5 ms·

Arguably, the dropping of the atomic bombs saved more lives in the long run by forcing the Japanese to surrender and end the war, full-stop. And arguably, nucl

by jbob2000 8y ago

Arguably, the dropping of the atomic bombs saved more lives in the long run by forcing the Japanese to surrender and end the war, full-stop. And arguably, nuclear weapons are keeping the world at peace. Sure, everyone has them pointed at each other, but it’s that threat that keeps us honest and peaceful. Just like how drivers in Chicago are courteous and never honk their horn - you’ll get shot if you drive like a dick.

jeremyjh 8y ago
> Arguably, the dropping of the atomic bombs saved more lives in the long run by forcing the Japanese to surrender and end the war, full-stop. This was a popular myth that Truman started. In fact, if we’d told the Japanese we would let them keep their emperor, they almost certainly would have surrendered. The Soviets had just entered the war in the Pacific and we wanted to end it before they captured much territory. Ironic since the Japanese had no intention to risk a Soviet occupation either.
- manfredo 8y ago
  This, in turn, is a popular myth often promulgated by apologists of the Empire of Japan (but also reiterated by others, I'm not saying you're among the former). The terms proposed by Japan during the latter period of the war included not only keeping the emperor, but also the existing government, immunity from war crimes trials, and keeping much of their colonial territory (namely, Korea). The Empire also planned to resist a speculated US and Soviet invasion as leverage to negotiate better peace terms. The expected Japanese casualties (that is, the Japanese military's own estimates) of this planned defense numbered in the tens of millions. The Japanese high command deemed this an acceptable number of casualties and went forward with the planned defense.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > In fact, if we’d told the Japanese we would let them keep their emperor, they almost certainly would have surrendered. The Soviets had just entered the war in the Pacific Er, no. The nuclear bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9. The USSR announced it's declaration of war at 11pm Trans-Baikal time August 8, and began invasion at 12:01am August 9. So, at the commencement of the atomic bombing, the Soviets had not just entered the war. > and we wanted to end it before they captured much territory. So, what you are saying is that he Soviet entry into the war, absent the nuclear bombings, would put pressure on the US to grant Japan more lenient peace terms. Maybe that's true, but I'm not sure how that's an argument against the bombings.
  - jeremyjh 8y ago
    What I'm saying is the Soviet entry into the war by itself was enough to push Japan into an (almost) unconditional surrender to the US, so the bombings were unnecessary. The timing was not coincidental, they had agreed on a Soviet entry within three months of V-day in Europe at Yalta. While Stalin probably didn't know about the bombing, Truman almost certainly knew the specific date of the invasion of Manchuria in advance and it likely established the timetable.
- throw2016 8y ago
  Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian population is an act of madness, doing it twice is is beyond ethical discourse. We are just 70 years out but these crimes against humanity will haunt for generations to come.
  - masonic 8y ago
    Conventional bombing killed far more on the Japanese mainland than both atomic bombs combined did.
    - throw2016 8y ago
      You do not see the difference between conventional warfare between armies and dropping untested new weapons on mass destruction on civilian populations? This is a deliberate calculated war crime. Hundreds of thousands of people were burned, suffocated and boiled to death in seconds let alone the radiation for no good reason. No educated person is unaware of the horror of launching a nuclear bomb on a civilian population. This is an act of evil. How many countries have used nuclear weapons? Why do you think nuclear weapons are controlled and treated as a separate class of weapons under strict control?
      - masonic 8y ago
        between armies Conventional bombing was not limited to "armies" in WW2 at all, least of all by the Japanese. Again, there were more Japanese civilian deaths by conventional bombing than by both atomic bombs combined.
srtjstjsj 8y ago
Strange example. Chicago is famous for its rude drivers and honking. http://chicagoist.com/2009/11/27/ask_chicagoist_whats_up_with_the_ho.php http://chicagoist.com/2009/11/27/ask_chicagoist_whats_up_wit...

jeremyjh 8y ago

> Arguably, the dropping of the atomic bombs saved more lives in the long run by forcing the Japanese to surrender and end the war, full-stop. This was a popular myth that Truman started. In fact, if we’d told the Japanese we would let them keep their emperor, they almost certainly would have surrendered. The Soviets had just entered the war in the Pacific and we wanted to end it before they captured much territory. Ironic since the Japanese had no intention to risk a Soviet occupation either.

manfredo 8y ago
This, in turn, is a popular myth often promulgated by apologists of the Empire of Japan (but also reiterated by others, I'm not saying you're among the former). The terms proposed by Japan during the latter period of the war included not only keeping the emperor, but also the existing government, immunity from war crimes trials, and keeping much of their colonial territory (namely, Korea). The Empire also planned to resist a speculated US and Soviet invasion as leverage to negotiate better peace terms. The expected Japanese casualties (that is, the Japanese military's own estimates) of this planned defense numbered in the tens of millions. The Japanese high command deemed this an acceptable number of casualties and went forward with the planned defense.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> In fact, if we’d told the Japanese we would let them keep their emperor, they almost certainly would have surrendered. The Soviets had just entered the war in the Pacific Er, no. The nuclear bombs were dropped on August 6 and August 9. The USSR announced it's declaration of war at 11pm Trans-Baikal time August 8, and began invasion at 12:01am August 9. So, at the commencement of the atomic bombing, the Soviets had not just entered the war. > and we wanted to end it before they captured much territory. So, what you are saying is that he Soviet entry into the war, absent the nuclear bombings, would put pressure on the US to grant Japan more lenient peace terms. Maybe that's true, but I'm not sure how that's an argument against the bombings.
- jeremyjh 8y ago
  What I'm saying is the Soviet entry into the war by itself was enough to push Japan into an (almost) unconditional surrender to the US, so the bombings were unnecessary. The timing was not coincidental, they had agreed on a Soviet entry within three months of V-day in Europe at Yalta. While Stalin probably didn't know about the bombing, Truman almost certainly knew the specific date of the invasion of Manchuria in advance and it likely established the timetable.
throw2016 8y ago
Dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian population is an act of madness, doing it twice is is beyond ethical discourse. We are just 70 years out but these crimes against humanity will haunt for generations to come.
- masonic 8y ago
  Conventional bombing killed far more on the Japanese mainland than both atomic bombs combined did.
  - throw2016 8y ago
    You do not see the difference between conventional warfare between armies and dropping untested new weapons on mass destruction on civilian populations? This is a deliberate calculated war crime. Hundreds of thousands of people were burned, suffocated and boiled to death in seconds let alone the radiation for no good reason. No educated person is unaware of the horror of launching a nuclear bomb on a civilian population. This is an act of evil. How many countries have used nuclear weapons? Why do you think nuclear weapons are controlled and treated as a separate class of weapons under strict control?
    - masonic 8y ago
      between armies Conventional bombing was not limited to "armies" in WW2 at all, least of all by the Japanese. Again, there were more Japanese civilian deaths by conventional bombing than by both atomic bombs combined.

srtjstjsj 8y ago

Strange example. Chicago is famous for its rude drivers and honking. http://chicagoist.com/2009/11/27/ask_chicagoist_whats_up_with_the_ho.php http://chicagoist.com/2009/11/27/ask_chicagoist_whats_up_wit...