網(wǎng)友討論：為什么美國投了兩顆原子彈卻沒有受到更多的指責？
Why don''t America get more abuse for dropping 2 atomic bombs?
譯文簡介
我覺得大家都接受美國扔下兩顆原子彈，并認為這是正確的想法。
正文翻譯
Sam_Wilson1405
I feel like everybody accepts that the USA dropped 2 atomic bombs and that it is the right idea. Maybe because they were the "good guys" or maybe because I live in the UK. It just seems like a massive war crime that is heavily overlooked.
我覺得大家都接受美國扔下兩顆原子彈，并認為這是正確的想法。 也許是因為他們是“好人” ，也許是因為我住在英國。 這似乎是一個被嚴重忽視的大規(guī)模戰(zhàn)爭罪行。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 3 )
收藏
A lot of countries did stuff that should be considered war crimes (ESPECIALLY BRITAIN, You guys did a lot of fucked up shit too). If we were to charge america for dropping the atomic bombs, we should also charge Britain and Canada for their help and churchill giving a yes to the US to use the weapons.
很多國家都做了應該被視為戰(zhàn)爭罪的事情（尤其是英國，你們也做了很多操蛋的事情），如果我們要指責美國扔下原子彈，我們也應該指責英國和加拿大的幫助，以及丘吉爾同意美國使用這些武器。
If the US neither dropped the bombs, nor invaded Japan, then the islands would quite soon (within months, if not quicker) be conquered by the USSR. This could easily be more devastating to both the populace of the Soviet unx, the populace of Japan in the short term, the populace of Japan in the long-term, and the political situation in the world in the long term.
如果美國既沒有投下原子彈，也沒有入侵日本，那么這些島嶼很快就會被蘇聯(lián)征服(也許在幾個月內(nèi))。 對于蘇聯(lián)民眾、短期日本民眾、長期日本民眾，以及世界長期政治局勢來說，這都很容易造成更大的破壞。
Without the looming USSR the US could've also just sieged Japan, because the food supplies didnt suffice for the populace.
Dropping the bombs wasnt even the worst option that was considered by the military.
Instead of invading or bombing it, they could've just starved millions or tens of millions to death over a rather short period of time.
如果沒有迫在眉睫的蘇聯(lián)，美國可能也只是包圍了日本，因為民眾的食品供應不足。
在軍方看來，投下原子彈并不是最糟糕的選擇。
他們本可以在相當短的時間內(nèi)餓死數(shù)百萬甚至數(shù)千萬人，而不是入侵或轟炸它。
Without the USSR looming, the local landscape would look totally different. Japan would likely still control a lot of Manchuria, so they might have a decent food supply (starving the locals wouldn't be a severe issue for them).
Another noteworthy thing is that traditional bombing have been far more devastating than the atomic bombs due to large quantity and duration. In other words, the atomic bombings were not only not the worst option that was considered by the military, but not even the worst action committed by the military.
如果沒有蘇聯(lián)的逼近，當?shù)氐那闆r將會完全不同。 日本很可能仍然控制著滿洲的大部分地區(qū)，所以他們可能有足夠的食物供應(讓當?shù)厝税ゐI對他們來說不是一個嚴重的問題)。
另一個值得注意的事情是，傳統(tǒng)的轟炸由于數(shù)量大、持續(xù)時間長，其破壞性遠遠超過原子彈。 換句話說，原子彈爆炸不僅不是軍方認為最糟糕的選擇，甚至也不是軍方采取的最糟糕的行動。
It is a weird how killing 100,000+ people with one, single nuke shocks people's sensibilities while killing 100,000+ people with thousands of bombs dropped over the course of a day or two seems like a morally superior practice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not worse than what we did to Tokyo and Dresden.
奇怪的是，用一顆核彈殺死10萬多人，會讓人們的感情受到?jīng)_擊，而在一兩天內(nèi)投下數(shù)千顆炸彈殺死10萬多人，似乎是一種道德高尚的做法。廣島和長崎并不比我們對東京和德累斯頓所做的更糟糕。
people die via radiation.
The fact that we still have people sick from those bombs today is fucking spooky, man, not to mention the lasting damage to the regions where high radiation exposure happens.
人們死于輻射。
現(xiàn)在仍然有人因為原子彈而生病，這真他媽的嚇人，更不用說那些發(fā)生在高輻射的地區(qū)所遭受的持久損害了。
And either way, the firebombing of Japanese cities in the months beforehand killed way more people, and so to call the deployment of the atomic bombs a war crime is a bit close-minded in my opinion when it could have been way worse, for japan and the U.S.
不管是哪種情況，這之前幾個月對日本城市的燃燒彈爆炸殺死了更多的人，所以把部署原子彈稱為戰(zhàn)爭罪行在我看來有點過于狹隘，對日本和美國來說，情況可能更糟糕。
Also I heard it was basically, us saying to Japan either we stop the war or we will drop a bomb on you guys. Obviously Japan thought they were bluffing
我聽說的基本上是，我們對日本說“要么我們停止戰(zhàn)爭，不然我們向你們投下一顆原子彈”。顯然日本認為他們是在虛張聲勢
In addition to what darkedgefan said here's more info.
The 2 bombings shortened the war by a year and a half. The military had estimated the war would not have ended until late 1946.
While it gets little attention, the US sub campaign had nearly completely stopped food from getting into Japan. Parts of Japan was already losing people to famine. Had the war gone on until the end of 1946, it's been estimated one million additional Japanese would have died from famine.
The estimated death toll in allied casualties for an invasion was huge. The military minted so many purple hearts in anticipation of the invasion that it didn't have to have more printed until around the time of the Iraq war.
The Japanese had used about 2800 kamikaze attacks by the end of the war. They had 5000 planes in reserve to fight an invasion. Additionally, they had trained kamikaze scuba divers. They would have been outfitted with an explosive Lance. When a landing craft passed over them they would strike the craft with the lance killing themselves and destroying the boat. There were also orders that if an invasion started, all POWs were to be killed to free up all resources to fight the invaders.
A lot of the atomic bomb critics will ignorantly say there was no need to drop the second bomb because Japan was about to surrender. Here's something most people don't know. After the first bomb there was an attempted coup against the emperor by the heads of the army because they were afraid he might allow a surrender. It was only the second bombing that convinced their military leaders to give up the fight. Before the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese did reach out to the USSR to be a broker in peace negotiations. The Soviets never communicated the overture to the allies. The Soviets had no intention of working as a broker for peace because they were looking to start a war against Japan in the summer of 1945, just a few months after the German surrender. The Soviets were looking for pay back after the Japanese beat them in Russo-Japanese war from about 30 years earlier.
The Soviets had plans to invade the northern island of Hokkaido and the Kuril islands. Had the war not ended when it did the cold war would have also included a divided Japan in addition to a divided Germany and Korea.
除了darkedgefan所說的，這里還有更多的信息。
兩次轟炸使戰(zhàn)爭縮短了一年半。軍方預計這場戰(zhàn)爭要到1946年底才會結(jié)束。
雖然沒有引起多少注意，但美國的潛艇行動幾乎完全阻止了日本的食品供應。日本的部分地區(qū)已經(jīng)因饑荒而失去了人民。 如果戰(zhàn)爭持續(xù)到1946年底，估計還會有100萬日本人死于饑荒。
預估入侵日本將會造成巨大的盟軍傷亡。所以軍隊在入侵前鑄造了很多紫心勛章，以至于直到伊拉克戰(zhàn)爭前后才印制出更多的紫心勛章。
到戰(zhàn)爭結(jié)束時，日本人已經(jīng)進行了大約2800次神風特攻隊式的攻擊。他們預備了5000架飛機以對抗入侵。此外，他們還訓練了自殺式潛水員。他們配備一個爆炸性的長矛。當一艘登陸艇經(jīng)過他們時，他們會用長矛擊中這艘船，自殺并摧毀這艘船。 還有一個命令，如果入侵開始，將殺死所有的戰(zhàn)俘，騰出所有的資源，以打擊侵略者。
許多原子彈批評家會無知地說，沒有必要投下第二顆原子彈，因為日本即將投降。這是一些大多數(shù)人不知道的事情。 第一顆原子彈爆炸后，日本軍隊首領企圖發(fā)動政變推翻天皇，因為他們擔心天皇可能會投降。而第二次轟炸，說服他們的軍事領導人放棄了戰(zhàn)斗。在第二顆原子彈投下之前，日本確實與蘇聯(lián)聯(lián)系，希望蘇聯(lián)在和平談判中充當中間人。 蘇聯(lián)從未向盟國傳達過這一提議。 蘇聯(lián)無意充當和平的中間人，因為他們希望在1945年夏天，也就是德國投降幾個月后，對日本發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭。 大約30年前，日本在20世紀90年代日俄戰(zhàn)爭擊敗蘇聯(lián)后，蘇聯(lián)人一直在尋求報復。
蘇聯(lián)曾計劃入侵北海道北部島嶼和千島群島。 如果戰(zhàn)爭沒有在冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束時結(jié)束，除了分裂的德國和朝鮮外，還會有分裂的日本。
Why was a land invasion necessary? I'm not saying a blockade and continued traditional bombing wouldn't have killed more civilians through starvation, but this made no sense to me. The navy already demonstrated they didn't need to invade all the islands to beat them. Why put so many of our people at risk for no gain?
為什么需要入侵陸地？ 我不是說封鎖和持續(xù)的傳統(tǒng)轟炸不會導致更多的平民死亡，但這對我來說毫無意義。 海軍已經(jīng)證明他們不需要入侵所有的島嶼就能打敗他們。 為什么要讓這么多人冒險卻毫無收獲？
Because letting their noncombatants starve to death to keep their soldiers healthy was a very real possibility that the Allies wanted to avoid.
因為日本有可能會讓他們的平民餓死，來保證他們的士兵健康。這是盟軍想要避免的一種非常真實的可能性。
The Marine Corps invaded a majority of the islands on the Navy’s back. The Japanese were incredibly resourceful and resilient. They lived with a deep pride to die before surrender. A Japanese soldier could live off muddy water and a maggot filled bag of rice for weeks. Like someone else said too, the Japanese would have certainly staved their population to keep a strong fighting force.
海軍陸戰(zhàn)隊入侵了海軍背后的大部分島嶼。 日本人難以置信的老謀深算和適應性強。他們帶著極大的驕傲活著，寧死不屈。 一個日本士兵靠泥水和一袋裝滿蛆蟲的大米就可以生存幾個星期。正如其他人所說，日本人當然會犧牲他們的人民來保持強大的戰(zhàn)斗力。
America pleaded with them to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. They refused.
They were also planning to infect American citizens through the use of bio terrorism weapons dropped from the sky into our cities.
And they're guilty of a whole bunch of other horrible ideas as well that were planned
第一顆原子彈投下后，美國懇求他們投降，但他們拒絕了。
他們還計劃通過使用空投生物武器來感染美國公民。
他們還有一大堆計劃好的可怕想法
Have you heard of Camp 731?
你聽說過731營嗎？
Never mind the horrible ideas that were planned, there were all the horrible ideas they had already been practicing. The war crimes of the Japanese were arguably even worse than those of Germany and it amazes me how little people seem to know about them.
不要管那些計劃好的可怕想法，而是要去關注那些他們已經(jīng)在實踐的可怕想法。日本人的戰(zhàn)爭罪行甚至可以說比德國人的還要嚴重，令我驚訝的是，人們似乎對這些罪行知之甚少。
Don't forget to add that prior to bombing the cities, American forces flew down a bunch of flyers to citizens that said some of these cities will soon be bombed. Leave if you can.
不要忘記補充一點，在轟炸這些城市之前，美國軍隊向市民發(fā)放了大量傳單，上面說這些城市中的一些很快就會被轟炸。 如果可以的話，請離開。
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never in the lists of cities in those pamphlets. That only covered strategic bombings.
這些小冊子里，廣島和長崎從來沒有在名單中，這只包括了戰(zhàn)略轟炸。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
answer is that it actually saved lives over not dropping the bombs.
答案是，投下原子彈實際上拯救了生命，而不是沒有投下炸彈。
The Japanese Empire had spent a hundred years glorifying a fictionalized version of the Samurai and convincing it's citizens that they should all hold themselves to that standard. So yes, it was a corrupted and twisted version of samurai ideals that lead to the radicalization of Japan.
日本帝國花了一百年的時間來美化一個虛構(gòu)的武士形象，并說服日本公民相信他們都應該堅持這個標準。 所以，是的，這是一個墮落和扭曲版本的武士理想，導致了日本的激進化。
Every part of the dropping of the bombs is so debatable which is why the discussion is still so fascinating 70 years afterward. A strong argument could be made that the Soviets had a significantly stronger impact on the surrender of the Japanese, and some recounts of the discussion of surrender from Japanese leaders present at the time said that the second nuclear bomb wasn't even taken into consideration when they decided to surrender.
The argument that the nuclear bombs saved lives is reliant on the fact that Japan would not have surrendered if the bombs, and that is very arguable. For example, generals at the time were convinced that Japan would have surrendered without the bombs and a land invasion, and a post-war report done by the US government in 1946 came up with the same conclusion.
投下原子彈的每一個部分都有爭議，這就是為什么70年后，還是很多人在討論?？梢蕴岢鲆粋€強有力的論點，即蘇聯(lián)對日本投降的影響明顯更大，一些在場的日本領導人關于投降的敘述，稱他們決定投降時甚至沒有考慮到第二枚投下的原子彈。
認為原子彈拯救了生命的論點依賴于這樣一個事實，即如果原子彈爆炸，日本不投降，這非常有爭議。例如，當時有一些將軍相信，如果沒有投下原子彈和陸地入侵，日本早就投降了。美國政府在1946年的一份戰(zhàn)后報告也得出了同樣的結(jié)論。
The story about saving lives has a little bit of truth to it but the war was already won.
The war was in practice already won but the Japanese were not going to surrender and were ready to fight to the death to stop the Americans, army and civilians alike. An invasion of Japan would most probably have been more deadly than the dropping of the two bombs.
這個關于拯救生命的故事有一點點真實性，但是戰(zhàn)爭已經(jīng)勝利了。
這場戰(zhàn)爭實際上已經(jīng)取得了勝利，但日本人不打算投降，他們準備戰(zhàn)斗到死，以阻止美國人，軍隊和平民。 入侵日本很可能比投下兩顆原子彈更致命。
Just because the war was already won, does not mean that end would’ve been at all easy to come to. Japan still had to be toppled, and that had to happen either by invasion, prolonged blockade and starvation, or by using the bombs.
Invasion would’ve been incredibly costly, as both soldiers and civilians were prepared to fight to the death to protect their homeland. There’s videos from Pacific islands of Japanese civilians jumping off of cliffs because they’ve been taught to fear an American occupation. Imagine that, but over their entire country. Invasion would’ve resulted in countless US and Japanese troops, and Japanese civilians, losing their lives, almost certainly far more than dropping the two bombs resulted in.
Prolonged blockade and starvation simply wouldn’t have happened, because the Soviets were primed to invade Japan from the north. Iirc they had already made plans to invade that big upper island of Japan, and no doubt they would’ve moved in quickly on the rest if we didn’t. That leads to countless Soviet and Japanese soldiers, as well as Japanese civilians, dying, just like in the US invasion, and an establishment of a Soviet satellite government in the country, most definitely a repressive one that would’ve resulted in years or even decades of suffering for the population. Even if blockade and starvation would’ve been options for us to use, that would’ve resulted in prolonged suffering across the entire nation of Japan, primarily for civilians, so that’s not exactly a moral option either.
Dropping the bombs really was the best option to save as many lives as possible, despite how horrific it still is. Even though the war was already won as you said, that doesn’t mean ending it would’ve happened quickly, easily, or without a lot of bloodshed. Dropping the bombs was almost certainly in part a show of force to the Soviets, but it was in large part also the best option to save as many lives as possible. Saving lives was a massive part of the equation, don’t undersell it.
僅僅因為這場戰(zhàn)爭已經(jīng)勝利了，并不意味著很快就能結(jié)束。仍然需要推翻日本，而這點必須通過入侵、長期的封鎖和饑餓，或者使用原子彈來實現(xiàn)。
由于士兵和平民都準備為保衛(wèi)自己的國家而戰(zhàn)斗到死，因此入侵的代價高得讓人難以置信。有來自太平洋島嶼的日本平民從懸崖上跳下的視頻，因為他們被教導要害怕美國的占領。想象一下，如果在他們整個國家。入侵將導致無數(shù)的美國和日本軍隊，以及日本平民喪生，幾乎可以肯定，這遠遠超過投下兩枚炸彈所造成的損失。
長期的封鎖和饑餓根本就不會發(fā)生，因為蘇聯(lián)已經(jīng)做好了從北方入侵日本的準備。 他們已經(jīng)制定了入侵日本北部大島的計劃，毫無疑問，如果我們不這么做，他們會很快進攻剩下的島嶼。 這會導致無數(shù)的蘇聯(lián)和日本士兵，以及日本平民死亡，就像美國的入侵，以及蘇聯(lián)在該國建立的衛(wèi)星政府，絕對是一個專制的政府，會給人民帶來數(shù)年甚至數(shù)十年的痛苦。 即使我們可以選擇封鎖和饑餓，那也會導致整個日本國家長期遭受苦難，主要是對平民，所以這也不是一個道德選擇。
投下原子彈確實是拯救盡可能多的生命的最佳選擇，盡管這仍然很可怕。盡管如你所說，戰(zhàn)爭已經(jīng)贏得了勝利，但這并不意味著戰(zhàn)爭會很快、很容易地結(jié)束，也不意味著沒有大量的流血。 幾乎可以肯定，投下原子彈在某種程度上是向蘇聯(lián)展示武力，但在很大程度上，這也是盡可能多地拯救生命的最佳選擇。 拯救生命是這個等式的重要組成部分，不要低估它。
Unless I am mistaken, we only had 2 readily available. It would have been a few months to continue dropping nukes
如果我沒弄錯的話，我們只有兩個現(xiàn)成的原子彈。繼續(xù)投放原子彈可能需要幾個月的時間。
No one knew we only had two however. So japan assumed that this could probably continue if they didn’t surrender.
然而，沒有人知道我們只有兩個，所以日本認為如果他們不投降，這種情況可能會繼續(xù)下去。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Yeah it was a pretty big bluff on the USA’s part, because had Japan thought we couldn’t continue they wouldn’t have surrendered.
是的，對美國來說，這是一個相當大的虛張聲勢，因為如果日本認為我們不能繼續(xù)，他們就不會投降。
The rape of nanking, Japan was pure evil to the countries around them during WWII. Japan is how it is today because of forced pacifism after WWII. I think western culture thinks Hitler is bad, but forget Japan was tearing through China and surrounding countries committing human rights atrocoties.
南京大屠殺事件，日本在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)期間對他們周圍的國家展現(xiàn)了純粹的邪惡。 由于二戰(zhàn)后被迫實行和平主義，日本現(xiàn)在才是這個樣子。 我認為西方文化認為希特勒是壞的，但忘記了日本撕裂中國和周邊國家的人權暴行。
It doesn't really help that Japan doesn't like acknowledging the terrible shit it's done during WW2.
日本不愿意承認它在二戰(zhàn)期間所做的可怕的事情，這真的沒什么幫助。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
To be fair, Germany is the only country to just face their atrocities head on that I can think of. A lot of countries act that way to extent, like America and slavery or Turkey and GENO..... Countries like to ignore the bad parts of their history.
公平地說，德國是我能想到的唯一一個直面他們暴行的國家。 很多國家都沒有這么做，比如美國、奴隸制、土耳其和種族滅絕。 一些國家喜歡忽略他們歷史上的不好的部分。
I don't know how you can say that the US doesn't face slavery head on. It is a major part of our education.
Now one thing we don't talk about as much as we probably should is how we fucked over the natives.
我不知道你怎么能說美國沒有直面奴隸制。 這是我們教育的一個主要部分。
現(xiàn)在有一件事我們沒有談論多少，那就是我們是如何欺負當?shù)赝林说摹?/b>
American definitely does not ignore it’s past with slavery.
美國人絕對不會忽視奴隸制的歷史。
I think they could have just said, "Yep, bad. Won't happen again."
我覺得他們可以直接說，“是的，很糟糕，我們不會再這樣做了?！?/b>
Atomic bombs, at the time, were a secret weapon and didn't have the same stigma they do today. No one really knew how destructive they would be. It's also worth noting that, prior to dropping the bombs, the US dropped leaflets warning everyone to evacuate those cities.
Edit: On further review, the bit about the leaflets wasn't correct. Other cities got leaflets prior to conventional bombings, and leaflets were dropped after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, warning of additional atomic bombings if Japan didn't surrender.
在當時，原子彈是一種秘密武器，沒有像今天這樣的污名。 沒有人真正知道它們會有多大的破壞力。 值得注意的是，在投下炸彈之前，美國散發(fā)了傳單，警告所有人撤離這些城市。
編輯: 進一步審查后，關于傳單的那部分是不正確的。其他城市在常規(guī)轟炸之前就得到了傳單，廣島和長崎原子彈爆炸之后也投放了傳單，警告如果日本不投降就會有更多的原子彈爆炸。
I didn't know that, would that not tip the Japanese off that the US were planning something though?
我不知道，這難道不會讓日本人覺得美國在計劃什么嗎？
There were no rules of war governing aerial warfare. In fact, there still isn't.
空戰(zhàn)沒有戰(zhàn)爭的規(guī)則，事實上，現(xiàn)在仍然沒有。
Two points:
The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in more direct casualties than (I think) either nuclear bombs.
There was a lot of cottage industry in the Japanese war effort. Low tech stuff like uniforms and parachutes could be sewn at home snd brought to central collecting points. So, while civilian casualties were to be avoided somewhat, they were not the taboo they are yreated as today by the media.
兩點:
對東京的燃燒彈轟炸造成的直接傷亡比(我認為)兩個原子彈都要多。
在日本的戰(zhàn)爭中有許多家庭手工業(yè)。 像制服和降落傘這樣的低技術含量的東西可以在家里縫制，然后帶到中央收集點。 因此，雖然平民傷亡是可以避免的，但是他們并不像今天媒體所說的那樣忌諱。
At that point, the worst you could expect was a bombing raid or fire bombing, which isn't as devastating as you'd imagine from ground level. It's still bad, obviously, but the Japanese mentality was that surrender was worse than death. The atomic bomb was something so new and otherworldly destructive that when people who survived the first bomb tried to explain what happened, no one believed that one bomb could do that much damage. It took a second bombing to really push the point that this was something we could continue doing.
As well, at that time, three nations had figured out the potential power of atomic energy, and undoubtedly whoever got to it first would have used it. If it had been the Nazis, they'd have probably used it on the US or England, maybe the Soviets. If it was the Soviets, they would have undoubtedly used it on the US, or may have strong-armed China into their growing territory. Both of these regimes would likely have used the atomic bomb as a constant means of pushing their power in other nations, and we'd have seen more bombings as a result. I'm not saying the US didn't use our atomic research to scare a few nations, but that we didn't use it to annex any other countries is something I don't think we'd have seen from either the Nazi or Soviet regimes.
In the end, the bombs actually spared more lives than they took. The Japanese were such vicious fighters that even the Nazis were uncomfortable being allied with them; they thought they were taking their Asian conquest business a little too far, if you can believe that. Essentially, the A-bombs were the punch to the face that prevented the ensuing gun-fight.
在那個時候，你所能期待的最壞情況就是轟炸或者火力轟炸，從地面上看，這并不像你想象的那么具有破壞性。顯然，這仍然很糟糕，但日本人的心態(tài)是投降比死亡更糟糕。原子彈太新奇也具有太強的破壞力了，以至于當?shù)谝活w原子彈的幸存者試圖解釋發(fā)生了什么時，沒有人相信一顆原子彈能造成那么大的破壞。第二次爆炸才真正展現(xiàn)這一點：即我們可以繼續(xù)這樣做。
同時，在那個時候，三個國家已經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)了原子能的潛在力量，而且毫無疑問，無論是誰第一個發(fā)現(xiàn)了原子能，都會使用它。 如果是納粹，他們很可能會用在美國或英國使用，也許蘇聯(lián)。如果是蘇聯(lián)首先發(fā)現(xiàn)，他們無疑會對美國使用這種武器，或者可能已經(jīng)將強大的中國并入他們不斷增長的領土上。這兩個政權都可能會把原子彈作為一種不斷向其他國家施加壓力的手段，結(jié)果我們就會看到更多的爆炸。我并不是說美國沒有用我們的原子能研究來恐嚇一些國家，但是我們并沒有用它來吞并任何其他國家，我認為我們從來沒有從納粹或蘇聯(lián)政權那里看到過這種情況。
最后，這些原子彈實際上拯救了更多的生命。 日本人是非常兇殘的戰(zhàn)士，以至于連納粹都不愿意與他們結(jié)盟，他們認為他們在亞洲征服事業(yè)上做得有點過火了，如果你能相信這一點的話。從本質(zhì)上講，原子彈是打在臉上的一記重拳，阻止了隨后的槍戰(zhàn)。
I would argue that a firebombing campaign, while slower, is no less horrifying. Look at what we did to Dresden. The difference is not so much I think in the destructive force but in the shock factor, the instantaneous nature of it.
我認為，一場燃燒彈轟炸的行動雖然緩慢，但也同樣令人恐懼?？纯次覀儗Φ吕鬯诡D做了什么。 我認為區(qū)別不在于破壞力，而在于沖擊因素，它的瞬時的特點。
Absolutely, one firebombing raid on Tokyo killed more people than either atomic bomb.
Also Dresden and other German cities were firebombed by the RAF, not the US.
毫無疑問，一次對東京的燃燒彈襲擊造成的死亡人數(shù)，超過了兩顆原子彈中的任何一顆。
德累斯頓和其他德國城市也遭到了英國皇家空軍的燃燒彈襲擊，而不是美國。
Just to add, the fire bombing of Tokyo claimed nearly 100,000 lives, nearly as many as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It is just that the casualties in Tokyo happened over a much longer period of time.
另外，東京大轟炸造成近10萬人死亡，幾乎相當于在廣島投下的原子彈的數(shù)量。 只是東京的傷亡發(fā)生的時間要長得多。
I’ve never understood the phenomenon where people complain about something while asking why nobody ever complains about that thing.
我從來理解不了這樣的現(xiàn)象：人們在抱怨某件事的同時，卻問為什么從來沒有人抱怨過那件事。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處