5 ms·

Nuking Japan probably saved tens of millions of lives. Mainland invasion alone would have killed millions on both sides. Japanese civilians were throwing themse

Nuking Japan probably saved tens of millions of lives. Mainland invasion alone would have killed millions on both sides. Japanese civilians were throwing themselves off cliffs rather than being captured. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Cliff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Cliff There's also the fact that the soviet union was preparing to invade Japan and building up troops in the balkans. The nuke was a show of force to end the war in Japan quickly and make the soviets think twice about pushing into Europe. The US had a choice between letting millions of their men die or using a weapon that could end the war almost instantly. Nothing to celebrate but it was essentially the lesser of two evils.

roenxi 9y ago
Nuking Japan was a highly experimental move to find out what would happen if the US deployed it's newest weapon in a war. The results were so horrific that it has only been done twice in a war setting. That seems to be comparable to the death star. New superweapon intended to maintain order; deployed against the nearest target. Similar to what happened in Japan, the death star would also have prevented tens of millions of meaningless deaths had it not been blown up by a group who would probably be labeled terrorists if we didn't have front-row seats into their motivations and ideologies.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  > The results were so horrific that it has only been done twice in a war setting. The impact of nuclear weapons on cultural consciousness is interesting. As many civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. And, of course, the firebombing of Tokyo was nothing special either: most Japanese cities were extensively bombed. One of the reasons that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen were because they were among the only relatively unscathed cities remaining. And of course, to a larger point, slaughtering civilians throughout WWII was far from uncommon, on both sides, and was a deliberate strategy to clear out "living space", to destroy industrial capacity, etc. Yet, for some reason, humans seem to find the nuclear bombings much more morally objectionable than the firebombing of Tokyo, maybe moreso than anything else other than the Rape of Nanjing and the Holocaust. Of course, nuclear weapons were themselves fearful for another reason - a single bomb doing what before took many, but you wouldn't think that'd change the moral content of the actions in people's minds.
  - jbattle 9y ago
    The term “dehousing “ (used by the British to describe their bombers targeting the houses of German workers) is one of the most chilling and inhumane words I know. The official story is they were just trying to deny shelter to German civilians in order to reduce their morale. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Yet, for some reason, humans seem to find the nuclear bombings much more morally objectionable than the firebombing of Tokyo, maybe moreso than anything else other than the Rape of Nanjing and the Holocaust. All of those are war crimes. Including the Dresden bombings, and so on. The nuking is just more instant and concentrated horror. And a senseless display of power at a time when it wasn't needed at all (barely an actual part of a war effort), which makes it even more hideous. I don't think people would talk so casually about fire bombings and nukes if they had real history behind them and their family.
- kbenson 9y ago
  The death star destroying alderman is not like the U.S. Nuking Japan, it's like the U.S. nuking Georgia during the Civil War (if the Civil War happened because 20 years earlier the president had dissolved the union in lieu of a dictatorship).
goatlover 9y ago
What was the reason for having to invade Japan to force the leaders to unconditionally surrender? Their airforce and navy had been destroyed. Their military had been beaten back to Japan. Why not just leave them be or arrange a conditional surrender they could save face with?
coldtea 9y ago
>Nuking Japan probably saved tens of millions of lives. The more established history in Europe (of course the US wouldn't admit to that, as Japan won't officially admit to it's China wrongdoing in WWII) is that Japan was done for and ready to surrender (and there were even unofficial negotiation attempts). In any case, it was a standing dead -- and even the "kamikazi" were employed exactly because of this desperation (besides a man's life, each of those cost a much more precious to the war airplane). >There's also the fact that the soviet union was preparing to invade Japan and building up troops in the balkans. The nuke was a show of force to end the war in Japan quickly and make the soviets think twice about pushing into Europe. Yes, that was exactly the thing. The "it was essentially the lesser of two evils" part was just the hypocritical justification sold to the public afterwards. (Note that if the Germans had dropped a nuke in England or Russians one in Germany as "a choice between letting millions of their men die or using a weapon that could end the war almost instantly" -- it would be considered, justifiably so, as a gross war crime until eternity).
vl 9y ago
>the soviet union was preparing to invade Japan and building up troops in the balkans. Balkans are in Europe.

roenxi 9y ago

Nuking Japan was a highly experimental move to find out what would happen if the US deployed it's newest weapon in a war. The results were so horrific that it has only been done twice in a war setting. That seems to be comparable to the death star. New superweapon intended to maintain order; deployed against the nearest target. Similar to what happened in Japan, the death star would also have prevented tens of millions of meaningless deaths had it not been blown up by a group who would probably be labeled terrorists if we didn't have front-row seats into their motivations and ideologies.

Amezarak 9y ago
> The results were so horrific that it has only been done twice in a war setting. The impact of nuclear weapons on cultural consciousness is interesting. As many civilians died in the firebombing of Tokyo as in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. And, of course, the firebombing of Tokyo was nothing special either: most Japanese cities were extensively bombed. One of the reasons that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen were because they were among the only relatively unscathed cities remaining. And of course, to a larger point, slaughtering civilians throughout WWII was far from uncommon, on both sides, and was a deliberate strategy to clear out "living space", to destroy industrial capacity, etc. Yet, for some reason, humans seem to find the nuclear bombings much more morally objectionable than the firebombing of Tokyo, maybe moreso than anything else other than the Rape of Nanjing and the Holocaust. Of course, nuclear weapons were themselves fearful for another reason - a single bomb doing what before took many, but you wouldn't think that'd change the moral content of the actions in people's minds.
- jbattle 9y ago
  The term “dehousing “ (used by the British to describe their bombers targeting the houses of German workers) is one of the most chilling and inhumane words I know. The official story is they were just trying to deny shelter to German civilians in order to reduce their morale. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dehousing
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Yet, for some reason, humans seem to find the nuclear bombings much more morally objectionable than the firebombing of Tokyo, maybe moreso than anything else other than the Rape of Nanjing and the Holocaust. All of those are war crimes. Including the Dresden bombings, and so on. The nuking is just more instant and concentrated horror. And a senseless display of power at a time when it wasn't needed at all (barely an actual part of a war effort), which makes it even more hideous. I don't think people would talk so casually about fire bombings and nukes if they had real history behind them and their family.
kbenson 9y ago
The death star destroying alderman is not like the U.S. Nuking Japan, it's like the U.S. nuking Georgia during the Civil War (if the Civil War happened because 20 years earlier the president had dissolved the union in lieu of a dictatorship).

goatlover 9y ago

What was the reason for having to invade Japan to force the leaders to unconditionally surrender? Their airforce and navy had been destroyed. Their military had been beaten back to Japan. Why not just leave them be or arrange a conditional surrender they could save face with?

coldtea 9y ago

>Nuking Japan probably saved tens of millions of lives. The more established history in Europe (of course the US wouldn't admit to that, as Japan won't officially admit to it's China wrongdoing in WWII) is that Japan was done for and ready to surrender (and there were even unofficial negotiation attempts). In any case, it was a standing dead -- and even the "kamikazi" were employed exactly because of this desperation (besides a man's life, each of those cost a much more precious to the war airplane). >There's also the fact that the soviet union was preparing to invade Japan and building up troops in the balkans. The nuke was a show of force to end the war in Japan quickly and make the soviets think twice about pushing into Europe. Yes, that was exactly the thing. The "it was essentially the lesser of two evils" part was just the hypocritical justification sold to the public afterwards. (Note that if the Germans had dropped a nuke in England or Russians one in Germany as "a choice between letting millions of their men die or using a weapon that could end the war almost instantly" -- it would be considered, justifiably so, as a gross war crime until eternity).

vl 9y ago

>the soviet union was preparing to invade Japan and building up troops in the balkans. Balkans are in Europe.