4 ms·

My school education about this was also essentially "bombs are bad, kids". The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and

by eska 6y ago

My school education about this was also essentially "bombs are bad, kids". The Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...) is actually quite enlightening in this matter. A lot of people seem to think that the Americans didn't try anything else before. Likewise most people don't realize how much more death there would've been on both sides if the US invaded Japan by sea.

renewiltord 6y ago
It strikes me as odd that practically any victorious military finds all of its actions optimal. If it had not done as it did, then the outcomes would be worse. The regularity of the superiority of the action taken is fascinating. Curiously, this website has a large number of commentators that believe that luck is one of the biggest factors in startup success. Yet, in this other domain of antagonistic participants, war, the victor is always the better strategist, having seen through the flaws of his enemy. Mere luck plays no part here. A curious result to me. It appears that Man is elevated to supreme intelligence when tasked with war, and finds himself a mere leaf on air currents otherwise. Of course, I’m no peacenik. I have no problem over-bombing a population so I don’t really see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as tragedies. Since no one has an incentive to reveal the true minimum that would cause them to capitulate, it is usually a good idea when you’re almost winning to make sure you’re definitely winning. I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death. Just fascinated at how we conquer luck in this sphere alone.
- the_af 6y ago
  > I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death What about those who have no opinion one way or the other about your death, or are incapable of having an informed opinion, such as very young children?
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Well, this is a personal position so I don’t see the value in sharing it, but since you asked: I’d rather be alive and evil than dead and good. After all, alive and evil I can be redeemed and die good after a fulfilling life. If I win, presumably following generations will talk about my courage at having turned my life around and any detractors of mine will find themselves outdone by my supporters - who will either be more numerous or will have the ability to call my detractors hypocrites since they only exist by my actions. So the children will die if they must die. And they will live if it does not affect victory.
  - willis936 6y ago
    The children raised in bushido, who would grow up to make sure the enemy took no prisoners by having all prisoners suicide attack captors? Those who didn’t grow up to be warriors an just be innocent civilians would still fall in line with a culture that would gladly sacrifice every innocent civilian in its borders to fight. Murder until not even the dust of the bones of the society remain. It isn’t some historical fantasy. Japan was in a bloodlust.
- PhantomGremlin 6y ago
  I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death. The most memorable line from the movie Patton (I don't know if General Patton said this IRL): Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
- refurb 6y ago
  Well, historical narratives are often oversimplified. If you dig deep into retrospective analyses of wars, you’ll find plenty of discussion about mistakes, missed opportunities and just dumb luck.
- mcguire 6y ago
  There are many arguments about suboptimal strategies and missed opportunities. They don't usually appear outside of military history discussions, though. Strategic bombing, for example.
  - eska 6y ago
    Strategic bombing is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, was attempted and didn't bring the desired results. There were large logistic problems and it took longer than expected to build a forward base.
rbecker 6y ago
> Likewise most people don't realize how much more death there would've been on both sides if the US invaded Japan by sea. That's begging the question - was a US invasion the only alternative? https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/nuclear-war-or-invasion-false-dichotomy-hiroshima-and-nagasaki https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/nuclear-war-or... argues that Japan would have surrendered without the bombings. And that's for unconditional surrender - a conditional one would be even more easily achievable.
- valuearb 6y ago
  There was no conditional surrender possible. The Japanese were still demanding to keep their “colonies” in China and elsewhere. Agreeing to that would be agreeing to continue the Japanese holocaust against the Chinese and the peoples in their other captured territories. And from the Allied perspective, after the Bataan death march, the massacre of surrendered US troops and civilians in Wake, and the hundreds of similar massacres of surrendered allied troops, and rape and murder of nurses and civilians, across the Pacific, no one was going to allow the Japanese leadership or military off the hook.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    Saying keep their colonies as holocaust is overkill. Western countries also had their colonies.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Western powers weren’t committing atrocities like the Rape of Nanking during the 30s and 40s. Japanese troops killed surrendered soldiers, raped and murdered civilians not as a rare or exceptional event, but as a standard act in every country they invaded during the 30s and 40s.
- eska 6y ago
  I have read a lot on this topic, visited museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc. I'd urge you to compare this article to others, because I bluntly think the author has no idea what he's talking about and just glued together various opinions of soldiers and politicians who happen to have that opinion without presenting the other side at all. Furthermore the article is self-contradictory, e.g. first it says the conventional bombings were so successful that a nuclear wasn't necessary, then it says since the conventional bombings were unsuccessful the nuclear strikes also wouldn't make a difference (pure conjecture by developers of the weapon, who are no experts in neither politics nor military strategy or history). It's also simply a lie that the casualty estimates were pulled out of thin air. Ask yourself: don't you think the US army would try to estimate how many of its soldierd would die (cost) vs how many Japanese soldiers would die and how many military targets would be destroyed (benefit)? Of course they did a huge study on this topic! The article also suggested the Japanese would've surrendered if key people had been left in power. Yeah, maybe (again conjecture). But for comparison: if the US had allowed Hitler to go unpunished, conquered territory to remain under Nazi possession, the Nazis would also maybe have surrendered earlier. But why would you even offer such a surrender? It would render the entire war pointless.

by eska 6y ago

renewiltord 6y ago

It strikes me as odd that practically any victorious military finds all of its actions optimal. If it had not done as it did, then the outcomes would be worse. The regularity of the superiority of the action taken is fascinating. Curiously, this website has a large number of commentators that believe that luck is one of the biggest factors in startup success. Yet, in this other domain of antagonistic participants, war, the victor is always the better strategist, having seen through the flaws of his enemy. Mere luck plays no part here. A curious result to me. It appears that Man is elevated to supreme intelligence when tasked with war, and finds himself a mere leaf on air currents otherwise. Of course, I’m no peacenik. I have no problem over-bombing a population so I don’t really see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as tragedies. Since no one has an incentive to reveal the true minimum that would cause them to capitulate, it is usually a good idea when you’re almost winning to make sure you’re definitely winning. I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death. Just fascinated at how we conquer luck in this sphere alone.

the_af 6y ago
> I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death What about those who have no opinion one way or the other about your death, or are incapable of having an informed opinion, such as very young children?
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Well, this is a personal position so I don’t see the value in sharing it, but since you asked: I’d rather be alive and evil than dead and good. After all, alive and evil I can be redeemed and die good after a fulfilling life. If I win, presumably following generations will talk about my courage at having turned my life around and any detractors of mine will find themselves outdone by my supporters - who will either be more numerous or will have the ability to call my detractors hypocrites since they only exist by my actions. So the children will die if they must die. And they will live if it does not affect victory.
- willis936 6y ago
  The children raised in bushido, who would grow up to make sure the enemy took no prisoners by having all prisoners suicide attack captors? Those who didn’t grow up to be warriors an just be innocent civilians would still fall in line with a culture that would gladly sacrifice every innocent civilian in its borders to fight. Murder until not even the dust of the bones of the society remain. It isn’t some historical fantasy. Japan was in a bloodlust.
PhantomGremlin 6y ago
I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death. The most memorable line from the movie Patton (I don't know if General Patton said this IRL): Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
refurb 6y ago
Well, historical narratives are often oversimplified. If you dig deep into retrospective analyses of wars, you’ll find plenty of discussion about mistakes, missed opportunities and just dumb luck.
mcguire 6y ago
There are many arguments about suboptimal strategies and missed opportunities. They don't usually appear outside of military history discussions, though. Strategic bombing, for example.
- eska 6y ago
  Strategic bombing is mentioned in the Wikipedia article, was attempted and didn't bring the desired results. There were large logistic problems and it took longer than expected to build a forward base.

rbecker 6y ago

> Likewise most people don't realize how much more death there would've been on both sides if the US invaded Japan by sea. That's begging the question - was a US invasion the only alternative? https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/nuclear-war-or-invasion-false-dichotomy-hiroshima-and-nagasaki https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/nuclear-war-or... argues that Japan would have surrendered without the bombings. And that's for unconditional surrender - a conditional one would be even more easily achievable.

valuearb 6y ago
There was no conditional surrender possible. The Japanese were still demanding to keep their “colonies” in China and elsewhere. Agreeing to that would be agreeing to continue the Japanese holocaust against the Chinese and the peoples in their other captured territories. And from the Allied perspective, after the Bataan death march, the massacre of surrendered US troops and civilians in Wake, and the hundreds of similar massacres of surrendered allied troops, and rape and murder of nurses and civilians, across the Pacific, no one was going to allow the Japanese leadership or military off the hook.
- fomine3 6y ago
  Saying keep their colonies as holocaust is overkill. Western countries also had their colonies.
  - valuearb 6y ago
    Western powers weren’t committing atrocities like the Rape of Nanking during the 30s and 40s. Japanese troops killed surrendered soldiers, raped and murdered civilians not as a rare or exceptional event, but as a standard act in every country they invaded during the 30s and 40s.
eska 6y ago
I have read a lot on this topic, visited museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki etc. I'd urge you to compare this article to others, because I bluntly think the author has no idea what he's talking about and just glued together various opinions of soldiers and politicians who happen to have that opinion without presenting the other side at all. Furthermore the article is self-contradictory, e.g. first it says the conventional bombings were so successful that a nuclear wasn't necessary, then it says since the conventional bombings were unsuccessful the nuclear strikes also wouldn't make a difference (pure conjecture by developers of the weapon, who are no experts in neither politics nor military strategy or history). It's also simply a lie that the casualty estimates were pulled out of thin air. Ask yourself: don't you think the US army would try to estimate how many of its soldierd would die (cost) vs how many Japanese soldiers would die and how many military targets would be destroyed (benefit)? Of course they did a huge study on this topic! The article also suggested the Japanese would've surrendered if key people had been left in power. Yeah, maybe (again conjecture). But for comparison: if the US had allowed Hitler to go unpunished, conquered territory to remain under Nazi possession, the Nazis would also maybe have surrendered earlier. But why would you even offer such a surrender? It would render the entire war pointless.