4 ms·

> Instead, they are taught that it was necessary to end the war. That is not what we are taught. What we are taught is that it was a terrible evil that was ju

> Instead, they are taught that it was necessary to end the war. That is not what we are taught. What we are taught is that it was a terrible evil that was judged to be the better option of two evils. This is still potentially not true, and in hindsight with knowledge that the Japanese were not nearly as stubborn as we thought they were, it looks terrible. But these are luxuries afforded to people with the Internet and decades of time to analyze the situation that President Truman did not have. Only idiots in America think that it was necessary to end the war. Quit knocking down strawmen.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> But these are luxuries afforded to people with the Internet and decades of time to analyze the situation that President Truman did not have. There's no evidence that anyone assumed it was the only way. It was simply a show of force.
- jpatokal 8y ago
  There was plenty of evidence from Okinawa, Iwo Jima etc to indicate that Japan would fight to the last man, woman and child, and the plans for a land invasion of Japan assumed body counts that were horrific even by WW2 standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall That said, this doesn't really excuse dropping not one but two bombs on civilian centers. Dropping one a stone's throw from Tokyo (say, the Boso or Izu peninsulas) would likely have made the point as effectively and with less casualties.
  - kev6168 8y ago
    I have often thought about this (why didn't they drop the bombs at a few villages not very far from Tokyo to make the point?). Today I found in this thread and the 2016 discusssion two good(I think) reasons, one was to race against Stalin's possible invasion of Japan, another was to clearly showcase the power of the US to the _world_, not merely to the Japanese, in preparation for the ensuring cold war.
    - chha 8y ago
      This was also considered before the bombs were dropped, and has been documented. Wikipedia has some information on it [1], with the short version being that it wasn't possible to stage a credible demonstration without making an actual attack. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > There was plenty of evidence from Okinawa, Iwo Jima etc to indicate that Japan would fight to the last man, woman and child. There was also a plenty of evidence that the U.S. wanted to "test" the bomb in a real-world scenario and to demonstrate its military might to a much wider audience than just Japan.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >There was also a plenty of evidence that the U.S. wanted to "test" the bomb in a real-world scenario and to demonstrate its military might to a much wider audience than just Japan. Ascribe whatever nefarious motive you want. Those two bombs brought about the end of the war with a lot less casualties (on both sides) than the runner up option (invasion).
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > Those two bombs brought about the end of the war with a lot less casualties (on both sides) than the runner up option (invasion). You cannot know if a bloody invasion was the only other option. Perhaps doing a test and 'leaking' to the press that Japan was next would work too? Or bombing a non densely populated area? Also, you simply can't count the causalities of nuclear bombs the same way as conventional ones, since there will be related deaths for generations; increased cancer rates, birth defects etc.
        dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        >You cannot know if a bloody invasion was the only other option. Well that was the shovel ready option that they were actively preparing for. IIRC it was scheduled for November so unless some other unexpected circumstance was going to force the Japanese into surrendering before then the invasion was going to happen. >Or bombing a non densely populated area? Considered and ruled out in 1945 >Also, you simply can't count the causalities of nuclear bombs the same way as conventional ones Yes you can. It's done the same way. Start at zero and go up. >since there will be related deaths for generations; increased cancer rates, birth defects etc. This is only an issue for the people who survived the bomb first hand. It's not like their grandkids are going to suffer radiation sickness. I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your tone but your comment reeks of being in an ivory tower and out of touch. There was every indication (Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name two) that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man on the home islands. There was a Japanese army running around beheading everyone in China. The American blockade was fighting off kamikaze attacks regularly. They could have firebombed those cities if they wanted but that wouldn't have sent the same message to Japanese leadership. Every day the war continued cost lives. Using atomic weapons and ending the war sooner was well worth the extra cancer. I seriously cannot fathom the kind of ideology or belief system that leads one to conclude otherwise.
  - erfgh 8y ago
    In Churchill's History of WW II he explains the reasons. I don't remember all the reasons but one of them was that they were (of course) not 100% certain that the bomb will work so they couldn't get the whole world in a "watch this!" stance only for the bomb to fail.
    - erfgh 8y ago
      Also, they had only two bombs so if one failed it would be very possible that the other one would fail as well (or even that one strike would not be enough for Japan to surrender). In this case an invasion of Japan would be inevitable, resulting in many millions dead.
sydd 8y ago
> But these are luxuries afforded to people with the Internet and decades of time to analyze the situation that President Truman did not have. This is a bit like forgiving Nazis because they did not have the internet to read about Jews that they are not so evil.
- ReptileMan 8y ago
  No - it was use nukes or waste 250000 to 500000 US lives (and possibly allow Stalin to occupy half of japan) to make them surrender.
  - clarkmoody 8y ago
    Perhaps there were more than two options?
  - sydd 8y ago
    According to the official U.S. standpoint. According to others Japan was already on the verge of collapse - supply chains broken, morale very low and all their allies were surrendering. Its very much possible the Japan would have surrendered a few months later anyway if the US does keeps up the sea blockade and does a few more normal bombing runs. NOTHING justifies killing 200.000 civilians, its a war crime.
    - ReptileMan 8y ago
      I doubt that they would have surrendered in couple of months in a way that would have not exposed Americans to risk of losing their lives.
Jeema101 8y ago
Of course it wasn't necessary, strictly speaking. An invasion may have worked (at probably an even greater loss of life). Waiting things out a while longer might have worked as well, but again may have resulted in more loss of life due to the ongoing blockade. What we do know as a fact - which seems to be glossed over by a lot of people - is that the Emperor specifically mentioned the bomb in his surrender speech as one of the reasons why they were surrendering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast

AsyncAwait 8y ago

> But these are luxuries afforded to people with the Internet and decades of time to analyze the situation that President Truman did not have. There's no evidence that anyone assumed it was the only way. It was simply a show of force.

jpatokal 8y ago
There was plenty of evidence from Okinawa, Iwo Jima etc to indicate that Japan would fight to the last man, woman and child, and the plans for a land invasion of Japan assumed body counts that were horrific even by WW2 standards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall That said, this doesn't really excuse dropping not one but two bombs on civilian centers. Dropping one a stone's throw from Tokyo (say, the Boso or Izu peninsulas) would likely have made the point as effectively and with less casualties.
- kev6168 8y ago
  I have often thought about this (why didn't they drop the bombs at a few villages not very far from Tokyo to make the point?). Today I found in this thread and the 2016 discusssion two good(I think) reasons, one was to race against Stalin's possible invasion of Japan, another was to clearly showcase the power of the US to the _world_, not merely to the Japanese, in preparation for the ensuring cold war.
  - chha 8y ago
    This was also considered before the bombs were dropped, and has been documented. Wikipedia has some information on it [1], with the short version being that it wasn't possible to stage a credible demonstration without making an actual attack. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Choice_of_targets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > There was plenty of evidence from Okinawa, Iwo Jima etc to indicate that Japan would fight to the last man, woman and child. There was also a plenty of evidence that the U.S. wanted to "test" the bomb in a real-world scenario and to demonstrate its military might to a much wider audience than just Japan.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >There was also a plenty of evidence that the U.S. wanted to "test" the bomb in a real-world scenario and to demonstrate its military might to a much wider audience than just Japan. Ascribe whatever nefarious motive you want. Those two bombs brought about the end of the war with a lot less casualties (on both sides) than the runner up option (invasion).
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > Those two bombs brought about the end of the war with a lot less casualties (on both sides) than the runner up option (invasion). You cannot know if a bloody invasion was the only other option. Perhaps doing a test and 'leaking' to the press that Japan was next would work too? Or bombing a non densely populated area? Also, you simply can't count the causalities of nuclear bombs the same way as conventional ones, since there will be related deaths for generations; increased cancer rates, birth defects etc.
      - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
        >You cannot know if a bloody invasion was the only other option. Well that was the shovel ready option that they were actively preparing for. IIRC it was scheduled for November so unless some other unexpected circumstance was going to force the Japanese into surrendering before then the invasion was going to happen. >Or bombing a non densely populated area? Considered and ruled out in 1945 >Also, you simply can't count the causalities of nuclear bombs the same way as conventional ones Yes you can. It's done the same way. Start at zero and go up. >since there will be related deaths for generations; increased cancer rates, birth defects etc. This is only an issue for the people who survived the bomb first hand. It's not like their grandkids are going to suffer radiation sickness. I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your tone but your comment reeks of being in an ivory tower and out of touch. There was every indication (Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name two) that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man on the home islands. There was a Japanese army running around beheading everyone in China. The American blockade was fighting off kamikaze attacks regularly. They could have firebombed those cities if they wanted but that wouldn't have sent the same message to Japanese leadership. Every day the war continued cost lives. Using atomic weapons and ending the war sooner was well worth the extra cancer. I seriously cannot fathom the kind of ideology or belief system that leads one to conclude otherwise.
- erfgh 8y ago
  In Churchill's History of WW II he explains the reasons. I don't remember all the reasons but one of them was that they were (of course) not 100% certain that the bomb will work so they couldn't get the whole world in a "watch this!" stance only for the bomb to fail.
  - erfgh 8y ago
    Also, they had only two bombs so if one failed it would be very possible that the other one would fail as well (or even that one strike would not be enough for Japan to surrender). In this case an invasion of Japan would be inevitable, resulting in many millions dead.

sydd 8y ago

> But these are luxuries afforded to people with the Internet and decades of time to analyze the situation that President Truman did not have. This is a bit like forgiving Nazis because they did not have the internet to read about Jews that they are not so evil.

ReptileMan 8y ago
No - it was use nukes or waste 250000 to 500000 US lives (and possibly allow Stalin to occupy half of japan) to make them surrender.
- clarkmoody 8y ago
  Perhaps there were more than two options?
- sydd 8y ago
  According to the official U.S. standpoint. According to others Japan was already on the verge of collapse - supply chains broken, morale very low and all their allies were surrendering. Its very much possible the Japan would have surrendered a few months later anyway if the US does keeps up the sea blockade and does a few more normal bombing runs. NOTHING justifies killing 200.000 civilians, its a war crime.
  - ReptileMan 8y ago
    I doubt that they would have surrendered in couple of months in a way that would have not exposed Americans to risk of losing their lives.

Jeema101 8y ago

Of course it wasn't necessary, strictly speaking. An invasion may have worked (at probably an even greater loss of life). Waiting things out a while longer might have worked as well, but again may have resulted in more loss of life due to the ongoing blockade. What we do know as a fact - which seems to be glossed over by a lot of people - is that the Emperor specifically mentioned the bomb in his surrender speech as one of the reasons why they were surrendering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast