5 ms·
Except they occured during an active war and achieved a military goal: to prevent a mainland assault which would have killed an order of magnitude more people.
by ghostcluster 9y ago
Except they occured during an active war and achieved a military goal: to prevent a mainland assault which would have killed an order of magnitude more people.
- mb_72 9y agoI can't find the link right now, but have read a fairly convincing argument that it was the conventional type of bombing, not nuclear, that caused the Japanese to surrender. Still a terrible thing for Japanese civilians though.
- vkou 9y agoThe Soviet invasion of Manchuria was another straw.
- FabHK 9y agoI think it would be wrong to characterise that as the consensus, though. My understanding is that historians haven't come to a conclusive assessment, but that the majority view is that it did cut the war short and save lives (net).
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- manangatangy 9y agoOne of these could be the article you are referring to. [0] https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/ https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-h... [1] http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
- mb_72 9y agoYes, thank you!
- ghostcluster 9y agoThe conventional bombing killed more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- throw2016 9y agoDropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian population is an act of barbarism. Dropping 2 is an act of insanity and is going down in history as one of the most reckless odious crimes against humanity.
- Wohlf 9y agoConventional and fire bombing were just as bad, they only took longer.