9 ms·

To the assumed question, it was a major port city and the home of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. To the really obvious question the article asks, the second bomb

To the assumed question, it was a major port city and the home of Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. To the really obvious question the article asks, the second bomb shows you can do it again, and you're ready to do it some more. It's a "surrender today" kind of statement.

_8j50 4y ago
Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb. They were so much against surrendering many committed seppuku or regular suicide when it happened and those were regular people. It's very interesting how until recently I grew up and believed the bombings should not have happened. Modern ICBMs and hydrogen bombs are much more scary as is nuclear powers going to war but MAD aside there are situations where a single nuke at a strategic location will save many more lives on both sides of a conflict.but it still doesn't feel right saying it.
- orionion 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    Genuinely curious, how do you square your comment with toddlers and babies dying in the blast. - Do babies and toddlers have strong anti-Christianity sentiments? - Or does an all powerful benevolent compassionate God actually considers babies and toddlers an acceptable collateral damage?
    - lelanthran 4y ago
      > - Or does an all powerful benevolent compassionate God actually considers babies and toddlers an acceptable collateral damage? Have you not actually read a bible or quran? Of course the all-powerful God considers babies and toddlers acceptable sacrifices for the greater good of more worshipers[1]. Not saying that I do, but a significant minority probably does.
  - ginko 4y ago
    That's why you drop an atomic bomb on the oldest church in Japan[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Twenty-Six_Holy_Martyrs_of_Japan_(Nagasaki) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Twenty-Six_Hol...
  - mantas 4y ago
    Karma to Christians for ruining cultures/religions before them? It's damn nice that Japan was able to resist Christianity. Felt really good to walk the cities without seeing much of the big-3...
    - tecleandor 4y ago
      Certainly there are more than I expected anyway, and seems like Christianity is growing among the young this last years (don't know why exactly) "Christian style" weddings are quite popular there, although are usually done only because they look pretty and probably exotic, foreign, or movie like to them. And in fact it's not unusual to do two ceremonies, one Shinto, and another Christian (I've seen it in some friends), with different clothing and everything. IIRC, legally-wise it doesn't matter, they only care about registering the wedding in the city hall, all the ceremony is just for showing. It's quite interesting to see, anyway, the influence we (Spaniards and our Portuguese neighbors) had when the Jesuits and the Franciscans went for doing their proselytism and stuff. I've been told I look "like the Jesuits from the old paintings" (I don't look typically Spanish, I'm tall, pale, big nose and bearded, but maybe that evokes St. Francis Xavier to them...) I'm not religious, but the cultural side really fascinates me, as how did Portuguese and Spanish words ended in their language way before globalization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Japanese_words_of_Portuguese_origin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Japanese_words_o... Edit: a completely different case is South Korea, with around a 30% of Christians...
- dpq 4y ago
  > Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb I don't believe this thought crossed the mind of military planners, even the most pessimistic ones. Japan by mid 1945 was reduced to rubble, with nearly zero serious industrial capacity and under a maritime blockade. I think the best they could do is to continue as a semi-destroyed agrarian society with just enough guns and cold weapons to impose unacceptable casualties on would-be occupants - and in that state they would probably be able to last for quite a while. But obtaining a nuclear weapon of their own was out of the question for Japan.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    You are right, my speculation was unfounded on that.
- cardanome 4y ago
  > Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb. They were so much against surrendering many committed seppuku or regular suicide when it happened and those were regular people. The declaration of war by the Soviet Union decided the end of the war. Japan wouldn't have had time to build their own bomb and they would have surrendered anyway. In fact it is not even proven that the bombings had any meaningful impact to the decisions to surrender. If the Japanese didn't surrender after having whole cities firebombed, it is insane to think the atomic bombings would have had any more impact on moral. The US did not use the atomic bomb for humanitarian reasons, to end the war earlier or other such other lies. They did it a a show of strength, targeted at the Soviets. It is sad that even after so many years, the same propaganda lies get repeated. Why are people still defending the use of the atomic bomb?
  - karmakurtisaani 4y ago
    Perhaps the reason was partially also to make the Japanese surrender to the US, and not have Soviets split Japan as well.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    I concede the argument about them wanting to build their own bomb, you changed my mind a bit. As for the rest, I never said the US had humanitarian intent. But the fact is millions more would have died by firebombing just not instantly like with a nuke. Yes, of course it was a show of strength but also to prevent more US casualties. It just so happened the result of nuking would also mean less japanese casualties as a coincidence. A long protracted campaign would have definetly lead to more casualties. Japan would have never surrendered and allowed an invasion of their land without basically every military aged male fighting to their death. It is not propaganda at all, nukes save lives in some situations but not in most. There is no morality in war, the moment a decision is made that allows for civilian collateral damage it becomes a immoral but the question is what is the alternative and are you the aggressor. Japan was the aggressor and their people would have fought for and willingly supported their emporer whom they consider their god. Ultimately, whatever the casualty on both sides it is the agressor who is responsible. The decision that led to the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki was made by japanese military leadership and emperor. The argument against wmds you and many make naively is that regular people should not be targeted enmasse only as collateral damage. But in war, regardless of the type of government regular people have the responsibility to resist their government that is agressing against a foreign nation. They did not resist the emperor in japan, quite the opposite. As for children it was their parents that made decisinons or indecisions that endangered them. Yes, military targets should be the only targets but the exception is when that means killing a massive portion of your own military who are defending against an agressor. The US government had the responsibility to prioritize US military and civilian lives over any japanese lives because of both countries are sovreign and each is responsible for the safety and security of their people not people of other nations. This works both ways, when you support the US bombing syria or tolerated iraq invasion the US was the agressor and should their people become powerful enough to attack US civilians they are fully justified because it was civiliand that supported the killing of their civilians. You do not get to expect for your own children to go off and die in a war to avoid civilian casualties of a foreign sovreign state that is the agressor in a war and targeted your civilians to begin with. There is no question that had the Japanese or German obtained a nuke they would not hesitate before using it on america cities. It was a means to an end, it is not justifiable nor does it need to be in a war. Killing civilians as an act of agression or genocide is intolerable of course. But avoiding an enemy's civilian casualty is not a priority for a defending military. A large majority of americans thought so after 9/11 and the invasion of afghanistan as well. The Iraq war had popular support as well because americand were afraid they would be targeted by wmds. Here is an analogy that might help reason: If you get in a fight and in defending yourself you kill the other person. The only question is if you had any choice but to fight to defend your life and well being such as running away. If the other person dies you are not a murderer,they killed themselves by acting in agression even though your hand was the cause of death. You have no responsibility to limit your force because your own life is at risk. You don't have to consider what wi happen to that persons family as a result as well (although the law might wrongly sometimes). Nukes aren't special, firebombing and cluster bombs targeted civilians without discriminating. Both sides of WW2 used indiscriminant attacks like that. Nukes just happen to have an immediate and larger scale. It is not mote wrong to kill millions as opposed to hundreds of civilians to acheive a military goal. They are both just as wrong. My argument is, it is a correct decision to prioritize american military and civilian lives because each sovreign state is responsible only for their own people. So if it came down to a war with China for example, using nukes is justified if it means avoiding millions of dead americans, although the US is not a first use nation but i believe China is (could be wrong on this).
- Silverback_VII 4y ago
  We do not know the end game of nukes. Whatever life is "saved" can easily be obliterated further down the line.
- hef19898 4y ago
  That the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war is actually highly disputeable. More general, this weighing of lives, especially the lives that might potentially be saved in the future againstvtaking lives now is an extremely slippery slope. Edit: Both cities were, comparatively, intact at the point the nukes were dropped. e.g. Tokio wouldn't have done any good as it was already completely fire bombed. So Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed to actually get real live data on the effect of two different nukes on actual cities.
  - _8j50 4y ago
    Where is it disputed? I would like to be informed on this. Each time I dig into this, both sides at the time believed millions more would die in resistance of a US invasion. The only way less people will die from not nuking them is if the US was to accept an armistice and avoid invading mainland and hope ina few decades the japanese empire will not go at it again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall# > While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦, ketsugō sakusen) ("Operation Codename Decisive"). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced.[48] The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived".[48] While this was not realistic, both American and Japanese officers at the time predicted a Japanese death toll in the millions
    - hef19898 4y ago
      The damage to Tokio was as big as what the nukes did, tye Japanese didn't surrender. Around the time the nukes dropped the USSR finally declared war on Japan, surrendering to the Western Allies, foremost the US, was much more preferable than ending up split in different occupation zones.
pegasus 4y ago
This article makes a solid case that not only did the US not need to drop the bomb in order to precipitate Japan's capitulation, but that it did so knowing that it's not necessary: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...
- GiorgioG 4y ago
  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
asciiresort 4y ago
> It's a "surrender today" kind of statement And Japan still didn’t.

_8j50 4y ago

Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb. They were so much against surrendering many committed seppuku or regular suicide when it happened and those were regular people. It's very interesting how until recently I grew up and believed the bombings should not have happened. Modern ICBMs and hydrogen bombs are much more scary as is nuclear powers going to war but MAD aside there are situations where a single nuke at a strategic location will save many more lives on both sides of a conflict.but it still doesn't feel right saying it.

orionion 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  Genuinely curious, how do you square your comment with toddlers and babies dying in the blast. - Do babies and toddlers have strong anti-Christianity sentiments? - Or does an all powerful benevolent compassionate God actually considers babies and toddlers an acceptable collateral damage?
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > - Or does an all powerful benevolent compassionate God actually considers babies and toddlers an acceptable collateral damage? Have you not actually read a bible or quran? Of course the all-powerful God considers babies and toddlers acceptable sacrifices for the greater good of more worshipers[1]. Not saying that I do, but a significant minority probably does.
- ginko 4y ago
  That's why you drop an atomic bomb on the oldest church in Japan[1]? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Twenty-Six_Holy_Martyrs_of_Japan_(Nagasaki) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_the_Twenty-Six_Hol...
- mantas 4y ago
  Karma to Christians for ruining cultures/religions before them? It's damn nice that Japan was able to resist Christianity. Felt really good to walk the cities without seeing much of the big-3...
  - tecleandor 4y ago
    Certainly there are more than I expected anyway, and seems like Christianity is growing among the young this last years (don't know why exactly) "Christian style" weddings are quite popular there, although are usually done only because they look pretty and probably exotic, foreign, or movie like to them. And in fact it's not unusual to do two ceremonies, one Shinto, and another Christian (I've seen it in some friends), with different clothing and everything. IIRC, legally-wise it doesn't matter, they only care about registering the wedding in the city hall, all the ceremony is just for showing. It's quite interesting to see, anyway, the influence we (Spaniards and our Portuguese neighbors) had when the Jesuits and the Franciscans went for doing their proselytism and stuff. I've been told I look "like the Jesuits from the old paintings" (I don't look typically Spanish, I'm tall, pale, big nose and bearded, but maybe that evokes St. Francis Xavier to them...) I'm not religious, but the cultural side really fascinates me, as how did Portuguese and Spanish words ended in their language way before globalization. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Japanese_words_of_Portuguese_origin https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_Japanese_words_o... Edit: a completely different case is South Korea, with around a 30% of Christians...
dpq 4y ago
> Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb I don't believe this thought crossed the mind of military planners, even the most pessimistic ones. Japan by mid 1945 was reduced to rubble, with nearly zero serious industrial capacity and under a maritime blockade. I think the best they could do is to continue as a semi-destroyed agrarian society with just enough guns and cold weapons to impose unacceptable casualties on would-be occupants - and in that state they would probably be able to last for quite a while. But obtaining a nuclear weapon of their own was out of the question for Japan.
- _8j50 4y ago
  You are right, my speculation was unfounded on that.
cardanome 4y ago
> Yup, else they might try to decide to wait it out and build their own bomb. They were so much against surrendering many committed seppuku or regular suicide when it happened and those were regular people. The declaration of war by the Soviet Union decided the end of the war. Japan wouldn't have had time to build their own bomb and they would have surrendered anyway. In fact it is not even proven that the bombings had any meaningful impact to the decisions to surrender. If the Japanese didn't surrender after having whole cities firebombed, it is insane to think the atomic bombings would have had any more impact on moral. The US did not use the atomic bomb for humanitarian reasons, to end the war earlier or other such other lies. They did it a a show of strength, targeted at the Soviets. It is sad that even after so many years, the same propaganda lies get repeated. Why are people still defending the use of the atomic bomb?
- karmakurtisaani 4y ago
  Perhaps the reason was partially also to make the Japanese surrender to the US, and not have Soviets split Japan as well.
- _8j50 4y ago
  I concede the argument about them wanting to build their own bomb, you changed my mind a bit. As for the rest, I never said the US had humanitarian intent. But the fact is millions more would have died by firebombing just not instantly like with a nuke. Yes, of course it was a show of strength but also to prevent more US casualties. It just so happened the result of nuking would also mean less japanese casualties as a coincidence. A long protracted campaign would have definetly lead to more casualties. Japan would have never surrendered and allowed an invasion of their land without basically every military aged male fighting to their death. It is not propaganda at all, nukes save lives in some situations but not in most. There is no morality in war, the moment a decision is made that allows for civilian collateral damage it becomes a immoral but the question is what is the alternative and are you the aggressor. Japan was the aggressor and their people would have fought for and willingly supported their emporer whom they consider their god. Ultimately, whatever the casualty on both sides it is the agressor who is responsible. The decision that led to the nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki was made by japanese military leadership and emperor. The argument against wmds you and many make naively is that regular people should not be targeted enmasse only as collateral damage. But in war, regardless of the type of government regular people have the responsibility to resist their government that is agressing against a foreign nation. They did not resist the emperor in japan, quite the opposite. As for children it was their parents that made decisinons or indecisions that endangered them. Yes, military targets should be the only targets but the exception is when that means killing a massive portion of your own military who are defending against an agressor. The US government had the responsibility to prioritize US military and civilian lives over any japanese lives because of both countries are sovreign and each is responsible for the safety and security of their people not people of other nations. This works both ways, when you support the US bombing syria or tolerated iraq invasion the US was the agressor and should their people become powerful enough to attack US civilians they are fully justified because it was civiliand that supported the killing of their civilians. You do not get to expect for your own children to go off and die in a war to avoid civilian casualties of a foreign sovreign state that is the agressor in a war and targeted your civilians to begin with. There is no question that had the Japanese or German obtained a nuke they would not hesitate before using it on america cities. It was a means to an end, it is not justifiable nor does it need to be in a war. Killing civilians as an act of agression or genocide is intolerable of course. But avoiding an enemy's civilian casualty is not a priority for a defending military. A large majority of americans thought so after 9/11 and the invasion of afghanistan as well. The Iraq war had popular support as well because americand were afraid they would be targeted by wmds. Here is an analogy that might help reason: If you get in a fight and in defending yourself you kill the other person. The only question is if you had any choice but to fight to defend your life and well being such as running away. If the other person dies you are not a murderer,they killed themselves by acting in agression even though your hand was the cause of death. You have no responsibility to limit your force because your own life is at risk. You don't have to consider what wi happen to that persons family as a result as well (although the law might wrongly sometimes). Nukes aren't special, firebombing and cluster bombs targeted civilians without discriminating. Both sides of WW2 used indiscriminant attacks like that. Nukes just happen to have an immediate and larger scale. It is not mote wrong to kill millions as opposed to hundreds of civilians to acheive a military goal. They are both just as wrong. My argument is, it is a correct decision to prioritize american military and civilian lives because each sovreign state is responsible only for their own people. So if it came down to a war with China for example, using nukes is justified if it means avoiding millions of dead americans, although the US is not a first use nation but i believe China is (could be wrong on this).
Silverback_VII 4y ago
We do not know the end game of nukes. Whatever life is "saved" can easily be obliterated further down the line.
hef19898 4y ago
That the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortened the war is actually highly disputeable. More general, this weighing of lives, especially the lives that might potentially be saved in the future againstvtaking lives now is an extremely slippery slope. Edit: Both cities were, comparatively, intact at the point the nukes were dropped. e.g. Tokio wouldn't have done any good as it was already completely fire bombed. So Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed to actually get real live data on the effect of two different nukes on actual cities.
- _8j50 4y ago
  Where is it disputed? I would like to be informed on this. Each time I dig into this, both sides at the time believed millions more would die in resistance of a US invasion. The only way less people will die from not nuking them is if the US was to accept an armistice and avoid invading mainland and hope ina few decades the japanese empire will not go at it again. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall# > While Japan no longer had a realistic prospect of winning the war, Japan's leaders believed they could make the cost of invading and occupying the Home Islands too high for the Allies to accept, which would lead to some sort of armistice rather than total defeat. The Japanese plan for defeating the invasion was called Operation Ketsugō (決号作戦, ketsugō sakusen) ("Operation Codename Decisive"). The Japanese planned to commit the entire population of Japan to resisting the invasion, and from June 1945 onward, a propaganda campaign calling for "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" commenced.[48] The main message of "The Glorious Death of One Hundred Million" campaign was that it was "glorious to die for the holy emperor of Japan, and every Japanese man, woman, and child should die for the Emperor when the Allies arrived".[48] While this was not realistic, both American and Japanese officers at the time predicted a Japanese death toll in the millions
  - hef19898 4y ago
    The damage to Tokio was as big as what the nukes did, tye Japanese didn't surrender. Around the time the nukes dropped the USSR finally declared war on Japan, surrendering to the Western Allies, foremost the US, was much more preferable than ending up split in different occupation zones.

pegasus 4y ago

This article makes a solid case that not only did the US not need to drop the bomb in order to precipitate Japan's capitulation, but that it did so knowing that it's not necessary: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-a...

GiorgioG 4y ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

asciiresort 4y ago

> It's a "surrender today" kind of statement And Japan still didn’t.