for the emperor at a moment's notice. Martial training began in the 1st grade.

The conservative estimates were over 1 million deaths should Japan have to be invaded. They would defend their emperor to the very last person.

Try a history book sometime.

..Joe

reply

[–] thomas-holidayinnashevil 10 years ago

People have a false idea of war - war cannot be fought like a boxing match with rules, etc. It's so much more brutal that anything else for a purpose - so that we hate it. America did not start the war with Japan, the government, it's military leaders and the people did that. No one can tell me that if the people of Japan had risen up as one on December 8th or 9th or 10th, 1941 against war with American that the Japanese government could have continued in it's prosecution. No, the Japanese people were involved from the first day. As far as killing civilians, more were killed in the fire-bombing of Japanese cities than were ever slain by the A-bomb. War is not boxing or the NFL - it's disgusting and the only way to wage it is totally and completely until the enemy falls to its knees in total surrender - never to rise again in the same fashion. Japan and Germany experienced that after WWII and to this day that memory keeps them from repeating anything like that again.

reply

[–] Kawada_Kira 10 years ago

People have a false idea of war - war cannot be fought like a boxing match with rules, etc. It's so much more brutal that anything else for a purpose - so that we hate it. America did not start the war with Japan, the government, it's military leaders and the people did that. No one can tell me that if the people of Japan had risen up as one on December 8th or 9th or 10th, 1941 against war with American that the Japanese government could have continued in it's prosecution. No, the Japanese people were involved from the first day. As far as killing civilians, more were killed in the fire-bombing of Japanese cities than were ever slain by the A-bomb. War is not boxing or the NFL - it's disgusting and the only way to wage it is totally and completely until the enemy falls to its knees in total surrender - never to rise again in the same fashion. Japan and Germany experienced that after WWII and to this day that memory keeps them from repeating anything like that again.

What a great argument to support 9/11. Exact same rationale Osama bin Laden had; that the American people support their government and are complicit in its crimes and therefore anyone who happens to live in America is a legitimate target. Which actually is a much more defensible rationale when applied to 9/11 than the A-bombs, because the Japanese people lived under a fascist military dictatorship over which they had absolutely no power, whereas Americans live under a (highly limited, but real nonetheless) representative democracy and therefore possess more influence over their government, and therefore, according to this "mass guilt" theory, are much more complicit in its crimes and therefore punishable for them.

Or does this logic only apply to non-white peoples?

"To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency. To forgive them is cruelty."
-Robespierre

reply

[–] MaryZona 9 years ago

1. Regarding Islamic theocracy vs the US today (just as with Japan vs the US in WW2), the US is objectively the good side. Statism (communism, fascism, theocracy, etc) and an individual rights-respecting government are not morally equivalent goals. Do you believe they are?

2. Jihadists are not fighting for *more* freedom than the US has. Read firsthand what they actually write regarding what they are fighting for. Do you want them to accomplish their goals?
http://www.c-span.org/video/?200888-1/words-raymond-ibrahim

3. What specific crimes against the Islamic theocracy movement did the US government commit? Make a list. Look at your list again with the following in mind: perhaps some or all of those items are NOT aggressive crimes but are actually episodes of the US engaging in pathetic self-sacrificial half-measures. Just because the US has been self-sacrificial in the past does not mean that it should be even more self-sacrificial in the future. The US should instead have the moral courage to do whatever is necessary to make the Islamic theocracy movement just as harmless as Nazis, Shintos, and Confederates.
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory/

reply

[–] rusoviet 9 years ago

You said it 'two' bombs. The Japanese high command still refused to surrender after the first bomb at Hiroshima.

My father and millions of other US soldiers were facing a mindset of 'fight to the death' as they has endured throughout the re-capturing of the South Pacific.

As horrific as the bombs were (and they were) they also saved countless lives both in the US Military and Japan.

Lastly the USA could have used the bomb to dictate to a prostrate world what it wanted it to do - it didn't. Had the Russian Communists exploded it first THEY would have.

reply

[–] zbacku 8 years ago

So, you would be all for an all out attack on Japan which would probably result in the deaths of up to 1 MILLION additional Americans and Allies????? And untold MILLIONS of innocent civilians? We would have completely destroyed Tokyo. Japan was not going to surrender. Those two bombs stopped the war in the Pacific.

reply

[–] Captain_Wesker 8 years ago

Intriguing interpretation!

---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .

reply

[–] Great_Gothamite 11 years ago

Actually, Jim does acknowledge the report. At first he wasn't really listening, but then he perks up as if hearing the radio for the first time and then he says, "I saw it (the explosion). I thought it was Mrs. Victor's soul flying up to heaven." Then in a later scene he says more soberly, "I learned a new word today -- atom bomb." Whatever levity his earlier childlike reaction might have had has now been weighted down by reality. It's yet another instance of Jim losing more of his innocence to the war.

reply

[–] me-1523 11 years ago

I think it's easier to explain the scene as a hallucination. Jim didn't actually see the physical bomb. But he was suffering from exhaustion and malnourishment and when he looked up he saw bright lights in the sky (aka phosphenes), which typically occurs when one slips into shock and blacks out/faints/loses consciousness. It corresponds with the radio report so that's what he thinks he saw.

reply

[–] loveagoodstory 11 years ago

I took his 'photograph' comment as describing what he saw in the sky from so far away. A camera flash bulb may well be the brightest light that Jamie's ever seen. I thought it sounded like a comment taken from a real witness and put in the script, complete guess though.

---------------------------------------------------------
Free your mind and the rest will follow

reply

[–] mandora-798-383893 11 years ago

Actually, I saw one of the last atomic bomb explosions in Nevada while delivering papers in Oakland California in the 1950s. I was several hundred miles from the test site. It looked like the sun rising for one split second, a bright white flash on the horizon. No yellow at all.

reply

[–] eddieinportland 11 years ago

What would people think if the atomic bomb was dropped on Germany and not Japan? Remember the bombs were going to be used on Germany before they surrendered. And every country that Japan went to war with. Japan attacked them first and started the war. The only country they didn't attack or declare war on was the Soviet Union. The Soviets declared war on Japan and attacked them the day after the first atomic bomb was dropped.

Harry Truman should be consider the last war time President. President Truman knew he had a weapon that would end the war. It's easy to start the war. But it's very difficult to end a war as the goal post for victory keeps changing. The war on Terror, how long has that been going on? Any end in sight? President Truman thought about it and said yes to drop the bomb. The war was over. People were saved on both sides.

Also America and England were already looking at who the next enemy in the world was going to be. And that enemy was our ally the Soviet Union. Europe was in ruins and divided. The backstabbing was going to start the second Japan surrendered. Dropping the bombs delayed that and the cold war started.

I also remember my great uncle who "participated" in the Batann Death March. To the day he died. He never had a problem with the bombs being dropped on Japan.

reply

[–] robertscott1949 10 years ago

To start with there really is no god as man's religions make him to be. Human beings would be better off not believing in such rubbish.
I don't think the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bomb would be seen as far away as Shanghai. You would have to ask the director (Mr Spielberg) what he was trying to convey.

reply

[–] TheAyatollah 9 years ago

I wonder if you would really be able to see the bomb from that far away.

Other than that I have no problem with the scene.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] terryperring104 9 years ago

thats the only dialogue in the film that's stayed with me; why have you got a problem with it? in what way?
I always thought it was a poetic way of putting it:- a horrific moment for thousands of people but-viewed from a distance-its only a brief flash-like God taking a flash photograph. Lovely.

reply