International Hiroshima was NOT a mistake

[Cherry Brigand]

Watching 'Three Body Problem.' No spoilers:

Big expensive project is going on and one of the characters said something to the effect of 'the last time smart people got in the room and had unlimited funds, they gave us HIROSHIMA!'

As if it's the big bad thing that all of humanity has done. You hear it quite frequently- with all the historical revisionism that's going on- that Hiroshima was some gigantic atrocity. It was not.

WWII was TOTAL WAR. None of us in our times of peace have any idea. And if the situation arose again, where the entire world was in play, are these soft headed historically ignorant people saying that we would not repeat the action to save potentially millions of lives-- even those of the enemy?

It's ridiculous.

An assault on Japan proper would likely have resulted in, depending on who you ask, an additional 3M to 30M casualties. It was the correct choice.

 

[Rational Poster]

Okay

 

[djacobox372]

The bomb could have been demonstrated instead of dropped on civilians... Japan didn't surrender because of the 100's of thousands killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they surrendered because of the fear that Tokyo was next.

 

[avenue94]

The bomb could have been demonstrated instead of dropped on civilians... Japan didn't surrender because of the 100's of thousands killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they surrendered because of the fear that Tokyo was next.

It was never seriously considered because of practical concerns (Japan would write it off as propaganda and the likelihood of a dud). Not to mention as far as the military was concerned, they just had another bomb on their hands, nothing special. Just more destructive.

Also shout out to the TS for most this didn't need to be a thread thread of the year.

 

[My Spot]

It was the right thing to do considering that 150k civilians died during the Battle of Okinawa which was a tiny sliver of an island compared to "mainland" Japan.
Also the pilot who dropped the bomb was a UF alum.

 

[HOLA]

It's not historically ignorant or historical revisionism to question the morality and ethics of the bombs; people were doing that in the immediate aftermath.

John Hersey's Hiroshima was published in 1946, which caused a lot of debate.

Hiroshima (book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TUFNewb]

It was obviously an "atrocity", a terribly cruel wicked act carried out on civilians, as were many other bombings carries out by the allies, but that does't mean they weren't a necessary evil. It was evil though.

Besides the casualties aspect of a full invasion, something that doesn't get mentioned is that those events and the aftermath and real human toll really traumatized and psychologically scarred the entire world and generations to come, but in a good way. If the world doesn't see those smaller first gen fission bombs used on real people, is there the political will that prevents proliferated thermonuclear weapons from being used in a conflict, years or decades later? Maybe not.

 

[Richmma80]

I don't think this was in the books

 

[djacobox372]

It was never seriously considered because of practical concerns (Japan would write it off as propaganda and the likelihood of a dud). Not to mention as far as the military was concerned, they just had another bomb on their hands, nothing special. Just more destructive.

Also shout out to the TS for most this didn't need to be a thread thread of the year.

Disagree.. it could have been dropped on a purely military target with fewer potential civilian casualties. The point would have been made.

I think you're forgetting the part where those in charge didn't give AF since Japanese weren't seen as fully human.

 

[avenue94]

Disagree.. it could have been dropped on a purely military target with fewer potential civilian casualties. The point would have been made.

I think you're forgetting the part where those in charge didn't give AF since Japanese weren't seen as fully human.

What purely military target still existed, and which one's were still untouched (this was a non-negotiable requirement for targeting, a "clean slate" city to assess damage)

And yes, you are correct that on overall attitudes, but those weren't what primarily drove that particular set of events and decisions.

 

[Fox by the Sea]

It's only a war crime if you lose.

 

[kflo]

It was obviously an "atrocity", a terribly cruel wicked act carried out on civilians, as were many other bombings carries out by the allies, but that does't mean they weren't a necessary evil. It was evil though.

Besides the casualties aspect of a full invasion, something that doesn't get mentioned is that those events and the aftermath and real human toll really traumatized and psychologically scarred the entire world and generations to come, but in a good way. If the world doesn't see those smaller first gen fission bombs used on real people, is there the political will that prevents proliferated thermonuclear weapons from being used in a conflict, years or decades later? Maybe not.

Acts can only be judged relative to alternatives. If it’s the best option for society, resulting in the fewest casualties and the best outcome, I don’t think it can qualify as evil.

 

[syct23]

The bomb could have been demonstrated instead of dropped on civilians... Japan didn't surrender because of the 100's of thousands killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they surrendered because of the fear that Tokyo was next.

So then the Hiroshima test worked

Took a little more convincing with needing the Nagasaki test but eventually Tokyo gets the point.

Reminds me of Sun Tzu,
When he needed to make a point to the emperor’s maids, to follow his orders and do as he requested.

Sometimes heads have to roll…

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

No regerts

 

[Cajun]

Had this convo with friends from Japan. Obviously they don't think it was necessary. Don't know enough about the subject to know what options were available and the alternative. Obv the military regime in Japan at the time was not going to surrender as they decided to continue the war. Guess we will never really know

 

[Osculater]

It's only a war crime if you lose.

 

[Arashikage4Life]

I'm amazed this is the first time this has ever been argued in the War Room

 

[TheMaster]

Watching 'Three Body Problem.' No spoilers:

Big expensive project is going on and one of the characters said something to the effect of 'the last time smart people got in the room and had unlimited funds, they gave us HIROSHIMA!'

As if it's the big bad thing that all of humanity has done. You hear it quite frequently- with all the historical revisionism that's going on- that Hiroshima was some gigantic atrocity. It was not.

WWII was TOTAL WAR. None of us in our times of peace have any idea. And if the situation arose again, where the entire world was in play, are these soft headed historically ignorant people saying that we would not repeat the action to save potentially millions of lives-- even those of the enemy?

It's ridiculous.

An assault on Japan proper would likely have resulted in, depending on who you ask, an additional 3M to 30M casualties. It was the correct choice.

Hiroshoma was debateable.
Nagasaki was just plain evil and unnecessary

 

[avenue94]

Had this convo with friends from Japan. Obviously they don't think it was necessary. Don't know enough about the subject to know what options were available and the alternative. Obv the military regime in Japan at the time was not going to surrender as they decided to continue the war. Guess we will never really know

There was never really an alternative. A lot of people incorrectly assume that the Manhattan Project and military had our modern conception of nuclear weapons and the taboo of WMDs. They didn't. In their minds, the atomic bomb was like a new model of a bomb or a new warship or rifle. You make it and use it, it was only after the bombings that it become clear that it wasn't another normal weapon.

 

[My Spot]

Hiroshoma was debateable.
Nagasaki was just plain evil and unnecessary

And yet Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped.