5 ms·

By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it. Iraq invades Kuwait? Nuke it. North Korea developing weapons of mass destruction? Nuk

by ck2 10y ago

By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it. Iraq invades Kuwait? Nuke it. North Korea developing weapons of mass destruction? Nuke it. Why mess around with invasions. Note the scientists who developed the bomb begged the US government to first drop one off the coast of Japan to demonstrate to them what they were facing. Instead we killed tens of thousands of civilians on purpose, not once, but went back a second time. The lucky ones were vaporized instantly. The unlucky ones died over weeks in horrible pain from radiation and mass organ failure.

tim333 10y ago
Well not really. Estimates for the cost of invading Japan were approx 1m US casualties, 5m Japanese. None of the above issues produce anything like that.
- ck2 10y ago
  Now explain why we decided to vaporize tens of thousands more civilians a few days later.
  - JshWright 10y ago
    A few days later than what?
    - e12e 10y ago
      August 6th, 1945: bombing of Hiroshima August 9th, bombing of Nagasaki August 15th, Japan surrenders. One could note that the two bombs were of different design, that both were tested on real cities and real human beings. As for whether or not Soviet or the bombs won the war - or if the bombs made much difference that waiting would not have; it's hard to judge. Here's one take on it: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/ http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08...
      - JshWright 10y ago
        I'm still confused by what you meant by "a few days later". The parent comment didn't mention any event for you to be basing your timeline on.
        e12e 10y ago
        I think the poster meant that first [many] were killed in Hiroshima; and even if that was justified - would that justification apply to dropping another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki [a few days later]?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  - adventured 10y ago
    Japan's refusal to surrender - so as to bring an end to the vast war Japan started in Asia, and the separate war Japan joined with the Axis on when they declared war on the US and Britain - was the justification for the second bomb. The fact that they refused to surrender after being nuked once, very strongly makes the case that it was unlikely they were going to surrender without an invasion or more nuclear bombings.
golergka 10y ago
> By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it. I don't think you actually understand said logic. US was in war with Japan for a long time, and was steadily winning; however, against self-interest of their country, Japanese command would not surrender. Continuing assault, US inflicted enormous civilian losses on Japan. The firebombing of Tokyo alone was at least as deadly as Hiroshima atomic bomb. And yet, Japan command did not want to surrender. Only atomic bomb finally succeed in ending the war. It didn't happen because of some abstract "score"; it happened because of sheer moral shock of how one bomb was able to destroy an entire city. If US had decided to just bomb Hiroshima with conventional methods, inflicting exactly the same amount of death and destruction, it most likely wouldn't have ended the war. Iraq, North Korea and other situations you can link with "this logic" are _not_ similar to this.
- ck2 10y ago
  Now explain why we decided to vaporize tens of thousands more civilians a few days later.
hasenj 10y ago
The fact that you're getting downvoted for saying this on HN (out of all places) is kinda odd.
- tim333 10y ago
  HN tends to be fussy about logic.
  - hasenj 10y ago
    Your concept of logic is rather fuzzy.
kbart 10y ago
I'm not sure why this post gets downvoted as it makes a really good point I see from time to time when discussing this matter: why drop the first nuke on heavily populated city? Dropping few on the biggest military bases or naval fleets, would be enough to scare the shit out of anyone. Why shooting civilians is considered a war crime, but deliberately nuking (Hiroshima Nagasaki) or mass bombing (Dresden, Tokyo, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) them somehow makes it acceptable?

by ck2 10y ago

tim333 10y ago

Well not really. Estimates for the cost of invading Japan were approx 1m US casualties, 5m Japanese. None of the above issues produce anything like that.

ck2 10y ago
Now explain why we decided to vaporize tens of thousands more civilians a few days later.
- JshWright 10y ago
  A few days later than what?
  - e12e 10y ago
    August 6th, 1945: bombing of Hiroshima August 9th, bombing of Nagasaki August 15th, Japan surrenders. One could note that the two bombs were of different design, that both were tested on real cities and real human beings. As for whether or not Soviet or the bombs won the war - or if the bombs made much difference that waiting would not have; it's hard to judge. Here's one take on it: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/ http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08...
    - JshWright 10y ago
      I'm still confused by what you meant by "a few days later". The parent comment didn't mention any event for you to be basing your timeline on.
      - e12e 10y ago
        I think the poster meant that first [many] were killed in Hiroshima; and even if that was justified - would that justification apply to dropping another nuclear bomb on Nagasaki [a few days later]?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- adventured 10y ago
  Japan's refusal to surrender - so as to bring an end to the vast war Japan started in Asia, and the separate war Japan joined with the Axis on when they declared war on the US and Britain - was the justification for the second bomb. The fact that they refused to surrender after being nuked once, very strongly makes the case that it was unlikely they were going to surrender without an invasion or more nuclear bombings.

golergka 10y ago

> By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it. I don't think you actually understand said logic. US was in war with Japan for a long time, and was steadily winning; however, against self-interest of their country, Japanese command would not surrender. Continuing assault, US inflicted enormous civilian losses on Japan. The firebombing of Tokyo alone was at least as deadly as Hiroshima atomic bomb. And yet, Japan command did not want to surrender. Only atomic bomb finally succeed in ending the war. It didn't happen because of some abstract "score"; it happened because of sheer moral shock of how one bomb was able to destroy an entire city. If US had decided to just bomb Hiroshima with conventional methods, inflicting exactly the same amount of death and destruction, it most likely wouldn't have ended the war. Iraq, North Korea and other situations you can link with "this logic" are _not_ similar to this.

ck2 10y ago
Now explain why we decided to vaporize tens of thousands more civilians a few days later.

hasenj 10y ago

The fact that you're getting downvoted for saying this on HN (out of all places) is kinda odd.

tim333 10y ago
HN tends to be fussy about logic.
- hasenj 10y ago
  Your concept of logic is rather fuzzy.

kbart 10y ago

I'm not sure why this post gets downvoted as it makes a really good point I see from time to time when discussing this matter: why drop the first nuke on heavily populated city? Dropping few on the biggest military bases or naval fleets, would be enough to scare the shit out of anyone. Why shooting civilians is considered a war crime, but deliberately nuking (Hiroshima Nagasaki) or mass bombing (Dresden, Tokyo, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.) them somehow makes it acceptable?