Humanities desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 29 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 28

Religion in Pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula

What was the religion or belief system most prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula in Pre-Islamic times? Also, more specifically, is there any information on the religion or religious training/education/beliefs of the prophet Mohammed before Islam was brought about? --KageTora - SPQW - (影虎) (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading Pre-Islamic Arabia and Muhammad. -- kainaw ™ 04:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarke's 3rd law and Western esotericism

To what applications has Clarke's third law been put in the field of Western esotericism? Neon Merlin [1] 04:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the application where you do your own homework. --Jayron32 04:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trust that, if the Questioner is unfamiliar with Clarke's three laws, a link will not be considered over-helpful? I confess that as both a Science Fiction Fan and one actively interested in Western esotericism, I myself would be intrigued to learn any non-trivial answers to the question. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean like "the goblin man of norway" - this is a fake film made for fun (as part of an advertising campaign) [2]

There are plenty of examples of "pulp science books" explaining bible miracles etc through exlpanations involving high tech space aliens - is this the sort of thing you mean (I don't know any authors - but someone else will..)83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean stuff obtained by googling "is god an alien" , "was jesus an alien" "bible miracles alien" etc. Similar results can be found for non christian mythologies.83.100.251.196 (talk) 12:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples also predate A Clarke eg Chariots of the Gods? (found via http://www.geocities.com/magpiester/oldtestament.html).83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient astronauts also may be of interest.83.100.251.196 (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The writings of Graham Hancock may also be of interest to anyone studying this subject. He's a fairly well-known author, and his books are entertaining to read, even if he is a "crackpot". --Jayron32 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erich von Däniken is another notable one as well. --Jayron32 21:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scansion

I have a test in AP English Literature over scansion/prosody/meter soon. The format of this test is being given a line and identifying the type of meter (iamb, trochee, anapest, dactyl, spondee). I was wondering if there are any websites that have a large number of practice lines (with answers to check). I've googled/binged/etc to no avail. I only find many websites that describe scansion and give a few examples, which is not what I am looking for.

Thanks.

--proficient (talk) 05:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Estate Planning:Credit Sharing Trusts

How do credit Sharing or Credit Saving Trusts workLWhittlesey (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Verses/Stories illustrating the importance of christian friendship?

I am currently working on a lesson for a youth event regarding the importance on supporting and leaning on your christian friends. I have great skits, games, activies, songs, personal stories, etc. But, I am lacking the most important thing, bible backup! Can anyone inform me of instances in the bible where christian friends support eachother so as not to stray into sin? Thanks!

I might be stating the obvious here but you surely don't need the bible to tell you to support your friends whether they be christian or atheist!!! Teapotgeorge^Talk 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow to foreign gods and made it through the fiery furnace. Ruth followed Naomi to her homeland and married Boaz there. There is the story in Matthew, Mark, and Luke of the friends who made a hole in the roof of the place where Jesus was healing/teaching, just so their paralysed friend could be touched. Jonathan helped David survive Saul's attempts to kill him. The Bible infers that Mary's (mother of Jesus) friendship/visit with Elizabeth (mother of John the Baptist (and her cousin, I think?)) caused something special to happen to John the Baptist while he was in the womb. Although they were also brothers, Aaron assisted Moses on his trip to Egypt to free the Israelites, apparently because Moses was not good with speech, and Aaron was. Joseph's brothers (Old Testament) were plotting to kill him, but Reuben, kinder-hearted than the other brothers, suggested that they throw him into a pit, intending to return later and help Joseph flee. As we know, it was at the pit that Joseph was instead sold to slave traders (and thus became a ruler). Just some ideas for you! Can't think of any more, :-) Maedin\^talk 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maedin provides an excellent list above. I'll add that Joseph's brothers coming to Egypt during the famine may be of more use than Joseph "only" being sold into slavery. I would also note that the Epistle to Philemon has potential. — Lomn 18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm amused at the notion that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, or any other people in the Old Testament, are examples of "Christian friends" except by way of analogy, though that may be sufficient for the OP's needs. There's also Ananias's welcome of Saul/Paul in Acts 9; prior to that, Saul had certainly not been a Christian friend nor a friend to Christians. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christians, from inside the faith, do not view the old testament as somehow a distinct, seperate narrative to be considered outside of Christianity. While historians and non-Christians may debate the validity of counting the old Testament as a "Christian" text, nearly all mainline Christian faiths accept the Old Testament as equaly as "christian" as the New Testament, and so stories like Shadrach, Meshach, and Adednago are just as "Christian" a story as from the Gospels or the Epistles. Another great one is First Epistle of John. especially 1 John 3:11-24 is a great passage on friendship. --Jayron32 19:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Other Dave is meaning that the OT examples would not have been Christians, but Jewish instead. Googlemeister (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; although I'm not a Christian myself, I was fairly sure that when asking for "Bible stories", the OP was not restricting examples to the last few books of the New Testament. As Jayron says, the majority of Christians include the Old Testament in their teachings and draw upon it fairly regularly. Maedin\^talk 19:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a distinction to be made between the Historical Jesus and the "Theological Jesus" here. From the point of view of a religious historian, there cannot be any Christians who died before Christ (indeed, there probably could not be any real Christians before St. Paul.) However, from a Theological perspective, Christians clearly hold the view that Christ has existed since Creation, and as such, there are Christians at ALL times, even from before Christ took on human form. See Gospel of John, especially John 1:1-5, 14, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it...The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." In other words, there ARE Old Testament Christians (from a theological perspective) because Christ has always existed, being that Christ is God in every sense, and as such has existed forever. --Jayron32 20:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try David and Jonathan (only don't believe everything you read in that article). DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Googlemeister said, individuals in what Christians refer to as the Old Testament are ipso facto not Christians in a denominational sense; as I said myself, they may be by analogy suitable answers to the original question. My tongue-in-cheek literalism wasn't meant to dismiss the question, which is why I provided what strikes me as an example of friendship between Christians, Ananias's kindness toward Paul despite the latter's previous hostility toward believers in Christ. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Protestant view of the history of Christianity between Peter and Luther?

What is the Protestant view of the history of Christianity between Peter and Luther? From my understanding Protestants in the Lutheran and Calvinist tradition, unconditionally accept the Biblical church of Peter. But I'm not so clear about what their views are on the long historical period between 500-1500 AD. Aquinas wrote during the High Middle Ages, and he is accepted. And yet the Church government they oppose was in place during that period. When in their view did the Church become corrupt? Do they believe that there were no genuine Christians during that 1000 year period? --Gary123 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protestants view the political church as being different from the Body of Christ (i.e. the sum total of all believers). Belonging to a congregation of some sort is a basic requirement for practicing Christians, but how protestants view the relationship between the individual congregation, Christ, the individual worshiper, and the body of Christianity as a whole is quite different than how Catholics do. You are also going to find WIDE variance among various protestant denominations and even individual believers, there is no monolithic "protestant" theology like there is in Catholic churches. I would suspect that making any statements about how "Protestants" feel about ANYTHING is impossible, given the huge variance between protestant faiths. --Jayron32 18:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no singular "Protestant" view of church history (I expect you'll be hard-pressed to nail down even denominational views). However, I can confidently state that no mainstream branch of Protestantism holds that there exists a 1000 year gap of no Christianity. As for Aquinas (and other saints/popes/theologians/etc), it's not clear quite what you mean by "accepted". The general Protestant view is that all such men are fallible, and while their writings may have theological merit, they are not inerrant. You may also find our articles on Martin Luther, John Calvin, Luther's 95 Theses, and the history of Protestantism insightful. — Lomn 18:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. While protestants find the practice of "sainthood" in the sense that the Catholics do, like its a trophy or award to put on one's mantlepiece, to be weird, that doesn't mean that they hold the lives of those so sainted to be not up to Christian standards. Another almost universal view in Protestantism is the idea of personal salvation; that the individual is solely responsible for their own relationship with Christ, and it is entirely possible that millions of people who lived in the centuries before Luther would qualify as "Good Christians". Related to what I said above, there may be a wide political division in Christianity between, say Catholics and Protestants, but most protestants do not view this political division as a barrier to Salvation. Catholics and Orthodox Christians who accept Jesus as their lord and savior have equal access to heaven as any Protestant does, regardless of the particular denomination they belong to. This holds true for any Christians in history, even those from before Luther. --Jayron32 19:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something in Luther's catechism about his view of Catholic worship from the time of Jesus to the 16th century. He probably had a very positive view of Christians worshipping collectively, and receiving the sacraments from a Priest. I do not expect that he saw all worship up to his time as pointless since it was not under his direction. His view of some Popes and the political church were quite critical at times, and he saw many actions of Church officials as being in error and corrupt. Edison (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Protestant preacher I knew told me that he believed that there had always been at least a small band of true Christians somewhere on earth since the time of Christ. Wrad (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably both literally true from both a historical perspective (a gap in continuity would have meant the end of Christianity as a faith for all intents and puposes) AND a theological one. See my explanation above about personal salvation; only the believer knows his relationship with Christ, so it is impossible for OTHER believers to know whether or not anyone else is "saved"... --Jayron32 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without Emperor Constantine, the early church might have struggled a lot longer. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most Protestants, including Luther as far as I know, did not take the view that the very idea of the Catholic Church was wrong, and that it had simply taken a thousand years to get rid of it: the view was that the church had become corrupt. Luther would, I think, have reformed the church from within if he thought it would have worked. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black-whites

This said For Black-Asians for man to be black and wife to be Asians is 6.15 times likely than a Asian men to have black women, but now status might have change. is ther a good example for white man to marry a black women? Through my whole life i hadn't found a black women to marry a white man yet. is this still possilbe or is it unlikely now. In 2000 is 2.65 gap then now, is black man vs. white wife to be ver 80 % and white man marry black woemn less than 20% ?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get what All spouse mean in first column?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible? Yes, of course it is. I think you may be suffering from observational bias. Dismas|^(talk) 20:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be trivial to come up with a list even of famous white men who have married black women. Roger Ebert? This is not uncommon. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Tom Willis? The OP is reminded that there are more than 6,000,000,000 people in the world, the few thousand that you have met are not enough to make a significant statement about general behavioral trends. --Jayron32 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This happens all the time. Try living in a major urban area - New York City - and two weeks in you'll have already seen about half the things you previously thought "impossible." ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no one answered the second question. However I admit I'm not really sure how else to explain it. I presume you did read the section 'How to Read and Understand the Table'. Can you explain what you don't understand? Nil Einne (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally friends with a couple where the male is white and the female is black (and both at the extremes of the skin color chart, as well). It's not that uncommon, it's certainly "possible." --Mr.98 (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interraccial marriages and relationships are common in the UK. 89.242.159.115 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of celebrities that come to mind are Pearl Bailey, who married a white man; and Roy Campanella, the son of a white man and a black woman. And this is from decades ago. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note that of the three real life people who have been mentioned, only one mentions the color of anyone's skin. The Campanella article is the only one that mentions this. Dismas|^(talk) 23:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sindjely Wade

I didn't know Vivian Wade actually have a daughter, how many kids Viviane Wade have total. Is Karim the 2nd or is Sindjely the 2nd kid? Is Kiram younger or is Sindjely younger?--209.129.85.4 (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a daughter named Sindjely, possibly in line to become Minister of Culture ([[3]] The article refers to Karim as "big brother," so he appears to be the elder. Weepy.Moyer (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money in Communist Russia

Hello.

How much would 15 roubles have got you in 1930s Moscow? I'm guessing not a lot.

Thank you.

Bill 94.193.241.9 (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a table in this 1936 article giving price per kilo for certain goods in 1935. All I could find unfortunately. Nanonic (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's useful. Bill 94.193.241.9 (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are both left and far-right politics associated with the working class?

The usual view of the political spectrum in the UK is that the left-wing is supported by the working class, and the right=wing by the wealthier middle classes. But as you go to the far-right then you get mostly working-class support again. What are the theories than explain this paradox? 89.242.159.115 (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the US, but I presume it's the same thing. Here's how it usually breaks down:

Far Left - Crazy hippie anarchist radicals
Left - Appeal to common man (labor unions, lower taxes for poorest 99%, social security, etc.)
Centrist - Makes the most sense but you can't fund-raise well so of course nobody is here.
Right - Appeal to richer folk (Opposite reasons the Left appeals to Joe Sixpack)
Far Right - Religion

The left-wing is appealing for the reasons stated, but as you go down the socio-economic ladder, religion starts to play a bigger roles (especially among immigrants); the middle class is notoriously atheistic. That's why the far right (in the US anyway) gets tons of poor, rural votes - because they oppose abortion, stem cell research, equal rights, etc. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any studies trying to answer that question, but my guess would be that it comes down to education. Political extremes are usually based on verifiably false statements ("All Muslims are terrorists." and the like, although the rhetoric is often phrased more subtly). More intelligent/better educated people are less likely to be fooled and they are also likely to be more wealthy. Religious extremes are closely related with political extremes (on the right, anyway) for the same reason. Another explanation I can see is that people that are worse off are more likely to want change and the extremes offer greater change than any more central parties, although I'm not sure about that one - how badly off you genuinely are doesn't seem to be a factor in how much people complain. --Tango (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the above bullet points might be an appropriate quick-reference for the US, it is entirely inappropriate for the UK. There, the far right is more akin to fascism than any religious ideal. To generalise greatly (and this is a VERY rough generalisation, and comes with all the appropriate disclaimers), the left appeals to the working class since it is basically about redistributing money downwards, to them (I should have more money and services, and I don't care what it costs the taxpayer, because I don't pay much tax). Wealthier people object to this, unsurprisingly; they are not keen on seeing their hard-earned money being taken from them and given to people who just sit around all day on the dole/benefit/council house/whatever (I earned it, why should you have it?). The far right just want anyone who's different to miss out, and for themselves to have all the rights/advantages/power/superiority they want without having to work for it (I'm inherently superior so I should have it). Far left are either communists (no one should have anything I don't have. Ever.) or tree-huggers (the earth and trees and nature and the pretty animals are more important than people. Except me, who deserves money to spend on trees and pretty animals). Forget political ideology, or educational awareness; most people just choose the political party which gives themselves the most benefits. Which is the main flaw in democracy: with every vote/voice counting, everything is individualised: most people choose what they want, not what is actually best for society as a whole. Gwinva (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am British and I think religion does play a key part in far right ideologies. Often the reason given for being superior is being God's chosen. They often talk about "Christian values". But you are right, it is mostly about racial superiority. I don't think far right support can be explained by people wanting what gives them the most benefits. Far right supporters aren't going to benefit from far right policies any more than other white Britons. --Tango (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar phenomenon might be observed in the support of working-class whites in the American South for politicians who are conservative on racial issues, which used to manifest itself in the strength of the Ku Klux Klan. From an outsider's perspective, it would make more sense for working-class whites to form a coalition with blacks against the power of elites. But working-class whites instead felt that their status in society, however meek, was threatened by the rise of those even lower on the totem pole than they were. Furthermore, claiming to be be part of a "master race" gives working-class whites a chance to feel like members of an exclusive club and superior to someone else. For someone making $7 an hour washing cars all day, an ideology that teaches he is actually a genetically superior superman might have some appeal. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the US is alone amongst the English-speaking countries for its association of religious fundamentalists with right-wing religion, not that it doesn’t occur in other places. This is possibly to do with the deep American connections with radical and puritan groups of the 16th Century, who emigrated there after persecution. No other advanced country produces anywhere as much religious vehemence against abortion, the Theory of Evolution and state sponsored welfare as does the U.S. Here in Australia, for example, the movement against Evolution is very minor, and the little there is comes from religious groups that were founded in the U.S.

In contrast, the Catholic and Anglican churches accept evolution, and neither church, these days, claim that only their own will be saved. In most of these countries, in fact, religious passions tend to be LEFT wing, rather than right wing, in direct accordance with the words of Jesus, who advised people to give away their extra coat, and said there was little hope of rich men getting into Heaven. In America, the extreme emphasis on individualism has led to notions that anyone trying to better the lot of the poor is doing so at their expense. Witness for example the outrage, from Christian groups at that, at President Obama’s attempts to get the kind of health coverage for the poor that virtually all developed countries have, and because it might mean that they might have to pay more tax. This kind of extreme Liberal individualism is highly suspect in Australia (and Britain) where it is associated with greed, arrogance and selfishness. The Australian notion of mateship means there is a deep altruism taught from an early age that says it is better to share than to be number 1. Myles325a (talk) 04:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US is not alone in its association of religious fundamentalists with right-wing religion, it occurs in every Western democratic nations as well. US is (probably) alone however in regards to the size of that movement in comparison with the other political groupings of that nation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original question can be answered if you change your concept of politics from linear to circular. If you examine the policies of the far left and the far right, then actions and effects are often identical, but have completely opposite rationales. Also, you can call yourself whatever you like, it doesn't make you something different from what you really are. The word "Nazi" is a contraction of the German for "National Socialism", after all. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is circular then it needs more than just a left-right dimension. What would the other dimension(s) be? 89.242.93.112 (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Political Compass - I agree entirely that the idea of 'left and right' are far too restrictive, though i'm not enough of a political analyst to understand entirely if the Political Compass is that much better. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I do consider the 2-dimensional model an improvement, I still don't think it's that helpful. These categories are ill-defined, and whilst this is common to most language, the terms "left" and "right" are particular bad in that they mean such different things to people. My father cited a news article from the late 80s which described the USSR as "right-wing", when of course many would have said the opposite! IMHO, they are frequently used as smear terms. Also, politicians will broaden their appeal by choosing an assortment of "left" and "right" views, as discussed (indirectly) here.--Leon (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider adding to my question that the terminology and politics in the US would be different and not directly relevant to the UK. The comments by Gwinva are very interesting - is there any research or books I can read about this idea of "I'm inherently superior so I should have it without having to work for it"? I experienced this attitude at a college in the english Midlands where I've begun to realise that some of the staff, who sat on their laurels and did nothing except being very sensitive about slight nuances of dominance, may have been far-right. Working hard and showing initiative was regarded as cheating and the only way to get on was to convince your boss that you would be loyal to him and his attitudes. This same process - of creating a loyal in-group and a despised out-group - seems to happen in the seedy post-industrial areas of england where people from time to time get driven to suicide by bullying. 89.242.93.112 (talk) 11:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've often come across that attitude among so-called socialists in the English Midlands: it comes straight from the pages of Das Kapital, you know, bourgeoisie and proletariat and all that. It reminds me of the parody of the Red Flag: "The working class can kiss my ass/I've got the boss's job at last"! --TammyMoet (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version I'm familiar with has ". . . foreman's job . . ." 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the far right is closely related to several people I've come across who believe that being conspicuously dominant in the here and now is more important than anything else in the world. They have to create an out-group to be dominant over. And because coercive dominance is a maladaption (so many behavioural or social problems could be considered a maladaption) since cooperating with people gets more out of them, then they are as a whole and in the long run doomed to being less economically successful and hence being working-class. 89.242.93.56 (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the U.S. didn't use the Atomic Bomb on Nazi Germany?

Why the U.S. didn't use the Atomic Bomb first on Nazi Germany, but on Japan in World War 2? If the U.S. had dropped the atomic bomb on Germany, that would end the war in Europe quickly and many American soldiers would be saved. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timing. The European war ended with the German Instrument of Surrender in May 1945. The first atom bomb test - the Trinity (nuclear test) - was not until July 1945. I guess it took until August before the US was entirely confident in their weapons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they had had the bomb in time, they probably wouldn't have used it because it wasn't necessary. The Germans could be beaten by conventional means, as they were. Once defeat was overwhelmingly likely, they surrendered, even though they could have fought on had they wanted to. The Japanese, due to their culture, were very unlikely to surrender unless they were given absolutely no choice and would otherwise fight pretty much to the last man (at least, that was the American assumption, whether they were right or not, we will never know). The American government decided that the only way to force a Japanese surrender was with a nuclear attack. --Tango (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the story they came up with after the fact. At the time, things were a bit more muddled. The Japanese certainly could have been beaten with conventional means—they were on the verge of collapse anyway, it was just a question of whether you'd have to invade or not (and there were those even at the time who thought that they'd probably surrender before then, once Russia got involved). There were many reasons for bombing the Japanese, well above the immediate military assessments. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all after the fact. See Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties. There were several considerations, including the huge number of American casualties expected, as well as the threat of a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido. In addition, it's not at all unlikely that the dropping of the atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilian lives. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please see Victory in Europe Day and Nuclear weapons testing. The US tested its first atomic weapon more than two months after the European Theatre came to a close. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er...weren't British soldiers in the war as well the American latecomers? The war in Europe would have finished far sooner had the Americans not delayed--CruelSea (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British, French, various Commonwealth troops and others, yes. I don't know how much sooner the war would have ended had the Americans fought from the beginning, but it seem undoubtable that it would have helped. --Tango (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you two trying to say that if America had joined the war sooner then they would have developed the bomb sooner or quicker? Or are you simply reacting to the OP's final statement about saving (only) American soldiers? Dismas|^(talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Had America joined the war sooner the war (in Europe, anyway) could have been won sooner by conventional means. --Tango (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a common opposing argument that the later the Americans joined the war, the quicker it would end. The argument is based on the idea that the troops in combat were constantly being worn down. The Americans would arrive completely fresh and fighting troops that were easier to defeat and quicker to surrender. Obviously, this is all speculation because we can't go back and stage the entire war with the Americans joining at different times. -- kainaw ™ 03:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That argument says that the later the Americans join the less time the Americans would need to be in the fight for, not that it would finish sooner. That argument is probably common in America because it would have reduced American deaths. In Britain, we just complain that you should have got here sooner! --Tango (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even at that, we were there for over 3 years. And if Pearl Harbor had not happened, we might not have gone at all. There was a lot of isolationist resistance to joining the European theater, and no interest at all in joining the Pacific theater - until Pearl Harbor happened. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The following presents additional factors that could have come into play had the atomic bomb been technologically ready prior to May 1945:) Some have argued that Westerners were willing to employ the bomb on a non-Western society, but would not have been willing to do so against a Western society like Germany. While contemporaneous perceptions of Whites compared to those of Asians might give some credence to this, it must be noted that the Firebombing of Dresden, Germany was catastrophic to that city. In any case, other factors might also have played a role, such as the proximity of many countries to Germany, many of which were allied with the United States, or forcibly occupied by Germany... --71.111.194.50 (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to practice some Counterfactual history, I suggest a more interesting question: what if the technology of the atomic bomb was never developed? (or at least, not during the war) Without the atomic bomb and just with the other conventional weaponry, wich could have been the outcome of the war in the pacific? MBelgrano (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that the conventional bombing of Tokyo alone caused more immediate deaths and a greater radius of destruction than the atomic attacks combined, the eventual outcome is probably not in doubt. Firestorm is an interesting article. Gwinva (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the reference desk is not for debates, to seek opinions, or for general discussions. Or a magical crystal ball.83.100.251.196 (talk) 01:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He asked a question, and people are trying to answer it. Either offer a possible answer, or cease your nannyism and go somewhere else. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fairly unacceptable contemptuous display towards a user who is trying to correctly point out that the reference desk is not a forum. Not everything that is a question has its place here. Elocute (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A TV program, "Oppenheimer (1980)" about the A-bomb development, said that the scientists (many Jewish refugees from Naziism), really wanted to kill Nazis, and after the victory in Europe, were much less bloodthirsty with respect to killing Japanese with the bomb. They hated Hitler, not Hirohito and Tojo. They would not have minded so much if hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers had died along with a million Japanese in house to house fighting, like in the conquest of Okinawa, if their consciences could have been clear. Edison (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the tough bits is that planning for dropping the bomb didn't really take place until after Germany was basically finished. So we don't know what they would have thought they would do to Germany with it. Would they have dropped it on a city like Berlin? I don't know. The refugees actually knew good numbers of civilians in Germany, whereas they knew, at most, a handful of Japanese.

It's not even clear that the scientists who wanted to build it to defeat Hitler really wanted to use it. Leo Szilard, for example, thought they needed to build it as a deterrent—not as a weapon to actually use in battle, but to have in case Hitler himself developed a bomb.

In any case, the bomb wasn't ready in time, not by a long shot. They didn't start talking about targets for the bomb in a serious way until after it was clear that Germany was about to fold anyway. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping it on Japan, so that the world could actually see what it can do, as opposed to merely speculating, might have been the best future deterrent of all... in addition to immediately ending the war, of course. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they thought about this, as well. Oppenheimer felt that if they ended the war without really seeing what the bomb was like, they would be using it soon enough again anyway. It's impossible to know, really. By August 1945, though, they were drawing up plans of how to drop the bomb on the USSR if need be. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And had they done so, there would have been no Cold War, no Vietnam, etc. There might have been U.S. world domination, but that's just a tradeoff. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US world domination might actually have been even worse - power corrupts. There is no way of knowing what the US would have done with that kind of power. --Tango (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the words of Tom Lehrer come in, from the song, "Who's Next?": "First we got the bomb, and that was good / 'Cause we love peace and motherhood / Then Russia got the bomb, but that's OK / 'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way..." →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Trinity Bomb tested on July 16, 1945? I thought it was tested before 1945. 174.114.236.41 (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Trinity (nuclear test) says. --Tango (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's not worth pointing out that the US didn't have enough bombs on hand at that point to really take out the USSR, even if it wanted to. And the US didn't exactly prove itself to be plainly noble during the Cold War. In general, I would argue that one should avoid utopian fantasies that a predicated on massive genocide first. (And yes, Trinity was July 16, 1945. Come on, you can check before you ask!) And anyway, you wouldn't have to had taken out the USSR in order to avoid Vietnam... they actually didn't have a huge amount to do with why that went downhill. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all the US had on hand at the time. But the factories were in place to make a new one every two or three weeks. The most positive thing I see about the bombings was that they were scary enough and messy enough that everybody has been afraid (or perhaps too wise) to use the damned things for the last (nearly) 65 years. Not that there weren't better uses for the few trillion dollars spent in that lifetime. PhGustaf (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]