4 ms·

> 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 evide

> 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.

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.