7 ms·

One quote that I always remember regarding the Japanese atomic bombs, is that survivors of Hiroshima ere in such agony, they begged nurses to kill them.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
The survivors of the firestorms caused by the Allied firebombing campaign undoubtedly did the same and there were an order of magnitude more of them, since firebombing was used to level most of Japan's cities in the final phase of the war. Take care not to fall for over-dramatization by people with an agenda. While the atomic bomb is a fearsome weapon, in that specific regard, its effects were not special. EDIT: A 2015 Japan Times article expresses it well: "...On March 10, 1945, U.S. B-29 bombers flew over Tokyo in the dead of night, dumping massive payloads of cluster bombs equipped with a then-recent invention: napalm. A fifth of Tokyo was left a vast smoldering expanse of charred bodies and rubble. Today, a modest floral monument in a downtown park honors the spirits of the 105,400 confirmed dead, many interred in common graves. It was the deadliest conventional air raid ever, worse than Nagasaki and on a par with Hiroshima. But the attack, and similar ones that followed in more than 60 other Japanese cities, have received little attention, eclipsed by the atomic bombings and Japan’s postwar rush to rebuild..." https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/#.XV6y5C2ZO00 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly... (And if you find yourself recoiling at the brutality visited upon the Japanese, bear in mind the combined death toll from the Japanese occupations across Asia are nearly triple of even that of the German Holocaust. While nobody's hands were clean in WW2, some hands were much, much dirtier than others.)
- ianai 7y ago
  Yes! People must keep the context of WWII in mind when ever thinking of those bombs. We can’t let the modern era forget the threat of the other side.
- xxpor 7y ago
  I think the big difference is the thought of doing all of that with one single bomber, nearly instantly.
  - cryptonector 7y ago
    To the people on the ground, the fact that an A-bomb could be dropped from just one bomber made no difference. Fire bombing or A-bombing was roughly the same to them. Indeed, fire bombing was probably worse when it came in waves. There were no medium or large cities left to flatten in August 1946. I've read before, and I believe, that the Japanese military leaders and emperor were not that impressed with the A-bomb. And why should they have been? They already were ready for a one-condition surrender, and the U.S. did accept it (calling it unconditional, but the U.S. adhered to the one condition).
    - secabeen 7y ago
      There has also been some debate about the factors that contributed to the Japanese surrender: https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-...
      - cryptonector 7y ago
        I've read enough of that to reach this conclusion: - the motives for dropping the bombs were various, and it depends on whom you asked, but also dropping the bombs was not that significant a thing to the Japanese (for reasons given above), - wanting an unconditional surrender seems like a legitimate or plausibly legitimate motive, - and the Soviet entrance in the war definitely sharpened minds all around.
  - JasonFruit 7y ago
    I think the big similarity is the tortuous killing of innocents to stop the wrongdoing of governments over which they have almost no control.
    - 7y ago
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  Conventional firebombing took fleets of B-29 bombers, many flying fairly low (within flak and fighter range), presenting tremendous cost and risk. The WWII city-leveling low-yield atom bombs were delivered by a single aircraft (plus a non-combat escort). Today's nukes are launched from armoured bunkers or invulnerable submarines, fly without pilot or crew, include multiple reentry warheads, and can devastate multiple cities from a single launch vehicle. There is no comparision.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    There's no comparison between modern ICBMs and WWII weaponry, but you overstate things a bit. B-29s operated with relative impunity over Japan. They had a cruising altitude higher than most Japanese fighters and anti-aircraft guns could reach, could operate at night (Japan had minimal night fighter capability by that point), and only ~150 were lost over Japan to enemy action. (In contrast, the US lost nearly 5,000 B-17s in the war.) Cost-wise, B-29 design production and production cost $3B. The Manhattan Project cost about $2B.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      You'd need to include the infrastructure to be able to launch B-29 fleets over Tokyo, which was much of the Pacific Theatre effort. That itself was a major share of the total $288 billion (1945 dollars) US expense of the war itself, far more than the Manhatten Project itself. Mainland US flights were unable to reach Japan, even from Hawaii or Alaska. Large-scale effort required control of a large portion of the Pacific and both launch and recovery capabilities. A significant number of aircraft for the Doolittle raids (early in the war) were ditched before they could reach their designated LZs in China. The aircraft, B25B Mitchell medium bombers, could launch from carriers (easier to arrange for than island occupation), but lacked either the range or raw capability to land on the Hornet. The raids were effective as a shock and demonstration of US reach and capabilities, but had minimal direct military effect.
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        Winning the war required control of a large portion of the Pacific - it's not like we were doing it just to give B-29s a place to park. The atomic bomb required the same thing, as it was B-29 carried just like incendiaries.
- locust101 7y ago
  A major difference is also the after effects. A deadly atomic bomb can likely make a place uninhabitable for months or years because of radiation.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

The survivors of the firestorms caused by the Allied firebombing campaign undoubtedly did the same and there were an order of magnitude more of them, since firebombing was used to level most of Japan's cities in the final phase of the war. Take care not to fall for over-dramatization by people with an agenda. While the atomic bomb is a fearsome weapon, in that specific regard, its effects were not special. EDIT: A 2015 Japan Times article expresses it well: "...On March 10, 1945, U.S. B-29 bombers flew over Tokyo in the dead of night, dumping massive payloads of cluster bombs equipped with a then-recent invention: napalm. A fifth of Tokyo was left a vast smoldering expanse of charred bodies and rubble. Today, a modest floral monument in a downtown park honors the spirits of the 105,400 confirmed dead, many interred in common graves. It was the deadliest conventional air raid ever, worse than Nagasaki and on a par with Hiroshima. But the attack, and similar ones that followed in more than 60 other Japanese cities, have received little attention, eclipsed by the atomic bombings and Japan’s postwar rush to rebuild..." https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/#.XV6y5C2ZO00 https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly... (And if you find yourself recoiling at the brutality visited upon the Japanese, bear in mind the combined death toll from the Japanese occupations across Asia are nearly triple of even that of the German Holocaust. While nobody's hands were clean in WW2, some hands were much, much dirtier than others.)

ianai 7y ago
Yes! People must keep the context of WWII in mind when ever thinking of those bombs. We can’t let the modern era forget the threat of the other side.
xxpor 7y ago
I think the big difference is the thought of doing all of that with one single bomber, nearly instantly.
- cryptonector 7y ago
  To the people on the ground, the fact that an A-bomb could be dropped from just one bomber made no difference. Fire bombing or A-bombing was roughly the same to them. Indeed, fire bombing was probably worse when it came in waves. There were no medium or large cities left to flatten in August 1946. I've read before, and I believe, that the Japanese military leaders and emperor were not that impressed with the A-bomb. And why should they have been? They already were ready for a one-condition surrender, and the U.S. did accept it (calling it unconditional, but the U.S. adhered to the one condition).
  - secabeen 7y ago
    There has also been some debate about the factors that contributed to the Japanese surrender: https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender https://www.atomicheritage.org/history/debate-over-japanese-...
    - cryptonector 7y ago
      I've read enough of that to reach this conclusion: - the motives for dropping the bombs were various, and it depends on whom you asked, but also dropping the bombs was not that significant a thing to the Japanese (for reasons given above), - wanting an unconditional surrender seems like a legitimate or plausibly legitimate motive, - and the Soviet entrance in the war definitely sharpened minds all around.
- JasonFruit 7y ago
  I think the big similarity is the tortuous killing of innocents to stop the wrongdoing of governments over which they have almost no control.
  - 7y ago
dredmorbius 7y ago
Conventional firebombing took fleets of B-29 bombers, many flying fairly low (within flak and fighter range), presenting tremendous cost and risk. The WWII city-leveling low-yield atom bombs were delivered by a single aircraft (plus a non-combat escort). Today's nukes are launched from armoured bunkers or invulnerable submarines, fly without pilot or crew, include multiple reentry warheads, and can devastate multiple cities from a single launch vehicle. There is no comparision.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  There's no comparison between modern ICBMs and WWII weaponry, but you overstate things a bit. B-29s operated with relative impunity over Japan. They had a cruising altitude higher than most Japanese fighters and anti-aircraft guns could reach, could operate at night (Japan had minimal night fighter capability by that point), and only ~150 were lost over Japan to enemy action. (In contrast, the US lost nearly 5,000 B-17s in the war.) Cost-wise, B-29 design production and production cost $3B. The Manhattan Project cost about $2B.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    You'd need to include the infrastructure to be able to launch B-29 fleets over Tokyo, which was much of the Pacific Theatre effort. That itself was a major share of the total $288 billion (1945 dollars) US expense of the war itself, far more than the Manhatten Project itself. Mainland US flights were unable to reach Japan, even from Hawaii or Alaska. Large-scale effort required control of a large portion of the Pacific and both launch and recovery capabilities. A significant number of aircraft for the Doolittle raids (early in the war) were ditched before they could reach their designated LZs in China. The aircraft, B25B Mitchell medium bombers, could launch from carriers (easier to arrange for than island occupation), but lacked either the range or raw capability to land on the Hornet. The raids were effective as a shock and demonstration of US reach and capabilities, but had minimal direct military effect.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Winning the war required control of a large portion of the Pacific - it's not like we were doing it just to give B-29s a place to park. The atomic bomb required the same thing, as it was B-29 carried just like incendiaries.
locust101 7y ago
A major difference is also the after effects. A deadly atomic bomb can likely make a place uninhabitable for months or years because of radiation.