6 ms·

Killing hundreds of thousands of people is also aggravating.

ipaddr 5y ago
To save millions of mostly Asian lives. Japan was never going to give in without taking as many lives as possible. Japan was brutal with people in China, Korea and other nations around that area more so than the west. Sometimes you have to shoot a suspect to save a family. That's justified.
- soperj 5y ago
  it's such a silly argument. Why didn't you drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan then to save lives?
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    And further, why wouldn't they want Iran to have the ability to drop a nuke and "save millions of lives" if they ever ended up in a similar situation?
- Ansil849 5y ago
  The fact that this is not a legitimate argument can be evinced by the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history. If 'let's nuke hundreds of thousands to save millions' is a legitimate option, why has it not been used in any other number of conflicts?
  - Santosh83 5y ago
    Indeed it is amazing how US citizens feel compelled to religiously believe this oft-repeated pretext. I guess it helps them sleep better at night. The more likely reasons were to "field test" the bombs and to act as a warning shot for the Russians. Japan's belligerent actions and fatigue of war provided the perfect opportunity. It is far more complicated and risky to repeat something like that now.
    - sitkack 5y ago
      This is such a poetic read The man who saved Kyoto from the atomic bomb https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 > "The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon - that it was almost a turning point in human history," he adds.
  - atmartins 5y ago
    Not agreeing or disagreeing but this is a poor argument. First, it's not like wars of the size and intensity of WW2 happen often, so a lack of similar action since then isn't surprising. Second, the lack of use may be partially explained by threat of repercussions. Are you not aware of standoffs like the cold war? Third, agreements between nuclear powers to not launch under almost any circumstance.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    "...the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history." I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Second Sino-Japanese War (15,000,000-22,000,000 casualties, whoo), or the invasion of South-East Asia and the Phillipines? But I guess you're right in general; I don't recall any large scale wars of aggression in the last 70-ish years.
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      > I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? I think it is exorbitantly clear from the direct context of this thread that the act I am referring to is the American nuclear bombing of Japan. I'm not sure what your post is, but it seems to be insinuating something like "they had it coming", which is disgusting.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Those are real numbers. You drop a bomb to prevent millions from dying. Containment of Japan is not something that would have been successful for long.
      - hello_marmalade 5y ago
        As someone who loves Japan, they kinda did have it coming. They were doing some incredibly heinous shit at that time.
        soperj 5y ago
        What does the US have coming for their treatment of Native Americans then?
      - mcguire 5y ago
        Well, ok, this is inappropriate for the overall topic here, but since you're not sure what my point is... Since WWII, wars of conquest have been rather rare and have not so far grown to the scale as to even appear to justify, in any way, the use of anything like nuclear weapons. World War II, as it is known in the US, was different. The Empire of Japan had been engaged in an aggressive war of conquest since 1937 (or possibly 1931, depending on how you look at it). (I did mention the death toll in China, right?) The United States was engaged in a justified war with the Empire of Japan in 1945. (Do you dispute that?) Both countries were engaged in total (or absolute) war, meaning that both had fully engaged their economies in the war effort. (This is important because, under total war conditions, the civilian economy is a legitimate target of war. Practically speaking, not doing so leads to World War I, a lengthy military stalemate, and the eventual collapse of governments and other ... bad stuff. I admit this is a personal moral viewpoint. On the other hand, fine logic chopping over the ethics and legality of warfare is pretty irrelevant. War is evil.) The terms under which the Empire of Japan was willing to surrender were essentially that the military government of Japan be allowed to continue unmolested. In August, 1945, the United States had two (2) options: 1. Invasion of the Japanese Islands. Two things of note: The Battle of Okinawa (which ended the previous month), involving (according to Wikipedia) ~75,000 Japanese soldiers and ~40,000 Okinawan conscripts, resulted in the deaths of between 40,000 and 100,000 civilians, or between 10% and 30% of the islands population. The Imperial Japanese Army had ~900,000 soldiers in Kyushu. 2. Continue with the blockade of the Japanese Islands. Many authors suggest that by 1946, this would have led to the deaths of millions of Japanese civilians. Christopher Clary (https://journals.wichita.edu/index.php/ff/article/download/62/69/75 https://journals.wichita.edu/index.php/ff/article/download/6...) makes a pretty compelling argument that they were not very near starvation, so there's that. He also quotes, "Early surrender? With no atom bombs, no Russians, no invasion? Careful inspection of the "testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved"--even that incomplete sample available to the USSBS during its two short months in 1945--shows only [Marquis] Kido [Koichi, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal] supporting Nitze, everyone else [including more than twenty other high level officials] stating that Japan would have fought on indefinitely. When would Japan have surrendered without the bomb and the Russians? The only credible answer is that given by Robert Butow when Freeman Dyson asked him about it: "The Japanese leaders themselves do not know the answer to that question."" In any case, both options would have included continued strategic bombing (see also Operation Meetinghouse), of which the use of atomic weapons was an extension (no, really, check out Operation Meetinghouse). The use of large scale bombing of civilians had been settled far, far earlier in the war. As a final point, consider a role playing exercise: Put yourself in the position of a US government or military official explaining the decision not to use some weapons at your disposal, because they were too horrific, to the mothers of US soldiers who had been killed in subsequent fighting. To criticize someone for (not) doing something, it has to have been possible for them to not do it (or to do it).
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The reason why is the cold war. India/Pakistan almost did. Only a few nations have it and fear of reprisal stops others. We don't use it because we don't have to but we would if we needed to.
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      I'm assuming you are then fine with Iran and other countries having a nuclear enrichment program as well, yes? As otherwise, why should "we" be able to "use it if we needed to", but not other countries?
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        No that would not make sense from an American perspective. You would try to stop an enemy from getting a weapon that could kill many American or allies and cause massive environmental issues for the planet. Plus Iran gives money to group who perform terror. You may not think that is fair. Everyone should have equal amounts of geopolitical power but it doesn't reflect reality. If Iran took over the US their version of fair would be very different from yours.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "The fact that this is not a legitimate argument can be evinced by the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history." This is not an argument, it's not even rational. The first reason that 'that decision has not been made again' is because international actors since then have to take into consideration that outcome. If that situation were duplicated, the bomb would be dropped again. Eisenhower ordered a demonstration of tactical nuclear weapons which decisively 'ended' direct hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. Were the Chinese to have continued their advance, then 'nukes would have been used again'.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  Most historians disagree with you. There is significant historical evidence that Japans ruling class was close to surrender (IIRC they actually had offered to surrender already, but not unconditionally). In particular the second bomb on Nagasaki was probably more about a sign to other nations (the USSR) than ending the war.
  - ipaddr 5y ago
    The people making the decisions at the time did. "Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives."
    - cycomanic 5y ago
      Honest question, assuming he was aware of the full picture, do you believe Truman would have come out and said "we really just dropped the bombs to send a message to the Soviets"? Here is one source which details some of the questions being raised https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-really-end-the-war https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hir... However I was probably wrong in saying most historians disagree, it seems there is still significant debate https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-justified-us-debate-bombs-death-toll-japan-how-many-died-nuclear/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-...
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        Truman was a spokesmen who would say anything. The manhattan project involved The US, Canada, The UK and it was headed by a captured German scientist. When the project started the goal was to try to beat Hilter. Near the end of the war the US tanks never went into Berlin. The peace deal signed after the war gave up too much and the Russians never lived up to it creating the conditions for the cold war. The US was hopeful at the time. An extended war with Japan would cost millions of lives. Japan was never going to give up as they were run by a crazy group at the time. Remember after they dropped the first bomb they refused to quit. The H-Bomb was the only thing that forced them to give up.
kikokikokiko 5y ago
Would it been better to keep firebombing the hell out of every japanese city then? Have you seen "Grave of the Fireflies?" Don't you think that the people of the 40's had a conscience too, only us the awaken 2021 homo sapiens have it?
- soperj 5y ago
  They obviously did have a conscience. That was why it was deemed a war crime in the Hague Conventions to fire bomb cities, it was then re-iterated in much more explicit terms in the Geneva Conventions.
  - adamc 5y ago
    I don't love the firebombing, but think it was stupid of the Hague to criticize actions taken after said country attacked others. Wars you start you do not get sympathy for.
    - soperj 5y ago
      Hague Conventions were in 1907. They signed on to them well before 1941.

To save millions of mostly Asian lives. Japan was never going to give in without taking as many lives as possible. Japan was brutal with people in China, Korea and other nations around that area more so than the west. Sometimes you have to shoot a suspect to save a family. That's justified.

soperj 5y ago
it's such a silly argument. Why didn't you drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan then to save lives?
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  And further, why wouldn't they want Iran to have the ability to drop a nuke and "save millions of lives" if they ever ended up in a similar situation?
Ansil849 5y ago
The fact that this is not a legitimate argument can be evinced by the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history. If 'let's nuke hundreds of thousands to save millions' is a legitimate option, why has it not been used in any other number of conflicts?
- Santosh83 5y ago
  Indeed it is amazing how US citizens feel compelled to religiously believe this oft-repeated pretext. I guess it helps them sleep better at night. The more likely reasons were to "field test" the bombs and to act as a warning shot for the Russians. Japan's belligerent actions and fatigue of war provided the perfect opportunity. It is far more complicated and risky to repeat something like that now.
  - sitkack 5y ago
    This is such a poetic read The man who saved Kyoto from the atomic bomb https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 > "The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon - that it was almost a turning point in human history," he adds.
- atmartins 5y ago
  Not agreeing or disagreeing but this is a poor argument. First, it's not like wars of the size and intensity of WW2 happen often, so a lack of similar action since then isn't surprising. Second, the lack of use may be partially explained by threat of repercussions. Are you not aware of standoffs like the cold war? Third, agreements between nuclear powers to not launch under almost any circumstance.
- mcguire 5y ago
  "...the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history." I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Second Sino-Japanese War (15,000,000-22,000,000 casualties, whoo), or the invasion of South-East Asia and the Phillipines? But I guess you're right in general; I don't recall any large scale wars of aggression in the last 70-ish years.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    > I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? I think it is exorbitantly clear from the direct context of this thread that the act I am referring to is the American nuclear bombing of Japan. I'm not sure what your post is, but it seems to be insinuating something like "they had it coming", which is disgusting.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Those are real numbers. You drop a bomb to prevent millions from dying. Containment of Japan is not something that would have been successful for long.
    - hello_marmalade 5y ago
      As someone who loves Japan, they kinda did have it coming. They were doing some incredibly heinous shit at that time.
      - soperj 5y ago
        What does the US have coming for their treatment of Native Americans then?
    - mcguire 5y ago
      Well, ok, this is inappropriate for the overall topic here, but since you're not sure what my point is... Since WWII, wars of conquest have been rather rare and have not so far grown to the scale as to even appear to justify, in any way, the use of anything like nuclear weapons. World War II, as it is known in the US, was different. The Empire of Japan had been engaged in an aggressive war of conquest since 1937 (or possibly 1931, depending on how you look at it). (I did mention the death toll in China, right?) The United States was engaged in a justified war with the Empire of Japan in 1945. (Do you dispute that?) Both countries were engaged in total (or absolute) war, meaning that both had fully engaged their economies in the war effort. (This is important because, under total war conditions, the civilian economy is a legitimate target of war. Practically speaking, not doing so leads to World War I, a lengthy military stalemate, and the eventual collapse of governments and other ... bad stuff. I admit this is a personal moral viewpoint. On the other hand, fine logic chopping over the ethics and legality of warfare is pretty irrelevant. War is evil.) The terms under which the Empire of Japan was willing to surrender were essentially that the military government of Japan be allowed to continue unmolested. In August, 1945, the United States had two (2) options: 1. Invasion of the Japanese Islands. Two things of note: The Battle of Okinawa (which ended the previous month), involving (according to Wikipedia) ~75,000 Japanese soldiers and ~40,000 Okinawan conscripts, resulted in the deaths of between 40,000 and 100,000 civilians, or between 10% and 30% of the islands population. The Imperial Japanese Army had ~900,000 soldiers in Kyushu. 2. Continue with the blockade of the Japanese Islands. Many authors suggest that by 1946, this would have led to the deaths of millions of Japanese civilians. Christopher Clary (https://journals.wichita.edu/index.php/ff/article/download/62/69/75 https://journals.wichita.edu/index.php/ff/article/download/6...) makes a pretty compelling argument that they were not very near starvation, so there's that. He also quotes, "Early surrender? With no atom bombs, no Russians, no invasion? Careful inspection of the "testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved"--even that incomplete sample available to the USSBS during its two short months in 1945--shows only [Marquis] Kido [Koichi, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal] supporting Nitze, everyone else [including more than twenty other high level officials] stating that Japan would have fought on indefinitely. When would Japan have surrendered without the bomb and the Russians? The only credible answer is that given by Robert Butow when Freeman Dyson asked him about it: "The Japanese leaders themselves do not know the answer to that question."" In any case, both options would have included continued strategic bombing (see also Operation Meetinghouse), of which the use of atomic weapons was an extension (no, really, check out Operation Meetinghouse). The use of large scale bombing of civilians had been settled far, far earlier in the war. As a final point, consider a role playing exercise: Put yourself in the position of a US government or military official explaining the decision not to use some weapons at your disposal, because they were too horrific, to the mothers of US soldiers who had been killed in subsequent fighting. To criticize someone for (not) doing something, it has to have been possible for them to not do it (or to do it).
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The reason why is the cold war. India/Pakistan almost did. Only a few nations have it and fear of reprisal stops others. We don't use it because we don't have to but we would if we needed to.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    I'm assuming you are then fine with Iran and other countries having a nuclear enrichment program as well, yes? As otherwise, why should "we" be able to "use it if we needed to", but not other countries?
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      No that would not make sense from an American perspective. You would try to stop an enemy from getting a weapon that could kill many American or allies and cause massive environmental issues for the planet. Plus Iran gives money to group who perform terror. You may not think that is fair. Everyone should have equal amounts of geopolitical power but it doesn't reflect reality. If Iran took over the US their version of fair would be very different from yours.
- jollybean 5y ago
  "The fact that this is not a legitimate argument can be evinced by the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history." This is not an argument, it's not even rational. The first reason that 'that decision has not been made again' is because international actors since then have to take into consideration that outcome. If that situation were duplicated, the bomb would be dropped again. Eisenhower ordered a demonstration of tactical nuclear weapons which decisively 'ended' direct hostilities on the Korean Peninsula. Were the Chinese to have continued their advance, then 'nukes would have been used again'.
cycomanic 5y ago
Most historians disagree with you. There is significant historical evidence that Japans ruling class was close to surrender (IIRC they actually had offered to surrender already, but not unconditionally). In particular the second bomb on Nagasaki was probably more about a sign to other nations (the USSR) than ending the war.
- ipaddr 5y ago
  The people making the decisions at the time did. "Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives."
  - cycomanic 5y ago
    Honest question, assuming he was aware of the full picture, do you believe Truman would have come out and said "we really just dropped the bombs to send a message to the Soviets"? Here is one source which details some of the questions being raised https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-really-end-the-war https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hir... However I was probably wrong in saying most historians disagree, it seems there is still significant debate https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-bomb-hiroshima-nagasaki-justified-us-debate-bombs-death-toll-japan-how-many-died-nuclear/ https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-...
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      Truman was a spokesmen who would say anything. The manhattan project involved The US, Canada, The UK and it was headed by a captured German scientist. When the project started the goal was to try to beat Hilter. Near the end of the war the US tanks never went into Berlin. The peace deal signed after the war gave up too much and the Russians never lived up to it creating the conditions for the cold war. The US was hopeful at the time. An extended war with Japan would cost millions of lives. Japan was never going to give up as they were run by a crazy group at the time. Remember after they dropped the first bomb they refused to quit. The H-Bomb was the only thing that forced them to give up.

kikokikokiko 5y ago

Would it been better to keep firebombing the hell out of every japanese city then? Have you seen "Grave of the Fireflies?" Don't you think that the people of the 40's had a conscience too, only us the awaken 2021 homo sapiens have it?

soperj 5y ago
They obviously did have a conscience. That was why it was deemed a war crime in the Hague Conventions to fire bomb cities, it was then re-iterated in much more explicit terms in the Geneva Conventions.
- adamc 5y ago
  I don't love the firebombing, but think it was stupid of the Hague to criticize actions taken after said country attacked others. Wars you start you do not get sympathy for.
  - soperj 5y ago
    Hague Conventions were in 1907. They signed on to them well before 1941.