5 ms·

> I am not the only one who believes that in the long term the atomic bombs saved millions of Japanese lives. I heard of the relentless Japanese insurgency gro

> I am not the only one who believes that in the long term the atomic bombs saved millions of Japanese lives. I heard of the relentless Japanese insurgency growing up. My own research did not produce that result for the time leading up to the atomic bomb and I find the atomic bombing unnecessary. It is noteworthy that I am not comparing potential death tolls. I am comparing ionizing radiation though and its long tail effects, to the lack of them. I am also mostly of the opinion of the idea that Japan was going to surrender. There were a lot of proposals between fire bombing and nuclear bombs, some of the proposals are actually hilarious and others are pretty interesting and some even seem practical. My view of the atomic bombs were that they were dropped because we wanted to drop them. It doesn't cause me consternation to acknowledge that and I just wish other people would. We nuked two cities and told everyone else to never do it themselves, we even gave them their country back and let them whitewash all the education around the event, why not just say that? I view all of the moral and rationale arguments to be surprisingly juvenile, when at the end of the day we do things because we want to. Even when comparing potential allied lives saved, well, surprise!, we can still save allied lives by nuking everyone and its not an argument at all.

fatbird 5y ago
The Japanese surrender terms were flatly unacceptable: retention of the Imperial gov't, no foreign occupation of Japan, Japan surrenders occupied territories and returns to pre-war borders, Japan handles their own disarmament and prosecution of Japanese war criminals. The surrender they were attempting to obtain was basically a rollback to the status quo of 1935. As early as mid-1944, the cabinet accepted that the war was unwinnable for them, and their strategy shifted to intransigent defence in the hope that by the time the U.S. cleared all the islands and showed up at the Home Islands, they'd be too exhausted to invade and would accept the above terms. At no time did they offer any terms of surrender less than the above, including after the dropping of the atomic bombs (according to the diary of the foreign minister Tojo). Indeed, after dropping both atomic bombs, half the cabinet still refused to surrender.
- vmception 5y ago
  > The surrender they were attempting to obtain was basically a rollback to the status quo of 1935. Can you tell me more about the status quo of 1935 and why that was a problem for the US or allies? I know it is a different Japan that did brutal things in the region, but they didn't attack US then and they weren't doing.. anything relevant to the allies. The stuff in Europe was the issue. am I missing something?
  - InTheArena 5y ago
    The status quo of 1935 would leave Korea and parts of China in Japanese hands, and the military Junta in place. It's like saying Hitler would have made peace, as long as we let him have the Ukraine, and didn't mind all the jews he murdered.
    - vmception 5y ago
      okay, interesting similarity, another similarity is that we (the US) didn't go to war against Hitler over occupied lands or the murdered Jews. Some of the allies happened to feel obligated to go to war over the occupied lands of their own partners, with the latter reality about the killings being neglected for an entire decade. The US stayed out of all, until eventually it was directly attacked by Japan and went to war against the whole Axis. There isn't a history to support that either outcome would have been an absurdity.
      - InTheArena 5y ago
        More specifically, the United States didn't go to war at all against Germany until Hitler declared war on the United States. But it's worth noting that he did so, because Roosevelt, in his eyes, was the chief Agent of the jews. So in other way, the United States did go to war because of murdered jews. But that is because he saw the United States as agents of the Jews.
        vmception 5y ago

fatbird 5y ago

The Japanese surrender terms were flatly unacceptable: retention of the Imperial gov't, no foreign occupation of Japan, Japan surrenders occupied territories and returns to pre-war borders, Japan handles their own disarmament and prosecution of Japanese war criminals. The surrender they were attempting to obtain was basically a rollback to the status quo of 1935. As early as mid-1944, the cabinet accepted that the war was unwinnable for them, and their strategy shifted to intransigent defence in the hope that by the time the U.S. cleared all the islands and showed up at the Home Islands, they'd be too exhausted to invade and would accept the above terms. At no time did they offer any terms of surrender less than the above, including after the dropping of the atomic bombs (according to the diary of the foreign minister Tojo). Indeed, after dropping both atomic bombs, half the cabinet still refused to surrender.

vmception 5y ago
> The surrender they were attempting to obtain was basically a rollback to the status quo of 1935. Can you tell me more about the status quo of 1935 and why that was a problem for the US or allies? I know it is a different Japan that did brutal things in the region, but they didn't attack US then and they weren't doing.. anything relevant to the allies. The stuff in Europe was the issue. am I missing something?
- InTheArena 5y ago
  The status quo of 1935 would leave Korea and parts of China in Japanese hands, and the military Junta in place. It's like saying Hitler would have made peace, as long as we let him have the Ukraine, and didn't mind all the jews he murdered.
  - vmception 5y ago
    okay, interesting similarity, another similarity is that we (the US) didn't go to war against Hitler over occupied lands or the murdered Jews. Some of the allies happened to feel obligated to go to war over the occupied lands of their own partners, with the latter reality about the killings being neglected for an entire decade. The US stayed out of all, until eventually it was directly attacked by Japan and went to war against the whole Axis. There isn't a history to support that either outcome would have been an absurdity.
    - InTheArena 5y ago
      More specifically, the United States didn't go to war at all against Germany until Hitler declared war on the United States. But it's worth noting that he did so, because Roosevelt, in his eyes, was the chief Agent of the jews. So in other way, the United States did go to war because of murdered jews. But that is because he saw the United States as agents of the Jews.
      - vmception 5y ago