5 ms·

Imagine if the US had developed them one year earlier. Would we have used them against Germany rather than lose 100k people in a land invasion? Would the indisc

Imagine if the US had developed them one year earlier. Would we have used them against Germany rather than lose 100k people in a land invasion? Would the indiscriminate use of nuclear weapons become the norm? There are worse nations and leaders throughout history who would have destroyed the world if they had the same tech. Of course I'm speaking from an American bias. I should add that I personally find the use of nuclear weapons against Japan unnecessary and immoral.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hedora 5y ago
The US probably would have done something similar a year earlier. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a tech demo for the benefit of the Russians. It was certainly immoral (and racist) but saved many more foreign lives than it cost. As bad as Hitler was, the Russians killed orders of magnitude more civilians in that war, and were ready to launch into the rest of Europe after Berlin fell. Unless they changed tactics, they would have run scorched earth campaigns in Western Europe, and Hitler's concentration camps would just be a footnote in most history texts. Edit: Also, if you haven't seen it, watch Grave of the Fireflies. The US did far worse things to Japan than nuking it. There's a reason the Japanese surrendered well before the nukes.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  ??? Japan surrendered after the nukes.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    People make crazy claims like this all the time lol. They didn't surrender before the nukes or the US government would have been ravaged in the history books. It would have taken a huge invasion force of the USA in order to take Japan and at least 10s of thousands dead on both sides, if not hundreds of thousands. The US would have bombed the entire country into rubble instead of two cities.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      US had already made Dresden-scale firestorms in, what, 25 cities IIRC. Military command didn't care. Just blockading the country would have forced a full surrender, soon, as lack of fuel would shut down industry. Ultimately, using the atomic bombs was an attention-getting device. The attention of Russia was as important as of the Japanese generals and emperor.
    - hedora 5y ago
      The Japanese surrendered before the nukes. The US claimed the message was lost in transit. A decade or so ago, the relevant stuff was declassified. We got the message. The president decided to go forward with the nukes anyway. We had approximately 1.5 bombs, without more on the way, so it was a massive bluff. Knowing Japan would fold immediately after the bombings was a huge advantage. Edit: the communications I'm referring to were via closed diplomatic channels. The public surrender announcement and face saving came later.
      - stjohnswarts 5y ago
        That is not true by any history I've read about it, and I've read a lot. It would been widely known. It's a conspiracy. Do you have proof of this or just some hearsay from "a high level source" ? Lots of people claim this stuff but never present solid evidence or documents that are verifiable.
        hedora 5y ago
        During one of the recent declassifications, '05? '15?, reputable national US news networks said the new documents proved the US knew Japan was attempting to surrender before the bomb was dropped. This page is at an .edu, and is more ambiguous on the issue, saying it is an open question, and as of 2020 still being debated. It seems to link to databases of primary sources: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2020-08-04/atomic-bomb-end-world-war-ii https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2020-0...
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        This very interesting! Pointing to a reliable source would be most welcome. The overwhelming majority of things that happened are not widely known. That is necessarily how reality is.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hedora 5y ago

The US probably would have done something similar a year earlier. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a tech demo for the benefit of the Russians. It was certainly immoral (and racist) but saved many more foreign lives than it cost. As bad as Hitler was, the Russians killed orders of magnitude more civilians in that war, and were ready to launch into the rest of Europe after Berlin fell. Unless they changed tactics, they would have run scorched earth campaigns in Western Europe, and Hitler's concentration camps would just be a footnote in most history texts. Edit: Also, if you haven't seen it, watch Grave of the Fireflies. The US did far worse things to Japan than nuking it. There's a reason the Japanese surrendered well before the nukes.

ncmncm 5y ago
??? Japan surrendered after the nukes.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  People make crazy claims like this all the time lol. They didn't surrender before the nukes or the US government would have been ravaged in the history books. It would have taken a huge invasion force of the USA in order to take Japan and at least 10s of thousands dead on both sides, if not hundreds of thousands. The US would have bombed the entire country into rubble instead of two cities.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    US had already made Dresden-scale firestorms in, what, 25 cities IIRC. Military command didn't care. Just blockading the country would have forced a full surrender, soon, as lack of fuel would shut down industry. Ultimately, using the atomic bombs was an attention-getting device. The attention of Russia was as important as of the Japanese generals and emperor.
  - hedora 5y ago
    The Japanese surrendered before the nukes. The US claimed the message was lost in transit. A decade or so ago, the relevant stuff was declassified. We got the message. The president decided to go forward with the nukes anyway. We had approximately 1.5 bombs, without more on the way, so it was a massive bluff. Knowing Japan would fold immediately after the bombings was a huge advantage. Edit: the communications I'm referring to were via closed diplomatic channels. The public surrender announcement and face saving came later.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      That is not true by any history I've read about it, and I've read a lot. It would been widely known. It's a conspiracy. Do you have proof of this or just some hearsay from "a high level source" ? Lots of people claim this stuff but never present solid evidence or documents that are verifiable.
      - hedora 5y ago
        During one of the recent declassifications, '05? '15?, reputable national US news networks said the new documents proved the US knew Japan was attempting to surrender before the bomb was dropped. This page is at an .edu, and is more ambiguous on the issue, saying it is an open question, and as of 2020 still being debated. It seems to link to databases of primary sources: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2020-08-04/atomic-bomb-end-world-war-ii https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2020-0...
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      This very interesting! Pointing to a reliable source would be most welcome. The overwhelming majority of things that happened are not widely known. That is necessarily how reality is.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]