6 ms·

But that is taking a hindsight view on things. The U.S. planners had no real access to the thoughts of these people, and from their perspective, one gained by t

But that is taking a hindsight view on things. The U.S. planners had no real access to the thoughts of these people, and from their perspective, one gained by the island-by-island battles like Saipan, both the Japanese military and civilian populations seemed to be determined to fight (or commit suicide) to the last man, woman, and child. There was no sign to the outside world that without something drastic changing that surrender was something they were approaching. I do agree that after the firebombing talked about here that I don't see a huge change caused by atomic weapons (more efficient ways of dealing mass death than what we were already doing with more effort), but it seems that both sides felt that it did change things. So without having insight that we are not sure of even with the benefit of hindsight, I am not sure I can fault those in charge for thinking this might save lives (Japanese as well as American). Note: I don't give credit for that sort of thinking to Curtis LeMay; he was just in it to kill the enemy faster (i.e.: a psychopath).

myrmidon 5y ago
I'm not criticizing the choice to drop the nukes, I'm disputing the opinion that the nukes were necessary/helpful to "save lives" (WITH the benefit of hindsight). I can see how that belief is appealing, but from what I know the facts do not really support it and the truth is more inconvenient.
- drran 5y ago
  Can you lay out your opinion and arguments? «Nuclear bombing was used not to end the war and save lives, but for ... because ...»
  - myrmidon 5y ago
    Nuclear bombing was not necessary to win the war, nor to effect a surrender of Japan by the end of 1945 (without a costly ground invasion). Of course this is clearer in retrospect.
    - drran 5y ago
      So, nuclear bombing was used to end the war and save lives, but these lives were unnecessary. :-/
bootlooped 5y ago
But what was clear to US command at the time was that the Imperial Japanese war machine had been thoroughly crushed by August 1945. They had been on a non-stop losing streak since Midway. What was the remaining risk to the US? What was the chance there was going to be another Pearl Harbor like event at that point? About as close to zero as possible. That's one of the main things that makes it feel hard to justify further mass killing of civilians. What if Japan has just never surrendered? Would that have been justification to drop an atomic bomb on every civilian population center one after another?
- mrighele 5y ago
  > What if Japan has just never surrendered? I think in some way Afghanistan is an example of what could have happened if Japan never surrendered: years of insurgency, loss of life on both sides, and maybe after twenty years the USA, having had enough, would have left the country. I think that in the end it worked better for Japanese than Afghans, although some the latter can boast to have beaten the American.
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    Afghanistan is low level conflict for a while. Japan was a modern army hell bent on taking attrition on the invaders. In Japan its very unlikely to work out anything like Afghanistan. Once the Japan government was defeated, its unlikely you would have seen a popular insurgency in Japan. And in Japan an island dominated by allied navies such efforts cold not be sustained anyway.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      That actually was a serious concern, both to the US and to the Japanese government itself. If the Emperor and the military leaders had been killed, there was no one who could legitimately order the remaining military to surrender. And the Japanese Army was not small at the end of the war (https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/there-are-no-civilians-japan https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/there-are-no-...). In addition to the military in Japan (900,000 on Kyushu to oppose US landings), there were something like 1,500,000 in China, Burma, and Southeast Asia. The result could have been "warlord" led militaries seeking to establish their own territories and fighting with others. Not unlike Afghanistan or China in the 1920s and 1930s, or some other failed states around the world.
worik 5y ago
I looked Curtis Le May up. The wiki quotes him as saying: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX61.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX61....) Did not stop him doing it to North Korea and he was unable to get WWIII off the ground, thank goodness. Some redemption for his role in the Berlin airlift. Particularly for passing the job over to one better qualified. A complex character - I wanted to find a psychopath, but simply a mass murderer.

myrmidon 5y ago

I'm not criticizing the choice to drop the nukes, I'm disputing the opinion that the nukes were necessary/helpful to "save lives" (WITH the benefit of hindsight). I can see how that belief is appealing, but from what I know the facts do not really support it and the truth is more inconvenient.

drran 5y ago
Can you lay out your opinion and arguments? «Nuclear bombing was used not to end the war and save lives, but for ... because ...»
- myrmidon 5y ago
  Nuclear bombing was not necessary to win the war, nor to effect a surrender of Japan by the end of 1945 (without a costly ground invasion). Of course this is clearer in retrospect.
  - drran 5y ago
    So, nuclear bombing was used to end the war and save lives, but these lives were unnecessary. :-/

bootlooped 5y ago

But what was clear to US command at the time was that the Imperial Japanese war machine had been thoroughly crushed by August 1945. They had been on a non-stop losing streak since Midway. What was the remaining risk to the US? What was the chance there was going to be another Pearl Harbor like event at that point? About as close to zero as possible. That's one of the main things that makes it feel hard to justify further mass killing of civilians. What if Japan has just never surrendered? Would that have been justification to drop an atomic bomb on every civilian population center one after another?

mrighele 5y ago
> What if Japan has just never surrendered? I think in some way Afghanistan is an example of what could have happened if Japan never surrendered: years of insurgency, loss of life on both sides, and maybe after twenty years the USA, having had enough, would have left the country. I think that in the end it worked better for Japanese than Afghans, although some the latter can boast to have beaten the American.
- panick21_ 5y ago
  Afghanistan is low level conflict for a while. Japan was a modern army hell bent on taking attrition on the invaders. In Japan its very unlikely to work out anything like Afghanistan. Once the Japan government was defeated, its unlikely you would have seen a popular insurgency in Japan. And in Japan an island dominated by allied navies such efforts cold not be sustained anyway.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    That actually was a serious concern, both to the US and to the Japanese government itself. If the Emperor and the military leaders had been killed, there was no one who could legitimately order the remaining military to surrender. And the Japanese Army was not small at the end of the war (https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/there-are-no-civilians-japan https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/there-are-no-...). In addition to the military in Japan (900,000 on Kyushu to oppose US landings), there were something like 1,500,000 in China, Burma, and Southeast Asia. The result could have been "warlord" led militaries seeking to establish their own territories and fighting with others. Not unlike Afghanistan or China in the 1920s and 1930s, or some other failed states around the world.

worik 5y ago

I looked Curtis Le May up. The wiki quotes him as saying: "I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal."(https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX61.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/peopleevents/pandeAMEX61....) Did not stop him doing it to North Korea and he was unable to get WWIII off the ground, thank goodness. Some redemption for his role in the Berlin airlift. Particularly for passing the job over to one better qualified. A complex character - I wanted to find a psychopath, but simply a mass murderer.