4 ms·

> Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives. No, there were alternative ways. Before dropping to the city, you can just drop it to the

by doall 9y ago

> Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives. No, there were alternative ways. Before dropping to the city, you can just drop it to the mountains or along the sea coast to show the power of the bomb. If it doesn't work, do it multiple times in different locations. After that drop it to the military camps. If all doesn't go well drop to the city. Also it didn't have to happen twice in the city, because it was a matter of time for the Japanese government to surrender. It was just an inhuman action to drop two atomic bombs in the city skipping all of these steps.

krapp 9y ago
Here is a Quora answer covering that, that I came across a while ago: https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-first-nuke-an-empty-place-in-Japan-to-show-the-results-of-the-nuclear-bomb-and-wait-for-their-enemies-to-surrender https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-first-nuke-an-empty-p... The tl;dr is that it was suggested, but consensus was that a successful test would only bolster Japan's resolve.
- doall 9y ago
  I know there was such suggestion, but it still does not cover my full comment. Also "valuearb" says there was no chance, but I say there were alternative ways and indeed there were. Atomic bomb is costly and takes time to produce, but the US just took the easy path and it does not change the inhuman action for the two bombings to the cities.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    You really should read a good history of the war. You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays. You don't understand how committed Japanese military leadership was to fight to the end. You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.
    - doall 9y ago
      >You really should read a good history of the war. You only talk about one side of the history, and you should definitely learn from both sides. > You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays. Only if the US tries to kill the non-combatants. It is not a natural disaster. >You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured. You don't understand how atomic bomb survivors have been enduring physically for their whole life. It is different from a regular bomb. It is an inhuman action to use them for humans and the US is the only one who actually used it ever in the history.
valuearb 9y ago
Even at the end the Japanese government believed by arming the entire population, and turning woman and children and the aged into suicide bombers, that they could inflict such heavy casualties on the allied invasion force that the US would agree to a peace treaty keeping Japan in control of the peoples they had conquered and enslaved. The US only had two bombs. They weren't even sure they'd work. It might take months to make and deliver more. Thousands were dying every day on both sides. The US leaders decided a demonstration was too risky, what if it failed? They had already firebombed most of Tokyo and killed more Japanese in one night than the nuclear bombs would kill. And still the Japanese leaders were still determined to use their people as cannon fodder to try to force massive casualties on the invasion force. They probably would have shrugged off the demonstration bombs, especially when no others were dropped after the 2nd for another month. Meanwhile, tick, tick, thousands more would die every day while the US dawdled. And then they'd have to use the next ones on Japanese cities, so the delay just kills more.
- doall 9y ago
  > The US only had two bombs. They weren't even sure they'd work. It worked. It didn't have to happen twice. It shouldn't have been used like a human experiment. > It might take months to make and deliver more. Wait until you are prepared. Or you can stop with a bomb. The US was preparing for 10 bombs until the end of the year. > Thousands were dying every day on both sides. No, such number of non-combatants were dying only in Japan. > The US leaders decided a demonstration was too risky, what if it failed? No, the bombing succeeded. No need for second one. Also Japan was ready to surrender two months before Hiroshima. >Meanwhile, tick, tick, thousands more would die every day while the US dawdled. The bombing in Tokyo is also known as one of the most inhuman bombing ever recorded. Bombing never happens like a natural disaster. If the US does not take such action it will never happen.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Japan wasn't ready to surrender unconditionally. It didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They only surrendered a week later after Nagasaki. Before that they were only ready to surrender if the US agreed to let them keep the territories they'd enslaved. Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them? War is hell. The US didn't rape Nanking. It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs. The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit.

by doall 9y ago

krapp 9y ago

Here is a Quora answer covering that, that I came across a while ago: https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-first-nuke-an-empty-place-in-Japan-to-show-the-results-of-the-nuclear-bomb-and-wait-for-their-enemies-to-surrender https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-the-US-first-nuke-an-empty-p... The tl;dr is that it was suggested, but consensus was that a successful test would only bolster Japan's resolve.

doall 9y ago
I know there was such suggestion, but it still does not cover my full comment. Also "valuearb" says there was no chance, but I say there were alternative ways and indeed there were. Atomic bomb is costly and takes time to produce, but the US just took the easy path and it does not change the inhuman action for the two bombings to the cities.
- valuearb 9y ago
  You really should read a good history of the war. You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays. You don't understand how committed Japanese military leadership was to fight to the end. You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.
  - doall 9y ago
    >You really should read a good history of the war. You only talk about one side of the history, and you should definitely learn from both sides. > You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays. Only if the US tries to kill the non-combatants. It is not a natural disaster. >You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured. You don't understand how atomic bomb survivors have been enduring physically for their whole life. It is different from a regular bomb. It is an inhuman action to use them for humans and the US is the only one who actually used it ever in the history.

valuearb 9y ago

Even at the end the Japanese government believed by arming the entire population, and turning woman and children and the aged into suicide bombers, that they could inflict such heavy casualties on the allied invasion force that the US would agree to a peace treaty keeping Japan in control of the peoples they had conquered and enslaved. The US only had two bombs. They weren't even sure they'd work. It might take months to make and deliver more. Thousands were dying every day on both sides. The US leaders decided a demonstration was too risky, what if it failed? They had already firebombed most of Tokyo and killed more Japanese in one night than the nuclear bombs would kill. And still the Japanese leaders were still determined to use their people as cannon fodder to try to force massive casualties on the invasion force. They probably would have shrugged off the demonstration bombs, especially when no others were dropped after the 2nd for another month. Meanwhile, tick, tick, thousands more would die every day while the US dawdled. And then they'd have to use the next ones on Japanese cities, so the delay just kills more.

doall 9y ago
> The US only had two bombs. They weren't even sure they'd work. It worked. It didn't have to happen twice. It shouldn't have been used like a human experiment. > It might take months to make and deliver more. Wait until you are prepared. Or you can stop with a bomb. The US was preparing for 10 bombs until the end of the year. > Thousands were dying every day on both sides. No, such number of non-combatants were dying only in Japan. > The US leaders decided a demonstration was too risky, what if it failed? No, the bombing succeeded. No need for second one. Also Japan was ready to surrender two months before Hiroshima. >Meanwhile, tick, tick, thousands more would die every day while the US dawdled. The bombing in Tokyo is also known as one of the most inhuman bombing ever recorded. Bombing never happens like a natural disaster. If the US does not take such action it will never happen.
- valuearb 9y ago
  Japan wasn't ready to surrender unconditionally. It didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They only surrendered a week later after Nagasaki. Before that they were only ready to surrender if the US agreed to let them keep the territories they'd enslaved. Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them? War is hell. The US didn't rape Nanking. It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs. The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit.