4 ms·

Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. So it's not quite a matter of

Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. So it's not quite a matter of "A-bomb good". Plenty of Americans alive today lived through the Cold War too, and spent years or decades in low-level fear of nuclear war. It's not quite as simple as "nukes good therefore no criticism of nukes in movie". Part of the interest in things like the Manhattan Project is the grim context of what happened next, and of the alluring eeriness of radiation and nuclear weapons in general.

judge2020 3y ago
> Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. Or, at least, less loss of American life. If The United Kingdom had not consented to the bombs and they were shelved, what are the chances the U.S. would've lost e.g. 50,000 and Japan 150,000 before surrender?
- networkchad 3y ago
  Do you really believe the consent of UK was a real gating decision? Lol. I chalk that one up purely to diplomatic nice-ness.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- adastra22 3y ago
  The war department was planning for 500,000 American deaths and millions of Japanese. The Purple Hearts ordered for the invasion of Japan are still being given out today.
- Shawnj2 3y ago
  Imperial Japan was pretty much fanatically supportive of war. I’m not saying the bombings were justified but the war would have been a lot longer without it and would have almost certainly been a lot deadlier on both sides.
cubefox 3y ago
Yes, but the American views about specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem different from most other countries, or at least from Japan. Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes, while this is uncommon in the US. This probably influenced how "Oppenheimer" handled the matter. (A comparison would perhaps be the difference between a Russian and a Polish film about the Sowjet invasion of Poland. The history here is viewed very differently in the Russian/Polish public.)
- adastra22 3y ago
  Maybe because a lot of our grandfathers lived through the war because they didn’t have to invade the home islands of Japan. So the “lives saved” argument is a little more visceral when I wouldn’t even exist today if it weren’t for the atom bomb.
  - boomboomsubban 3y ago
    I detest how the event is always portrayed as "either nuke two cities, or launch a complete invasion of Japan." At no point are other options considers, such as nuking another target or a start of peace talks rather than only an acceptance of a vague "unconditional surrender."
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      It’s a complex event. Those were the high level options, which remove the political factors. In the context of being in the middle of bombing campaigns of cities, the moral turpitude of mass killing of people was long pushed aside. Total war meant everyone was part of the war effort. So you’re left with a couple of factors. The prospect of invasion, the likelihood of getting a peaceful settlement, and the prospect of Soviet involvement. Bombing and starvation wasn’t working fast enough to cause the intransigent military junta to bend. I think the idea was that the shock of atomic bombing would empower the collapse of the government, and cow the Soviets. At the end, they came to the table, and the US accepted a conditional surrender. Personally, I think if folks are going to be intellectually honest about the atomic bombings, you have to have the same position and advocacy for scaled destruction of cities in general. The firestorms, created by napalm and phosphorus and inflicted on Tokyo, Dresden and Hamburg among others were no less a horror. Decrying the tool allows people to explain away from the context. A more efficient killing machine doesn’t make the killing any more or less righteous. I think the Japanese perspective of this has been around embracing the pursuit of peace. A worthy goal that we’ve abandoned.

judge2020 3y ago

> Americans are often taught that the bombings resulted in less loss of life than a conventional land invasion of the home islands. Or, at least, less loss of American life. If The United Kingdom had not consented to the bombs and they were shelved, what are the chances the U.S. would've lost e.g. 50,000 and Japan 150,000 before surrender?

networkchad 3y ago
Do you really believe the consent of UK was a real gating decision? Lol. I chalk that one up purely to diplomatic nice-ness.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
adastra22 3y ago
The war department was planning for 500,000 American deaths and millions of Japanese. The Purple Hearts ordered for the invasion of Japan are still being given out today.
Shawnj2 3y ago
Imperial Japan was pretty much fanatically supportive of war. I’m not saying the bombings were justified but the war would have been a lot longer without it and would have almost certainly been a lot deadlier on both sides.

cubefox 3y ago

Yes, but the American views about specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem different from most other countries, or at least from Japan. Outside the US it is quite common to view the bombings as war crimes, while this is uncommon in the US. This probably influenced how "Oppenheimer" handled the matter. (A comparison would perhaps be the difference between a Russian and a Polish film about the Sowjet invasion of Poland. The history here is viewed very differently in the Russian/Polish public.)

adastra22 3y ago
Maybe because a lot of our grandfathers lived through the war because they didn’t have to invade the home islands of Japan. So the “lives saved” argument is a little more visceral when I wouldn’t even exist today if it weren’t for the atom bomb.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  I detest how the event is always portrayed as "either nuke two cities, or launch a complete invasion of Japan." At no point are other options considers, such as nuking another target or a start of peace talks rather than only an acceptance of a vague "unconditional surrender."
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    It’s a complex event. Those were the high level options, which remove the political factors. In the context of being in the middle of bombing campaigns of cities, the moral turpitude of mass killing of people was long pushed aside. Total war meant everyone was part of the war effort. So you’re left with a couple of factors. The prospect of invasion, the likelihood of getting a peaceful settlement, and the prospect of Soviet involvement. Bombing and starvation wasn’t working fast enough to cause the intransigent military junta to bend. I think the idea was that the shock of atomic bombing would empower the collapse of the government, and cow the Soviets. At the end, they came to the table, and the US accepted a conditional surrender. Personally, I think if folks are going to be intellectually honest about the atomic bombings, you have to have the same position and advocacy for scaled destruction of cities in general. The firestorms, created by napalm and phosphorus and inflicted on Tokyo, Dresden and Hamburg among others were no less a horror. Decrying the tool allows people to explain away from the context. A more efficient killing machine doesn’t make the killing any more or less righteous. I think the Japanese perspective of this has been around embracing the pursuit of peace. A worthy goal that we’ve abandoned.