International Hiroshima was NOT a mistake

[ColemanwastheGOAT]

It was also a lesson to all of mankind of the destruction we're capable of unleashing on each other.

I mean, the Somme was only 30 years earlier.

 

[Seano]

I mean, the Somme was only 30 years earlier.

Well, yeah but even that paled in comparison to what a nuke can do.

 

[LMP]

A land invasion of Japan would have seen many more lives lost. Dropping those bombs were big decisions and carried a heavy burden. War is an ugly horrible thing, with lots of civilians and young military men losing their lives. In a perfect world we wouldn't have wars, but that's not the type of world we live in. Those bombs and the threat they carried have stopped many more wars from happening. We are probably reaching a point where we will see another huge World War.

 

[Aegon Spengler]

He was probably referring to the fact that thousands of children were burned alive. Some people don't like that sort of thing

 

[giusti825]

The argument that Japan didn't deserve to be nuked has always been silly. They are the fuck around and find out champions of the world and they earned it. This wasn't some military action like Vietnam where we maybe didn't need to be at war at all ....this was a war with global consequences.


Any of you bozos ever stop to think the reason Russia and the USA didn't go hot is because we actually had an idea of what an abomb war would look like and that those 2 bombs might have saved more lives than it's possible to calculate? Every single person on this planet might owe their existence to 2 bombs in 1945. It's kind a big historical what if.

What we did to the Japanese was absolutely unacceptable and unnecessary.

It hopefully will never happen again to anyone.

The nuking of Japan was never necessary.

In a military conflict, you are supposed to use the minimum means to end a war or conflict.

What we did was insane overkill. I'm not proud. My goal is to, however I can, make people here see the truth so that or government eventually makes better decisions with regards to foreign policy.

 

[evansusmc2]

Even if defeat wasn't yet complete, defeat was a certainty over a matter of time.

And even then they weren't ready to give any unconditional surrender.

Firebombs were more effective immediately.

I promise you that you were not/are not/will never be Commanding General Hindsight.

The use of nukes was an unnecessary show of force.

Go to Korea (north or south), Philippines, Australia, Indonesia, or China and ask a whole bunch of them if they agree with you.

The fact it was used against civilians is more disgusting.

See above sentence.

The fact we had it and didn't use it against Germany shows how we knew it could do generational harm and avoided using it in Europe.

Apparently, European lives are more important.

eeeehhh, you aren't gonna bait me into this sissy nonsesnse.

 

[giusti825]

This is extra true when you realize that when the decision to use the bomb was made, they didn’t fully understand the impact it would have. We know about things like the fallout and radiation burns because they were used. It’s Monday morning quarterbacking after learning the rules.

The scientists warned the government before they were used. It was an obvious outcome.

We knew before we did it.

 

[Ruprecht]

Well… I don’t think the Chinese would be one of those that disagrees with our decision though.

At the time no doubt they hated the Japanese and wouldn't have been shy about vengeance on the civilians, but Liu Cixin is 60 so his views are noticeably more Cold War.

 

[Gutter Chris]

What we did to the Japanese was absolutely unacceptable and unnecessary.

It hopefully will never happen again to anyone.

The nuking of Japan was never necessary.

In a military conflict, you are supposed to use the minimum means to end a war or conflict.

What we did was insane overkill. I'm not proud. My goal is to, however I can, make people here see the truth so that or government eventually makes better decisions with regards to foreign policy.

Well you aren't going to convince me of the revisionist nonsense in the slightest. I feel pretty proud America went and kicked ass for freedom in world War 2 , I think it was the right decision and I think the Japanese deserved it. Total war is nation vs nation and its on til someone quits. It's truly impossible to calculate the amount of American lives saved and even harder to speculate on if those bombs are the reason America and Russia didn't sling them in the 50s. I straight up think what you are saying is absurd. The position you have staked out is not a luxury those men then had to work with....
They were not sitting content in 2024 they were engaged in the craziest war we as humans have ever fought in

 

[Whippy McGee]

If Hiroshima is responsible for that blurred area in Japanese porn, then it was a mistake.

 

[avenue94]

Reducing US military casualties wasn't the primary political consideration of the US planners though. Judged on the basis of their own decision making records.
The primary consideration was the degree to which it would speed up the conclusion of the war, with the reductions of casualties a corollary of that.

That's like saying that the Civil War was about states rights. The main reason for hastening a war's end is reducing casualties, followed by doing it before the war becomes too unpopular.

Despite relative ignorance of Japanese discussions, there were already dissenters within the bodies responsible that thought the bombing unnecessary, even from the perspective of forcing immediate surrender. Including Ralph Bard. Although most only made public objections after the fact.

Yes, most of these folks who claim to have dissented only did so much later and likely weren't opposed at the time. Certainly not enough to speak up.

There's no legitimate argument that the decision to nuke the Japanese civilians was about saving Japanese lives. However in terms of hypothetical scenarios, it's no less probable that nuking actual military targets instead of civilian targets would have prompted surrender. It's a false dichotomy to suggest it was only a choice of indiscriminately targeting civilians for nuclear terror bombing, or an invasion.

I agree with you on the first second, second sentence is less clear. Japan had already absorbed massive military losses, and again, the surrender almost got derailed by multiple coup attempts. We're talking extremely fine margins here, much too fine to expect of decisionmakers at that time. You're attributing margins and information to people who simply didn't have those things in 1945.

As I mentioned I think it saved Japanese lives, but unintentionally.

 

[avenue94]

The Emperor didn’t really have the power to surrender on his own, nor do I think he really knew what was going on. I read about it years ago, but basically the war cabinet that ran the country was split on surrendering or fighting to the death after the bombs were dropped and the ones that wanted to surrender pulled some shenanigans using the emperor to get it done.

Even after the surrender was made the messaging that was broadcast out was confusing. The Japanese soldiers on the front didn’t understand it and a lot of them thought they were supposed to keep fighting.

He should have been strung up and was a direct player in the war effort, even if he wasn't a supreme leader or anything like that.

 

[Ruprecht]

Obviously a lot easier to cast judgements in 2024 when no one has legitimate skin in the game. We do know one thing, the bombs ended the war immediately. I can assume another, if Thurman doesn’t use the bombs his political career is absolutely over. A final assumption, none of those people who eventually disagreed with the use of nukes did not celebrate the end of the war. Take it as you want but your hindsight judgment of history is bullshit.

You can't really dismiss the objections of Ralph Bard, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy or McCloy as people "without skin in the game" or because they also wanted an end to the war.
However, unless you are enamoured with national myths, you should be able to clearly see from the written evidence that the statements about Hiroshima as a military target, the targets being selected to "avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians", the justifications with ever inflated casualty estimates and the lies to congress about the nature and effect of radioactive fallout were all bullshit.
Not just in hindsight. With the declassification of records, their own previously written words reveal that they knew better.
Would you really argue that indiscriminately using weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations is ethically justified by hypothetically averting the exaggerated estimates of casualties of an invasion? A number which grew as the years passed after the event and never featured in the original decision?

 

[avenue94]

Would you really argue that indiscriminately using weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations is ethically justified by hypothetically averting the exaggerated estimates of casualties of an invasion? A number which grew as the years passed after the event and never featured in the original decision?

What casualty estimate do you consider credible for Downfall? Allied and Japanese casualties to be clear.

 

[Ruprecht]

That's like saying that the Civil War was about states rights. The main reason for hastening a war's end is reducing casualties, followed by doing it before the war becomes too unpopular.

Yes, most of these folks who claim to have dissented only did so much later and likely weren't opposed at the time. Certainly not enough to speak up.

I agree with you on the first second, second sentence is less clear. Japan had already absorbed massive military losses, and again, the surrender almost got derailed by multiple coup attempts. We're talking extremely fine margins here, much too fine to expect of decisionmakers at that time. You're attributing margins and information to people who simply didn't have those things in 1945.

As I mentioned I think it saved Japanese lives, but unintentionally.

It's always a benefit of ending a conflict, but in terms of the specific timeline for a conclusion, as you say domestic politics was also a factor, as was the geopolitical concerns of impending Russian involvement. Russia's ambitions for the Far East, and the Korean peninsula in particular, had been of concern to the state department as early as '43. Likewise the motivation for a display of force.

Bard was on record prior to the bombing, but the fact that the decision to target civilians had already been made and the nuclear attacks were simply a continuation isn't an ethical or moral justification.
Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy and McCloy all claimed to be against it at the time and to have said as much. Unlike with the exaggerated estimates of invasion casualties, the straight lies about attempting to minimise civilian casualties, or the written records Groves made of his own knowledge of the impact of radiation and the nature of the blasts, we don't have written evidence that contradicts their assertions. Although obviously the conflict between MacArthur and Truman does cast some doubt there (as with the lack of evidence MacArthur wanted to nuke the Chinese in Korea).

I'm not attributing anything to them but their own written records. They knew their claims were bullshit (or they should have known). The targeting decisions weren't about military targets and certainly weren't aimed at minimising civilian casualties. The false dichotomy of either a nuclear terror attack on civilians or a drawn out bloody invasion wasn't in evidence until the need to fend off public criticism (and was contradicted by those that objected), and we can see they were massively inflating the figures they gave. We now also know they knowingly lied about the effects of radiation while presenting this information to congress (the documents on Groves being relatively recent releases), so it wasn't just a matter of ignorance.

I continue to think that indiscriminate attacks on civilians with weapons of mass destruction are ethically and morally unsupportable, and that when you have to lie and exaggerate in order to make even a case for a consequentialist "lesser of two evils" justification, it's amazing that it would become a national myth.

 

[Ruprecht]

What casualty estimate do you consider credible for Downfall? Allied and Japanese casualties to be clear.

Well Truman referred to numbers from Marshall and MacArthur, there are three on record for estimates of allied casualties (excluding non battle casualty estimates).
MacArthur's original estimate.
“Details of the Campaign against Japan,” by the Joint War Plans Committee.
“Details of the Campaign against Japan” by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (primarily MacArthur's more optimistic revision).

The highest from Marshall and MacArthur was 220,000 total casualties (dead and wounded, estimated at 1:4 ratio), excluding non combat casualties estimated at 4200 for every 30 day period. Totalling around 250,000 for the expected period.
This was supposedly the estimate which Truman recalled as 500,000. There was also supposedly an off the cuff comment made by Marshall after the first nuclear tests estimating casualties at 500, 000 to 1 million. Perhaps a conflation there, and presumably this is what Stimson based his claims of 1 million on.
There was also a much lower estimate as a revision from MacArthur, but that seems unrealistic given it was explicitly made when looking for approval.

Japanese estimates were given as casualty ratios by MacArthur, and varied from 22:1 (based on the last years overall reports) down to about 5:1.
How credible or accurate the estimations were is really another question, but we know these were the numbers discussed base on the records.

 

[Koro_11]

Ya it was terrible, but war is terrible. I hope they never need to be used again.

 

[Mike Hagger]

You can't really dismiss the objections of Ralph Bard, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy or McCloy as people "without skin in the game" or because they also wanted an end to the war.
However, unless you are enamoured with national myths, you should be able to clearly see from the written evidence that the statements about Hiroshima as a military target, the targets being selected to "avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians", the justifications with ever inflated casualty estimates and the lies to congress about the nature and effect of radioactive fallout were all bullshit.
Not just in hindsight. With the declassification of records, their own previously written words reveal that they knew better.
Would you really argue that indiscriminately using weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations is ethically justified by hypothetically averting the exaggerated estimates of casualties of an invasion? A number which grew as the years passed after the event and never featured in the original decision?

Do you think there was a different precedent at the time regarding indiscriminate attacks? The Brit’s did night raids for years, Germans bombing London, firing bombings, genocide, starvation, mass executions, the Japanese were so awful in a city they conquered it’s called a rape. So, collectively it seems there was not as much care to protect civilians at this point. How many tens of millions were already dead by ‘45? You speak like allied death estimates were in the teens; there’s still minimum 100,000 allied casualties from even the low end, how many Japanese die as well?

You keep bringing up the top brass that opposed but if you look at their opposition; at least as far as I know; the majority did not exactly write comprehensive papers outlining their frustrations. Are these not the same men that bombed Tokyo previously? Didn’t MacArthur later want to attack soft targets in the Korean War? He was later relieved. How many bombing runs hit cities in Germany that were without strategic targets?

I would say the location in which the bombs were dropped were awful and a demonstration of power but obviously effective. The war ended immediately afterwards, that’s a fact. Allied lives were saved and literally the most destructive period in human history ended.

 

[Blayt7hh]

The scientists warned the government before they were used. It was an obvious outcome.

We knew before we did it.

That is actually just untrue. They understood the blast itself when they used it but the effects of the fallout were discovered during investigations after the event

 

[jefferz]

If Hiroshima is responsible for that blurred area in Japanese porn, then it was a mistake.