5 ms·

> From the utilitarian perspective, the bombs and quick end of the war actually saved lives, so it was the right thing to do No, it was very mixed opinions eve

by plufz 7y ago

> From the utilitarian perspective, the bombs and quick end of the war actually saved lives, so it was the right thing to do No, it was very mixed opinions even among high militaries about the decision. Some people saying that the war was in fact over, and the losses would have been less just waiting out the Japanese. You can have different opinions about this, but it is not a fact that it is the utilitarian perspective to nuke.

Retric 7y ago
Even without an invasion they still probably saved lives. Had the same cities been bombed using conventional bombs, similar numbers of civilians would have died as the fires caused most civilian casualties. The reality is the nukes caused about 1% of the just civilian casualties (50 to 55 million) in WWII, making them a rounding error in the overall war.
wil421 7y ago
Sources please. I’ve asked a family member who was on a boat on the way to invade Japan until the bombs fell. They also stayed half of the occupation working in General McArthurs office. The sentiment was the bombs would cause much less casualties on at least one of the sides (US would drop more if they didn’t surrender). The surrender saved lives on both sides. I’m sure some officers didn’t agree.
- whatisthiseven 7y ago
  "Whether it was the use of nuclear weapons or Soviet invasion that more forcefully led to surrender has been hotly debated between historians. Hasegawa places greater emphasis on the Soviet invasion, suggesting that Japan would likely have stood steadfast under multiple atomic bombings as it had done in the face of firebombing. Asada directly references and disputes his account, claiming that nuclear weapons and the threat they posed to the homeland reflected a much more "direct" impetus to end the war rather than the invasion of Manchuria, and offered an easier way out for the leadership. Further, they came as a complete surprise to Japanese leadership, whereas eventual conflict with the USSR was expected. Frank's account, and most other anti-revisionist historians support this thesis." [1] I think it can be fair to say that the perception of the Allies/America was the bombs would lead to surrender, but from the Japanese perspective that isn't so cut-and-dry. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_didnt_japan_surrender_after_the_first_atomic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_d...
  - wil421 7y ago
    Your source is a reddit post without a clear overall source and only a few anchor tags in some of the paragraphs. I’d like to know what the Japanese thought at the time not what certain historians think after the fact. The Soviets invaded a part of Japan and a few hours later the second bomb dropped. It’s inconclusive. From the American perspective it still worked.
    - whatisthiseven 7y ago
      I am not sure I understand your criticism here. Your original assertion was "The sentiment was the bombs would cause much less casualties on at least one of the sides", which you quoted a family member. That is fine, but I am confused what you want to know. If you want to know what people thought, who weren't leaders, then assuredly most people thought the bombs would stop the war, but probably the same way they thought the fire-bombing would stop the war, and all other actions before that like basically wiping out the Japanese fleet. So, your family member's perspective is fine, but it doesn't tell us why the war did actually finally stop. Just what random people thought caused it to end. If you wanted to know what leaders, who were making decisions about the war and trying to decide what to do, you could see from the Historian's report that many Japanese leaders were in conflict over whether to surrender and how to surrender before the bombs dropped, after the bombs, and after the Russian invasion. Even after the Emperor agreed to surrender there were still factions vying to prevent such a surrender for different reasons. On r/AskHistorians, sources are not required to be given when composing a post, however they must be given upon request. If you are really interested in the sources and not my blase summary, I recommend just pinging the Historian directly for the kinds of sources you are interested in. Even if their post wasn't to your liking, they surely know where to find the sources you would want given their expertise. For that matter, you could even open a question on r/AskHistorians itself!
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  I don't have the sources now, but I've read that Japan had earlier made peace overtures which were ignored. Also, the US was intent on getting an unconditional surrender from Japan, whereas Japan was hoping for a conditional surrender. If Japan's peace overtures were accepted, even if at the cost of some conditions, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved and Japan need not have been the world's first nuclear casualty. This is not to mention that there were some high ranking US military men who tried hard to get the first nukes used against even larger population centers than Hiroshima or Nagasaki (Kyoto was their desired target, if I remember correctly) so that they could get better data on the nuke's effectiveness. And not to mention the widespread anti-Japanese racism in the US, which viewed Japanese people as subhuman. It's far from clear that nukes were used against Japan merely to save lives on both sides, nor (even if we disregard the intent) is it clear that they did so.
liberte82 7y ago
I toured the atomic bomb museum in Hiroshima. It was awful, but one thing that I took from it (which I don't think I was supposed to take from it) was just how small the bomb really was overall. I really thought it had leveled the city, but when you see the size of it over a map of the city, it wasn't as big as one might have thought.
- sundbry 7y ago
  Hiroshima "Little Boy" was the first to land at only 15kt, but Nagasaki had the H bomb.

by plufz 7y ago

Retric 7y ago

Even without an invasion they still probably saved lives. Had the same cities been bombed using conventional bombs, similar numbers of civilians would have died as the fires caused most civilian casualties. The reality is the nukes caused about 1% of the just civilian casualties (50 to 55 million) in WWII, making them a rounding error in the overall war.

wil421 7y ago

Sources please. I’ve asked a family member who was on a boat on the way to invade Japan until the bombs fell. They also stayed half of the occupation working in General McArthurs office. The sentiment was the bombs would cause much less casualties on at least one of the sides (US would drop more if they didn’t surrender). The surrender saved lives on both sides. I’m sure some officers didn’t agree.

whatisthiseven 7y ago
"Whether it was the use of nuclear weapons or Soviet invasion that more forcefully led to surrender has been hotly debated between historians. Hasegawa places greater emphasis on the Soviet invasion, suggesting that Japan would likely have stood steadfast under multiple atomic bombings as it had done in the face of firebombing. Asada directly references and disputes his account, claiming that nuclear weapons and the threat they posed to the homeland reflected a much more "direct" impetus to end the war rather than the invasion of Manchuria, and offered an easier way out for the leadership. Further, they came as a complete surprise to Japanese leadership, whereas eventual conflict with the USSR was expected. Frank's account, and most other anti-revisionist historians support this thesis." [1] I think it can be fair to say that the perception of the Allies/America was the bombs would lead to surrender, but from the Japanese perspective that isn't so cut-and-dry. [1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_didnt_japan_surrender_after_the_first_atomic/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15kb3w/why_d...
- wil421 7y ago
  Your source is a reddit post without a clear overall source and only a few anchor tags in some of the paragraphs. I’d like to know what the Japanese thought at the time not what certain historians think after the fact. The Soviets invaded a part of Japan and a few hours later the second bomb dropped. It’s inconclusive. From the American perspective it still worked.
  - whatisthiseven 7y ago
    I am not sure I understand your criticism here. Your original assertion was "The sentiment was the bombs would cause much less casualties on at least one of the sides", which you quoted a family member. That is fine, but I am confused what you want to know. If you want to know what people thought, who weren't leaders, then assuredly most people thought the bombs would stop the war, but probably the same way they thought the fire-bombing would stop the war, and all other actions before that like basically wiping out the Japanese fleet. So, your family member's perspective is fine, but it doesn't tell us why the war did actually finally stop. Just what random people thought caused it to end. If you wanted to know what leaders, who were making decisions about the war and trying to decide what to do, you could see from the Historian's report that many Japanese leaders were in conflict over whether to surrender and how to surrender before the bombs dropped, after the bombs, and after the Russian invasion. Even after the Emperor agreed to surrender there were still factions vying to prevent such a surrender for different reasons. On r/AskHistorians, sources are not required to be given when composing a post, however they must be given upon request. If you are really interested in the sources and not my blase summary, I recommend just pinging the Historian directly for the kinds of sources you are interested in. Even if their post wasn't to your liking, they surely know where to find the sources you would want given their expertise. For that matter, you could even open a question on r/AskHistorians itself!
pmoriarty 7y ago
I don't have the sources now, but I've read that Japan had earlier made peace overtures which were ignored. Also, the US was intent on getting an unconditional surrender from Japan, whereas Japan was hoping for a conditional surrender. If Japan's peace overtures were accepted, even if at the cost of some conditions, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved and Japan need not have been the world's first nuclear casualty. This is not to mention that there were some high ranking US military men who tried hard to get the first nukes used against even larger population centers than Hiroshima or Nagasaki (Kyoto was their desired target, if I remember correctly) so that they could get better data on the nuke's effectiveness. And not to mention the widespread anti-Japanese racism in the US, which viewed Japanese people as subhuman. It's far from clear that nukes were used against Japan merely to save lives on both sides, nor (even if we disregard the intent) is it clear that they did so.

liberte82 7y ago

I toured the atomic bomb museum in Hiroshima. It was awful, but one thing that I took from it (which I don't think I was supposed to take from it) was just how small the bomb really was overall. I really thought it had leveled the city, but when you see the size of it over a map of the city, it wasn't as big as one might have thought.

sundbry 7y ago
Hiroshima "Little Boy" was the first to land at only 15kt, but Nagasaki had the H bomb.