4 ms·

But by that point in WW2, the US was pretty confident that it would defeat Japan. The atomic bombs were dropped to avoid a potentially costly invasion, and to

But by that point in WW2, the US was pretty confident that it would defeat Japan. The atomic bombs were dropped to avoid a potentially costly invasion, and to end the war before the Russians could reach Japan and spread their influence. Imperial Japan did some awful things, but those actions by themselves could never morally justify the indiscriminate slaughter of 50,000 civilians.

Amezarak 11y ago
> Imperial Japan did some awful things, but those actions by themselves could never morally justify the indiscriminate slaughter of 50,000 civilians. Right or wrong, the "indiscriminate slaughter" of civilians was the norm in WWII. In that sense, there was nothing unusual about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As many as 200,000 civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo, which would be as much or more than both atomic bombings combined. [1] If firebombing civilians was considered acceptable at the time, it is hard to understand why the atomic bombings would have any kind of different moral quality. Indeed, from the accounts of both the atomic bombings and firebombings I have read, I would very much prefer to die in an atomic bombing, which in many respects seems almost merciful in comparison. As many as 900,000 Japanese civilians died in conventional bombings. [2] The emphasis on the atomic bombings has always seemed strange to me: what is the difference between killing 200,000 civilians in a horrific firebombing and killing 200,000 civilians with nuclear bombs? Why so much questioning of two bombings and not the countless others that killed many more? The horror of the atomic bomb was not that we killed 200,000 civilians, it was that it took only two bombs to do it rather than many. There was no new lack of moral concern for civilians. Civilians had no direct reason to fear atomic bombs more than conventional bombings: with the near-wholesale destruction of Japanese anti-bomber defenses, they were going to be just as dead. Atomic bombs were a strategic threat analogous to your enemy suddenly gaining huge reinforcements. And this strategic threat (though it hardly mattered to Japan) quickly escalated: go to the Nuclear Secrets nukemap [3] and compare the atomic bombs dropped on Japan with the megaton bombs developed by the US and USSR. (I don't mean to place undue emphasis on the US bombings of Japan, either: again, the killing of civilians was a norm in WWII.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#B-29_raids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#B-29_raids [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan [3] http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
jacquesm 11y ago
> The atomic bombs were dropped to avoid a potentially costly invasion, and to end the war before the Russians could reach Japan and spread their influence. There is another viewpoint, which is that the bombs were dropped as a message to the Russians. The supporting evidence is that many of the top US military people at the time expected Japan to capitulate regardless of whether or not the bombs were dropped.
reitanqild 11y ago
> Imperial Japan did some awful things https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre This one alone cost at least 40000, possibly as many as 300 000 humans their lives many after being raped and mistreated in the most cruel ways the Japanese could come up with. Not saying that it is ok to bomb civilians but sometimes you have no good option and you might not even not know which one is least evil.

Amezarak 11y ago

> Imperial Japan did some awful things, but those actions by themselves could never morally justify the indiscriminate slaughter of 50,000 civilians. Right or wrong, the "indiscriminate slaughter" of civilians was the norm in WWII. In that sense, there was nothing unusual about the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As many as 200,000 civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo, which would be as much or more than both atomic bombings combined. [1] If firebombing civilians was considered acceptable at the time, it is hard to understand why the atomic bombings would have any kind of different moral quality. Indeed, from the accounts of both the atomic bombings and firebombings I have read, I would very much prefer to die in an atomic bombing, which in many respects seems almost merciful in comparison. As many as 900,000 Japanese civilians died in conventional bombings. [2] The emphasis on the atomic bombings has always seemed strange to me: what is the difference between killing 200,000 civilians in a horrific firebombing and killing 200,000 civilians with nuclear bombs? Why so much questioning of two bombings and not the countless others that killed many more? The horror of the atomic bomb was not that we killed 200,000 civilians, it was that it took only two bombs to do it rather than many. There was no new lack of moral concern for civilians. Civilians had no direct reason to fear atomic bombs more than conventional bombings: with the near-wholesale destruction of Japanese anti-bomber defenses, they were going to be just as dead. Atomic bombs were a strategic threat analogous to your enemy suddenly gaining huge reinforcements. And this strategic threat (though it hardly mattered to Japan) quickly escalated: go to the Nuclear Secrets nukemap [3] and compare the atomic bombs dropped on Japan with the megaton bombs developed by the US and USSR. (I don't mean to place undue emphasis on the US bombings of Japan, either: again, the killing of civilians was a norm in WWII.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#B-29_raids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo#B-29_raids [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan [3] http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ http://www.nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

jacquesm 11y ago

> The atomic bombs were dropped to avoid a potentially costly invasion, and to end the war before the Russians could reach Japan and spread their influence. There is another viewpoint, which is that the bombs were dropped as a message to the Russians. The supporting evidence is that many of the top US military people at the time expected Japan to capitulate regardless of whether or not the bombs were dropped.

reitanqild 11y ago

> Imperial Japan did some awful things https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre This one alone cost at least 40000, possibly as many as 300 000 humans their lives many after being raped and mistreated in the most cruel ways the Japanese could come up with. Not saying that it is ok to bomb civilians but sometimes you have no good option and you might not even not know which one is least evil.