3 ms·

For a more nuanced view of the decision process, I recommend http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/ http://bl

For a more nuanced view of the decision process, I recommend http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/ http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alterna..., and other entries on that blog about the Target Committee and Truman's role on the process. Generally, my takeaway is: There was a moral argument to be made in favor of atomic bombing for political effect. However, that argument was not very influential on military decision making at the time - generally, the military philosophy was "we have a weapon, why would we not use it to the greatest extent possible?" This disconnect was so strong that when the civilians who were making these sophisticated moral calculations saw the manner and (more importantly) the rate at which the bombs were used, they put on the brakes.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>This disconnect was so strong that when the civilians who were making these sophisticated moral calculations saw the manner and (more importantly) the rate at which the bombs were used, they put on the brakes. Those civilians names were not auto-penned at the bottom of letters that started with "The United States Army regrets to inform you...". Those civilians had not seen what kind of end conventional warfare had lead to on inner islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They did not understand how committed to their cause the people we were fighting were. The disconnect goes both ways.
- pm90 7y ago
  On the contrary; they knew exactly what kind of relentless bombing the Allied Armed forces were willing to undertake, completely leveling non-military cities with conventional munitions just to break the will of the “enemy”. The civilians rightly feared that with these new weapons of war, the similar indiscriminate use of them could result in efficient wiping out of cities in days rather than years. At the time of their invention, nuclear weapons were seen as more effective munitions and not necessarily the civilization ending tools that they are now considered to be.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

>This disconnect was so strong that when the civilians who were making these sophisticated moral calculations saw the manner and (more importantly) the rate at which the bombs were used, they put on the brakes. Those civilians names were not auto-penned at the bottom of letters that started with "The United States Army regrets to inform you...". Those civilians had not seen what kind of end conventional warfare had lead to on inner islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They did not understand how committed to their cause the people we were fighting were. The disconnect goes both ways.

pm90 7y ago
On the contrary; they knew exactly what kind of relentless bombing the Allied Armed forces were willing to undertake, completely leveling non-military cities with conventional munitions just to break the will of the “enemy”. The civilians rightly feared that with these new weapons of war, the similar indiscriminate use of them could result in efficient wiping out of cities in days rather than years. At the time of their invention, nuclear weapons were seen as more effective munitions and not necessarily the civilization ending tools that they are now considered to be.