5 ms·

Because they started it and would have killed and estimated million of our own (millions of their own!!!) invading the home islands. Why does this happen every

by 67726e 10y ago

Because they started it and would have killed and estimated million of our own (millions of their own!!!) invading the home islands. Why does this happen every damn time it comes up on HN. We didn't just say "hey, fuck those nips". It was the best option for everyone involved.

Cyph0n 10y ago
It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be in my opinion. Please think twice and look at the aftermath and devastation that resulted from using nuclear bombs on a civilian population. Both sides were at fault, but to say that the U.S. was objectively right is an oversimplification.
- tptacek 10y ago
  The invasion of Okinawa killed something like 140,000 civilians, in addition to the horrific military casualties. That's just Okinawa.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    Holy shit, that's insane...
    - tptacek 10y ago
      The civilian death toll just in ETO Belgium is higher than that of Nagasaki. War is fucked up.
- 67726e 10y ago
  The firebombing of Tokyo itself did much worse. The projected losses were so insanely higher for ALL sides it's just stupid to act as though the bombings were not the best options available. I consume every bit of WWII history I can get my hands on, but your suggestion is nothing but revisionist. Please stop spreading this insane notion.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    I don't claim to be well-versed on WWII history, but that's my opinion until I hear a convincing argument as to why using a nuclear bomb was necessary. Just saying it was the "best option" isn't too convincing imo. There were many prominent scientists who advised against using it, so it wasn't a unanimous decision as you make it out to be. > The firebombing of Tokyo itself did much worse. Are you considering the aftereffects of radiation on top of the civilian death toll? I think the U.S. is quite fortunate that they bombed Japan and not another country. Only the Japanese could so quickly recover from the horrors of a large-scale nuclear bombing in such a short period of time. It makes people who blame the U.S. look bad because "oh but they're doing fine now, so it wasn't that big of a deal".
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Yes, the casualty figures for the bombs include radiation. From what I can tell, it is difficult to make an argument against the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki based on the civilian toll. The pacification of Japan without the bomb would seemingly have led to far more civilian deaths.
      - statictype 10y ago
        >The pacification of Japan without the bomb would seemingly have led to far more civilian deaths. Just curious on how you could have arrived at this conclusion?
        tptacek 10y ago
        Because just the invasion of Okinawa led to more civilian deaths.
    - 67726e 10y ago
      Again, what we did to Tokyo was far worse and that somehow never comes up. In this case, nukes were actually not the worst thing we did. I never claimed a unanimous decision, but even with hindsight there is no convincing argument you could possibly make for an alternative invasion of Japan. It would simply have been to horrible for all parties. > Only the Japanese could so quickly recover from the horrors of a large-scale nuclear bombing Ever heard of the Wirtschaftswunder? US support post-war was crucial for a lot of countries' recovery.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  It's total war. That's what happens. The atomic bomb was horrific in its effect, but it was no different that the industrial scale bombardment implemented throughout the war. Even a cursory study of this subject going back to the manipulations in China in the 1930s makes it pretty clear that the US/Allied cause was righteous.
  - Cyph0n 10y ago
    > Even a cursory study of this subject going back to the manipulations in China in the 1930s makes it pretty clear that the US/Allied cause was righteous. Ah, but who ended up pardoning the scientists behind the atrocities committed against the Chinese for "precious" data? I think "righteous" is too strong a word to use when talking about war. Reminds of the Crusades tbh.
pinaceae 10y ago
How many US civilians were killed by Japanese troops total vs. how many innocent women, kids, elderly, artists were firebombed and nuked by the US in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki? This comic book version of history present in the US is disgusting. The US could have nuked a 100% military installation. The US could have detonated the nukes in Tokyo harbor to scare the shit out of the population. No. The US decided to nuke TWO, not one, TWO cities full of civilian human beings.
- throwaway_xx9 10y ago
  Actually, Hiroshima had a bomb assembly plant. So you call them civilians, I call them military production.
- hga 10y ago
  How many people were prematurely dying every month in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere after we took back the Philippines? The latest, best estimate I've seen, in the excellent book Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 (https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160/ https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947...) was 400,000, up from the 250,000 I'd picked up somewhere I can't remember. It had many interesting revelations, including the single thing which had a higher priority than the Manhattan Project: the building of a super-Mullberry for Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Kanto Plain on main island of Honshu, where Tokyo and much else was located. And if you study the endgame on the Japanese side, it's really not likely nukes in Tokyo harbor to scare the shit out of the population would have worked, for one thing, they had no say in the running of the country. There also wasn't generally clean separations between military installations and civilian areas, especially since Japan is so crowded. No, one of the clear factors was their leadership realizing we'd advanced to the point where a single plane could destroy a city, instead of requiring near Maximum Efforts with hundreds of them. And of course, the bottom line is that these bombings worked. All else is speculation.
  - mindviews 10y ago
    >And of course, the bottom line is that these bombings worked. All else is speculation. The imminent USSR invasion from the north played a significant part in the calculus of Japan's surrender. Too often the use of nuclear weapons alone gets credit, but there was a more complex political/diplomatic context surrounding _why_ they worked in the case. Links for anyone interested in reading more on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416/ https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/... http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08... http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
danielmorozoff 10y ago
Wasn't the reason to drop the bombs was to check Soviet expansion. Notably in destroyed Europe where the red army had amassed a huge force and the 1.5million manchurian offensive which was about to invade Japan on land , which it did August 9th 1945 right before the Japanese surrender
- 67726e 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that was the primary motive, or an additional consideration in dropping the bomb?
- hga 10y ago
  While the Manchurian offensive was big and very successful, the Red Army was massively more effective than they were in 1938-9 when they'd previously stomped the Imperial Japanese Army, they simply didn't have the resources to seriously invade the home islands. At "best" they would have been able to take a port in northern Hokkaido, which would have been terribly obnoxious after the war, but not by itself strategically significant after they'd taken so many of the islands to the north. Details about this, and the massive resources that would have been required by us to take just Sapporo, can be found in the highly recommended Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 (https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160/ https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947...) I recommend elsewhere in this subthread. To imagine this was a major factor in the decision, when e.g. Truman's ship to the Potsdam Conference crossed the path of 4 US divisions being shuttled from the ETO to the Pacific is ludicrous. E.g. we're still issuing Purple Hearts from the initial lot MacArthur ordered, which was estimated to be 1/4 of what would be needed for Operation Downfall. This was also not long after the survivors of the Bataan Death March had been rescued, we were very much in a mood of revenge, see Grove's autobiography for a direct citation of this in reference to the bombing of Hiroshima.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
krapp 10y ago
>We didn't just say "hey, fuck those nips". It was the best option for everyone involved. It was the most politically expedient option. The US had the atomic bomb, but couldn't use it on Germany. Not using it on Japan would have been unthinkable, and impossible to justify to US soldiers and their families, in the face of the potential lives lost invading Japan. However, I'm certain the US would have used the atomic bombs regardless of what atrocities Japan committed, or whether Japan started the war, or how Okinawa turned out. In the case of the US invading Japan, they would have used nukes to soften Japan up for the invasion, and still invaded. I can't accept the moral justifications made for using the atomic bombs because I'm not convinced there was any scenario in which the US would have had them and not used them.

by 67726e 10y ago

Cyph0n 10y ago

It's not as clear cut as you make it out to be in my opinion. Please think twice and look at the aftermath and devastation that resulted from using nuclear bombs on a civilian population. Both sides were at fault, but to say that the U.S. was objectively right is an oversimplification.

tptacek 10y ago
The invasion of Okinawa killed something like 140,000 civilians, in addition to the horrific military casualties. That's just Okinawa.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Holy shit, that's insane...
  - tptacek 10y ago
    The civilian death toll just in ETO Belgium is higher than that of Nagasaki. War is fucked up.
67726e 10y ago
The firebombing of Tokyo itself did much worse. The projected losses were so insanely higher for ALL sides it's just stupid to act as though the bombings were not the best options available. I consume every bit of WWII history I can get my hands on, but your suggestion is nothing but revisionist. Please stop spreading this insane notion.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  I don't claim to be well-versed on WWII history, but that's my opinion until I hear a convincing argument as to why using a nuclear bomb was necessary. Just saying it was the "best option" isn't too convincing imo. There were many prominent scientists who advised against using it, so it wasn't a unanimous decision as you make it out to be. > The firebombing of Tokyo itself did much worse. Are you considering the aftereffects of radiation on top of the civilian death toll? I think the U.S. is quite fortunate that they bombed Japan and not another country. Only the Japanese could so quickly recover from the horrors of a large-scale nuclear bombing in such a short period of time. It makes people who blame the U.S. look bad because "oh but they're doing fine now, so it wasn't that big of a deal".
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yes, the casualty figures for the bombs include radiation. From what I can tell, it is difficult to make an argument against the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki based on the civilian toll. The pacification of Japan without the bomb would seemingly have led to far more civilian deaths.
    - statictype 10y ago
      >The pacification of Japan without the bomb would seemingly have led to far more civilian deaths. Just curious on how you could have arrived at this conclusion?
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Because just the invasion of Okinawa led to more civilian deaths.
  - 67726e 10y ago
    Again, what we did to Tokyo was far worse and that somehow never comes up. In this case, nukes were actually not the worst thing we did. I never claimed a unanimous decision, but even with hindsight there is no convincing argument you could possibly make for an alternative invasion of Japan. It would simply have been to horrible for all parties. > Only the Japanese could so quickly recover from the horrors of a large-scale nuclear bombing Ever heard of the Wirtschaftswunder? US support post-war was crucial for a lot of countries' recovery.
Spooky23 10y ago
It's total war. That's what happens. The atomic bomb was horrific in its effect, but it was no different that the industrial scale bombardment implemented throughout the war. Even a cursory study of this subject going back to the manipulations in China in the 1930s makes it pretty clear that the US/Allied cause was righteous.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  > Even a cursory study of this subject going back to the manipulations in China in the 1930s makes it pretty clear that the US/Allied cause was righteous. Ah, but who ended up pardoning the scientists behind the atrocities committed against the Chinese for "precious" data? I think "righteous" is too strong a word to use when talking about war. Reminds of the Crusades tbh.

pinaceae 10y ago

How many US civilians were killed by Japanese troops total vs. how many innocent women, kids, elderly, artists were firebombed and nuked by the US in Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki? This comic book version of history present in the US is disgusting. The US could have nuked a 100% military installation. The US could have detonated the nukes in Tokyo harbor to scare the shit out of the population. No. The US decided to nuke TWO, not one, TWO cities full of civilian human beings.

throwaway_xx9 10y ago
Actually, Hiroshima had a bomb assembly plant. So you call them civilians, I call them military production.
hga 10y ago
How many people were prematurely dying every month in the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere after we took back the Philippines? The latest, best estimate I've seen, in the excellent book Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 (https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160/ https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947...) was 400,000, up from the 250,000 I'd picked up somewhere I can't remember. It had many interesting revelations, including the single thing which had a higher priority than the Manhattan Project: the building of a super-Mullberry for Operation Coronet, the invasion of the Kanto Plain on main island of Honshu, where Tokyo and much else was located. And if you study the endgame on the Japanese side, it's really not likely nukes in Tokyo harbor to scare the shit out of the population would have worked, for one thing, they had no say in the running of the country. There also wasn't generally clean separations between military installations and civilian areas, especially since Japan is so crowded. No, one of the clear factors was their leadership realizing we'd advanced to the point where a single plane could destroy a city, instead of requiring near Maximum Efforts with hundreds of them. And of course, the bottom line is that these bombings worked. All else is speculation.
- mindviews 10y ago
  >And of course, the bottom line is that these bombings worked. All else is speculation. The imminent USSR invasion from the north played a significant part in the calculus of Japan's surrender. Too often the use of nuclear weapons alone gets credit, but there was a more complex political/diplomatic context surrounding _why_ they worked in the case. Links for anyone interested in reading more on the topic: https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674022416/ https://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/... http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08... http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...

danielmorozoff 10y ago

Wasn't the reason to drop the bombs was to check Soviet expansion. Notably in destroyed Europe where the red army had amassed a huge force and the 1.5million manchurian offensive which was about to invade Japan on land , which it did August 9th 1945 right before the Japanese surrender

67726e 10y ago
Are you suggesting that was the primary motive, or an additional consideration in dropping the bomb?
hga 10y ago
While the Manchurian offensive was big and very successful, the Red Army was massively more effective than they were in 1938-9 when they'd previously stomped the Imperial Japanese Army, they simply didn't have the resources to seriously invade the home islands. At "best" they would have been able to take a port in northern Hokkaido, which would have been terribly obnoxious after the war, but not by itself strategically significant after they'd taken so many of the islands to the north. Details about this, and the massive resources that would have been required by us to take just Sapporo, can be found in the highly recommended Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947 (https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947/dp/1591143160/ https://www.amazon.com/Hell-Pay-Operation-Downfall-1945-1947...) I recommend elsewhere in this subthread. To imagine this was a major factor in the decision, when e.g. Truman's ship to the Potsdam Conference crossed the path of 4 US divisions being shuttled from the ETO to the Pacific is ludicrous. E.g. we're still issuing Purple Hearts from the initial lot MacArthur ordered, which was estimated to be 1/4 of what would be needed for Operation Downfall. This was also not long after the survivors of the Bataan Death March had been rescued, we were very much in a mood of revenge, see Grove's autobiography for a direct citation of this in reference to the bombing of Hiroshima.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

krapp 10y ago

>We didn't just say "hey, fuck those nips". It was the best option for everyone involved. It was the most politically expedient option. The US had the atomic bomb, but couldn't use it on Germany. Not using it on Japan would have been unthinkable, and impossible to justify to US soldiers and their families, in the face of the potential lives lost invading Japan. However, I'm certain the US would have used the atomic bombs regardless of what atrocities Japan committed, or whether Japan started the war, or how Okinawa turned out. In the case of the US invading Japan, they would have used nukes to soften Japan up for the invasion, and still invaded. I can't accept the moral justifications made for using the atomic bombs because I'm not convinced there was any scenario in which the US would have had them and not used them.