3 ms·

I think it would be more accurate to say that the US government notified Japanese government but nobody expected the warning to be taken seriously. I personall

I think it would be more accurate to say that the US government notified Japanese government but nobody expected the warning to be taken seriously. I personally believe doing this is morally no different from just dropping the bomb without warning. Because nobody expected the warning to be taken seriously. Because there was no precedent, because the bomb was developed in complete secrecy, because there was no proof or demonstration to the Japanese government that the claim is real for them to take it seriously. It is essentially just looking for an excuse for your actions without really honestly trying to avoid using the bomb and deter your enemy. There is a lot alternative ways US could use those bombs without dropping them on densely populated areas. They could drop it on an unpopulated area and tell "we have more of these". They could drop it on any military installation or grouping of forces that is a bit further away from a populated city. They could explain they have the bomb and invite a representative for a demonstration. At this point Japan had no capability to prevent US from overflying its territory so it is not like Japanese could do anything to prevent the bomb dropped. Knowing a bomb so powerful was developed and ready they would have no choice but surrender. Instead US chose to send a signal to everybody at the cost of tens of thousand of lives that were lost only for the purpose of making that signal so much more powerful. Telling Japanese to evacuate was really completely meaningless move with no moral implications.

brigandish 4y ago
> At this point Japan had no capability to prevent US from overflying its territory so it is not like Japanese could do anything to prevent the bomb dropped. Knowing a bomb so powerful was developed and ready they would have no choice but surrender. The counter argument would be that, if what you have written is true, then Japan would've surrendered before the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki. The surrender didn't happen till days after the second bomb, an invasion by the Soviets, and a coup d'état that, if it had succeeded, would've meant no surrender at all. Some of the "big six" in command of Japan's forces were either so delusional to think they could still win regardless of the situation, or that they didn't mind fighting until obliteration came. They were not rational actors.
- stametseater 4y ago
  > after the second bomb [...] a coup d'état that, if it had succeeded, would've meant no surrender at all I'm glad to see this brought up. This is almost always left out of these discussions, lead or influenced by people who are sympathetic to Japan or critical of America, including most American public school teachers. Awareness of this coup is almost nonexistent in America among those who profess to know something about Japanese willingness to surrender. After the SECOND atomic bomb was dropped, there were still many in the leadership of the IJA that didn't want to surrender and made a real attempt to prevent it, even managing to place the Emperor under house arrest. The only reason they failed is because the surrender message was smuggled out of the building and they didn't have a critical mass of men willing to go along with the coup, but that was after two cities were subjected to atomic bombing. Those saying things like "oh America was so mean, they should have just demonstrated the bombs on the ocean or something" are naive and mislead. Even after personally witnessing the severe and prolonged fire bombing of Tokyo, IJA officers in Tokyo weren't ready to surrender. In fact 'strategic bombing' has never ended a war, with the exception of those two atomic bombs. You can firebomb a city to charred rubble and it will only strengthen their resolve to fight. Only the psychological shock of single bombs gutting cities was able to have this effect.
  - twawaaay 4y ago
    From a purely moral point of view, I don't think the morality of the decision to drop bombs on cities is in any way influenced by what actually happened after. It is only influenced by what happen up to this point and knowledge allies had at that time. Hindsight is 20/20. We do know that it was expected that Japanese will be fighting to the bitter end and it will be difficult to get them to capitulate. But it is not possible to predict the future exactly -- who is to say that the same course of action could not happen after a powerful demonstration without actually dropping bombs on large cities? If you start taking future as excuse for the past you could come to some extreme conclusions.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      I didn't refer to morality. What I did do was point out that your reasoning was faulty given the facts.

brigandish 4y ago

> At this point Japan had no capability to prevent US from overflying its territory so it is not like Japanese could do anything to prevent the bomb dropped. Knowing a bomb so powerful was developed and ready they would have no choice but surrender. The counter argument would be that, if what you have written is true, then Japan would've surrendered before the dropping of the second bomb on Nagasaki. The surrender didn't happen till days after the second bomb, an invasion by the Soviets, and a coup d'état that, if it had succeeded, would've meant no surrender at all. Some of the "big six" in command of Japan's forces were either so delusional to think they could still win regardless of the situation, or that they didn't mind fighting until obliteration came. They were not rational actors.

stametseater 4y ago
> after the second bomb [...] a coup d'état that, if it had succeeded, would've meant no surrender at all I'm glad to see this brought up. This is almost always left out of these discussions, lead or influenced by people who are sympathetic to Japan or critical of America, including most American public school teachers. Awareness of this coup is almost nonexistent in America among those who profess to know something about Japanese willingness to surrender. After the SECOND atomic bomb was dropped, there were still many in the leadership of the IJA that didn't want to surrender and made a real attempt to prevent it, even managing to place the Emperor under house arrest. The only reason they failed is because the surrender message was smuggled out of the building and they didn't have a critical mass of men willing to go along with the coup, but that was after two cities were subjected to atomic bombing. Those saying things like "oh America was so mean, they should have just demonstrated the bombs on the ocean or something" are naive and mislead. Even after personally witnessing the severe and prolonged fire bombing of Tokyo, IJA officers in Tokyo weren't ready to surrender. In fact 'strategic bombing' has never ended a war, with the exception of those two atomic bombs. You can firebomb a city to charred rubble and it will only strengthen their resolve to fight. Only the psychological shock of single bombs gutting cities was able to have this effect.
- twawaaay 4y ago
  From a purely moral point of view, I don't think the morality of the decision to drop bombs on cities is in any way influenced by what actually happened after. It is only influenced by what happen up to this point and knowledge allies had at that time. Hindsight is 20/20. We do know that it was expected that Japanese will be fighting to the bitter end and it will be difficult to get them to capitulate. But it is not possible to predict the future exactly -- who is to say that the same course of action could not happen after a powerful demonstration without actually dropping bombs on large cities? If you start taking future as excuse for the past you could come to some extreme conclusions.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    I didn't refer to morality. What I did do was point out that your reasoning was faulty given the facts.