International Hiroshima was NOT a mistake

[moreorless87]

I have always heard to differing accounts of the bombings and don't know which is true.

1. The nukes were necessary because Japan was not going to surrender and the bombings saved countless more lives.

2. Japan was going to surrender regardless and the bombs were used was a warning to the Soviet Union and the Japanese were seen as subhuman so didn't matter.

I'v seen it stated as well that the Japanese surrender when it did come was also strong motivated by the USSR's invasion of Sakhalin island(which was previously divided between Russia and Japan) and a fear they could potentially also invade Hokkaido, that happened literally days before the surrender.

 

[Ruprecht]

Hah. 3 Body Problem was written by a Chinese author.
I think you'll find that globally the idea that "nuking the Japanese saved an ever increasing estimated number of lives" is largely regarded as just more American bullshit.
You're just getting exposed to global opinion.

 

[Poatan Power]

Sometimes the right thing to do is an atrocious thing to do. If you told me I'd have to kill a child to save my child, someone's gonna be childless and it ain't gonna be me.

I'd rather my government act in that regard when it comes to foreign wars where American's are actively dying.

Hah. 3 Body Problem was written by a Chinese author.
I think you'll find that globally the idea that "nuking the Japanese saved an ever increasing estimated number of lives" is largely regarded as just more American bullshit.
You're just getting exposed to global opinion.

Did the nuke save lives? maybe. we'll never know the hard data. It did save American lives, though, which is what the point really was.

 

[Ruprecht]

Sometimes the right thing to do is an atrocious thing to do. If you told me I'd have to kill a child to save my child, someone's gonna be childless and it ain't gonna be me.

I'd rather my government act in that regard when it comes to foreign wars where American's are actively dying.



Did the nuke save lives? maybe. we'll never know the hard data. It did save American lives, though, which is what the point really was.

"Saving Japanese lives" was a post hoc justification, and the number and scope was increased over the years. That's a matter of record. There was essentially no debate over the ethics of nuking a civilian population. The objections of several Manhattan project scientists were promptly dismissed, likewise the opinion of the majority of the team that they should start with a demonstration. There's no record of the objections of Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy or McCloy until after the fact.
Unsurprisingly, as the indiscriminate carpet bombing and use of incendiary bombs on civilian centres was a line that had been crossed long before.
Indiscriminate massacring of civilians (in defended cities) to enable a military victory through terror wasn't technically a war crime until the Geneva Conventions in '77. That's not an argument about ethics though.

 

[Poatan Power]

"Saving Japanese lives" was a post hoc justification, and the number and scope was increased over the years.

Yes, it's still very prevalent today. I think most people accept that it saved American lives and that is justifiable in the sense of govt protecting its own citizens over another warring countries citizens. That's why they moved on to saying it actually saved Japanese lives, too! I think that's largely silly as it's merely an educated guess, but stopping the Japanese imperialists after the millions of lives they directly took was justifiable enough, imho, including civilians.

Ethics wise, I'm a little more maniacal about saving my own countries lives, and the lives of people the aggressor country is killing, than its own. Easy to say/proclaim on a karate forum of course.

 

[Ruprecht]

Yes, it's still very prevalent today. I think most people accept that it saved American lives and that is justifiable in the sense of govt protecting its own citizens over another warring countries citizens. That's why they moved on to saying it actually saved Japanese lives, too! I think that's largely silly as it's merely an educated guess, but stopping the Japanese imperialists after the millions of lives they directly took was justifiable enough, imho, including civilians.

Ethics wise, I'm a little more maniacal about saving my own countries lives, and the lives of people the aggressor country is killing, than its own. Easy to say/proclaim on a karate forum of course.

Even today, if they had actually detonated the nuke over the factories towards the edge of Hiroshima, the army headquarters or the troop loading section of the docks instead of the city centre, it might not be a war crime (dependent on proportionality and the number of civilians killed in respect to the military objective).
By modern definitions it was unquestionably a war crime, which is an ethical condemnation if not a legal one due to the timing of the updates with the Geneva convention.

 

[avenue94]

I have always heard two differing accounts of the bombings and don't know which is true.

1. The nukes were necessary because Japan was not going to surrender and the bombings saved countless more lives.

2. Japan was going to surrender regardless and the bombs were used was a warning to the Soviet Union and the Japanese were seen as subhuman so didn't matter.

Demonstrating them to the soviets was a fringe benefit, but it needs to be said that the US was entirely caught off guard by the surrender. The idea that the US knew that the bombs would do the trick isn't grounded in history.

 

[avenue94]

No shit…


All the tests they ran prior to dropping the bomb.


They knew exactly what the devastation was gon be.


What they didn’t understand was the long term impact or the blast radius.

They never tested a Little Boy type device and were well off in their casualty estimates because they had no real baseline.

It should be noted that Hiroshima was supposed to be the test. Targets were picked based on their lack of damage and spared from firebombing in order to provide an ideal "testing environment"

 

[avenue94]

Even today, if they had actually detonated the nuke over the factories towards the edge of Hiroshima, the army headquarters or the troop loading section of the docks instead of the city centre, it might not be a war crime (dependent on proportionality and the number of civilians killed in respect to the military objective).
By modern definitions it was unquestionably a war crime, which is an ethical condemnation if not a legal one due to the timing of the updates with the Geneva convention.

I think its better to understand the atomic bombings in the context of the US' overall strategy. Those options you listed were never on the table for operational and strategic reasons.

 

[Ruprecht]

I think its better to understand the atomic bombings in the context of the US' overall strategy. Those options you listed were never on the table for operational and strategic reasons.

I'm making an ethical condemnation in line with modern international law on indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The historical context and military strategy describe what happened, and the fact that it wasn't the first or the worst (in terms of civilian casualties) such atrocity is obviously relevant to "why" as well, but consequentialist tribalism and "they did it first" is pretty lacking as ethical justification. Of course historical records show the ethics weren't really examined until after the fact, and Truman's following radio statement, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” was straight up bullshit.

 

[avenue94]

I'm making an ethical condemnation in line with modern international law on indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The historical context and military strategy describe what happened, and the fact that it wasn't the first or the worst (in terms of civilian casualties) such atrocity is obviously relevant to "why" as well, but consequentialist tribalism and "they did it first" is pretty lacking as ethical justification. Of course historical records show the ethics weren't really examined until after the fact, and Truman's following radio statement, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” was straight up bullshit.

The historical evidence makes a case that Truman just didn't know that the target was Hiroshima the entire city. He effectively had no role in the decision making process and wouldn't have even known Hiroshima was the actual target until after the bombing.

I think the part people don't often realize is Truman's main role was issuing a stop bombing order after Nagasaki because he was blindsided. There was never any question over not using the bomb because it was just a other weapon in the arsenal as fad as anyone in the military knew.

 

[Ruprecht]

The historical evidence makes a case that Truman just didn't know that the target was Hiroshima the entire city. He effectively had no role in the decision making process and wouldn't have even known Hiroshima was the actual target until after the bombing.

I think the part people don't often realize is Truman's main role was issuing a stop bombing order after Nagasaki because he was blindsided. There was never any question over not using the bomb because it was just a other weapon in the arsenal as fad as anyone in the military knew.

Truman's own capacity and public statements directly contradict the records of the Target Committee and the Interim Committee about any attempt to select a primarily military target and "minimise civilian casualties".
Whether you decide Truman was lying or just ignorant and didn't read their reports, that's simply not what happened in the selection process. It was terror bombing of a civilian population. The selection of a target with military installations was absolutely a thin justification (the munitions factories survived largely unscathed), when explicitly choosing to drop on the city centre (of a relatively undamaged target) for maximum demonstrated destruction, and the selection also referencing magnification of damage due to the surrounding hills.
They knew what they were doing.

 

[Rholk]

Nuking the Japanese with the intent to get them to surrender wasn't evil.
Hell, it probably "saved" millions of lives in fighting.

Always a bit amusing to see people argue the point that "they might have surrendered at some point, so the nuke wasn't neccesary",
thanks captain hindsight, the allies should have just waited and hoped the Japanese would one day surrender.

And while i'm not gonna deny that nukes are a terrible weapon, are they that much more terrible than beeing burned to death?

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GearSolidMetal]

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.

They could have surrendered after the 1st bomb was dropped, and they didn't.

The 2nd bomb is on them, at worst.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

In my experience, looking back at history and judging the actions of historical figures during war... from our comfortable lives and having never even been shot at (the vast majority of us)... really says more about us than the historical figures.

They're dead. They can't answer questions for the circumstances they were under.

And have any of us bothered to read multiple books on the events of the Pacific during WWII? Beyond what's in the public school history textbooks? Or watching movies? Or whatever Marxist Professor's revisionism of history says happened? Have you copied & pasted everything you believe about those events or have you drawn your own conclusions?

But saying "_____ was wrong, I would have done ______ and it would have a far better result" is quite possibly the height of hubris imaginable.


From what I do know, the Japanese empire was prepared to arm women and children in case of a US invasion into the mainland. If you think the WWII veterans were already mentally scared for the rest of your life with what was called 'Shellshock' then, and now known as 'Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder,' imagine how much worse it would have been if they had to mow down women (widowed) and children (orphaned) in self-defense, who were just defending their homeland from invaders.

So, to avoid that, is dropping the bombs the right thing? Maybe. Maybe not. But I bet there's also a number of other factors involved in the decision that are both not publicly known and forgotten to history.

 

[Cole train]

In my experience, looking back at history and judging the actions of historical figures during war... from our comfortable lives and having never even been shot at (the vast majority of us)... really says more about us than the historical figures.

They're dead. They can't answer questions for the circumstances they were under.

And have any of us bothered to read multiple books on the events of the Pacific during WWII? Beyond what's in the public school history textbooks? Or watching movies? Or whatever Marxist Professor's revisionism of history says happened? Have you copied & pasted everything you believe about those events or have you drawn your own conclusions?

But saying "_____ was wrong, I would have done ______ and it would have a far better result" is quite possibly the height of hubris imaginable.


From what I do know, the Japanese empire was prepared to arm women and children in case of a US invasion into the mainland. If you think the WWII veterans were already mentally scared for the rest of your life with what was called 'Shellshock' then, and now known as 'Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder,' imagine how much worse it would have been if they had to mow down women (widowed) and children (orphaned) in self-defense, who were just defending their homeland from invaders.

So, to avoid that, is dropping the bombs the right thing? Maybe. Maybe not. But I bet there's also a number of other factors involved in the decision that are both not publicly known and forgotten to history.

Yea akira kurosawa said that few hours before announcement of surrender by emperor while he was walking to work, tradesmen were sharpening knives, women were building spears and 10 year old kids were training how to stab with them

Was expected to be pretty bad hence my comment about purple hearts earlier

Btw for anyone interested dan carlin has japan focused history series on youtube called supernova in the east

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Btw for anyone interested dan carlin has japan focused history series on youtube called supernova in the east

That one about the end of WWII?

 

[Cole train]

That one about the end of WWII?

He basically covers japans journey through WW2 in general, theres some discussion about bombs in part 6 of series

Heres quick recap from first 5 episodes , text copied from reddit

Ep.1:

Dan covers the Japanese period of isolation, the Meiji restoration, and the early imperial era up up to the battle of Shanghai in the second sino-japanese war. Common themes are the unique japanese cultural intensity, extreme nationalism, extreme anti-communism, and the japanese constitution which placed the military not under the elected government, but the emperor.

Ep.2

The Rape of Nanking. Everyone in the world is horrified, from Nazis to Americans. America applies extensive economic sanctions to Japan, and increases them for each major aggressive act Japan takes. Starved of the raw materials needed to finish their war in China, Japan decides to attack Pearl Harbor.

Ep. 3

Japan invades the entire Pacific. Japan destroys a British fleet a few days after Pearl Harbor. The Japanese seize Malaysia from the British, giving them their worst defeat in their entire history. The Japanese invade the Philippines and destroy the American-Filipino army at Bataan, but the Japanese realize the Americans aren't that easy to conquer. The Bataan death march occurs.

Ep. 4

America sets up internment camps for Americans of Japanese descent. The Doolittle raid occurs. Japan begins planning the battle of Midway in response. The battle of the Coral Sea occurs. Midway happens soon after, with the Japanese fleet destroyed. Douglas Macarthur is a prima donna and Ernest King is an asshole. Different strategies for the pacific war are proposed by them. King preempts Macarthur with the invasion of Tulagi and Guadalcanal. The Japanese commit atrocities in the Pacific theater.

Ep. 5

Australia defends New Guinea from the Japanese. Cannibalism becomes a major problem there. The campaign in the islands around Guadalcanal continues. The Americans adopt the island hopping strategy. Yamamoto is killed. Tarawa is invaded by America. Images of the battle are shown to the American public. The invasion of Saipan occurs, along with the battle of the Philippine sea, aka the great marianas turkey shoot. Afterwards, Saipan earns the name of suicide island after the Japanese suicide attack, and the mass suicide of the remaining soldiers and civilians.

It is now July of 1944. The Japanese garrisons in the Pacific are starving. The Japanese fleet is decimated. Japanese air power is both underperforming and out of date. Mass death continues unabated in China. And now American heavy bombers are in range of the home islands.

 

[Takes_Two_To_Tango]

Oppenheimer FTW

 

[Cherry Brigand]

Doesn't matter.

Indiscriminately and intentionally murdering scores of Innocent civilians is morally repugnant and quite frankly, a waste of ammunition.

Military targets are fair game because it serves the purpose of changing the balance of power in a conflict.

Massacring civilian populations is unnecessary evil for evil's sake.

Someone doesn't understand what total war means.