3 ms·

This debate comes up again and again, but basically, that's a false dichotomy. The bombs could and should have been used in many other ways, not only as a surpr

This debate comes up again and again, but basically, that's a false dichotomy. The bombs could and should have been used in many other ways, not only as a surprise attack on a civilian population center, which left so few surviving witnesses that the Japanese leadership had little idea what even happened. If the goal is to force a surrender as quickly as possible, you send plenty of advance notice, invite official witnesses, say "observe, we're about to demonstrate how a single airplane can blow up an unpopulated island of your choice; consider the terms of your surrender in the meantime. If we don't hear back from you, the next one strikes a city of our choice." Or something to that extent. Of course, those kinds of decisions are way above the pay-grade of a bomber crew. So again, I certainly don't fault them. But it also feels kind of weird to treat them like celebrities.

jacobsenscott 3y ago
The problem with that is you would be telling Japan where your bomber would be and at what time. So they would just thank you for the heads up and shoot it down.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  I don't think they would shoot down a demonstration for their own military observers on an unpopulated island. That would be only to their own detriment.
  - jacobsenscott 3y ago
    Let's image Japan said to the US "Hey - pick an unpopulated area of your country, and keep an eye on it at noon on Thursday - we're going to nuke it to help you decide to surrender." The entire concept is absurd.
    - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
      Why is it absurd? Do you still think they'd shoot down a demonstration of top-secret enemy technology staged for their own intelligence benefit?
qthrowaway 3y ago
Maybe. I think it's more complicated than that. And there were leaflets dropped to warn about the fire bombings. There might've been leaflets for the atomic bombings too. https://time.com/4142857/wwii-leaflets-japan/ https://time.com/4142857/wwii-leaflets-japan/ https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/warning-leaflets/ https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/warning-leaf... The fire bombing of Tokyo, which was the deadliest of the entire war (including Europe) and happened in March, didn't convince the Japanese government to give up. The Atomic bombs dropped in August and there was plenty of bombing in between. I think most historians agree it was really the Soviet Union entering the war which finally created a good enough consensus for Japan to surrender. Even then there were plenty that wanted to keep going. Even in hindsight it's very hard to say what the right answer was, which is why it's still debated even today. Probably there was no right answer.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  If it was the USSR cancelling their peace treaty with Japan that forced their surrender, which I agree is plausible, then that only seems to further make the atomic bombings less worthy of honour.
  - qthrowaway 3y ago
    Perhaps, but the USSR declared war on Aug 7. Hiroshima was Aug 6. Japan surrendered Sept 2. Also consider. The USSR declared on Aug 7 because they wanted to get their bite out of Japan before it was too late. So in some sense the bomb hastened their entry, which hastened the end of the war... All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not the one who had to make these decisions in real time.
CamperBob2 3y ago
People who have to be nuked twice to get them to surrender are not likely to surrender after an uninhabited island is nuked once. Keep in mind that we had already conducted firebombing raids on Tokyo and Dresden that did a comparable amount of damage, inflicted comparable loss of life, and carried comparable moral and ethical implications. At the time, the only thing special or unusual about the atomic bomb was that it required only one airplane to deliver. It wasn't yet an item of totemic significance.
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  Yes, I wouldn't buy memorabilia signed by a firebombing flight crew either.
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    (Shrug) War is hell. The only winning move is not to start one. The second-best move, if you still insist on starting one, is to do it by bombing somebody else's harbor.
    - namaria 3y ago
      War is not hell. There's no innocents in hell.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

jacobsenscott 3y ago

The problem with that is you would be telling Japan where your bomber would be and at what time. So they would just thank you for the heads up and shoot it down.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
I don't think they would shoot down a demonstration for their own military observers on an unpopulated island. That would be only to their own detriment.
- jacobsenscott 3y ago
  Let's image Japan said to the US "Hey - pick an unpopulated area of your country, and keep an eye on it at noon on Thursday - we're going to nuke it to help you decide to surrender." The entire concept is absurd.
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    Why is it absurd? Do you still think they'd shoot down a demonstration of top-secret enemy technology staged for their own intelligence benefit?

qthrowaway 3y ago

Maybe. I think it's more complicated than that. And there were leaflets dropped to warn about the fire bombings. There might've been leaflets for the atomic bombings too. https://time.com/4142857/wwii-leaflets-japan/ https://time.com/4142857/wwii-leaflets-japan/ https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/warning-leaflets/ https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/warning-leaf... The fire bombing of Tokyo, which was the deadliest of the entire war (including Europe) and happened in March, didn't convince the Japanese government to give up. The Atomic bombs dropped in August and there was plenty of bombing in between. I think most historians agree it was really the Soviet Union entering the war which finally created a good enough consensus for Japan to surrender. Even then there were plenty that wanted to keep going. Even in hindsight it's very hard to say what the right answer was, which is why it's still debated even today. Probably there was no right answer.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
If it was the USSR cancelling their peace treaty with Japan that forced their surrender, which I agree is plausible, then that only seems to further make the atomic bombings less worthy of honour.
- qthrowaway 3y ago
  Perhaps, but the USSR declared war on Aug 7. Hiroshima was Aug 6. Japan surrendered Sept 2. Also consider. The USSR declared on Aug 7 because they wanted to get their bite out of Japan before it was too late. So in some sense the bomb hastened their entry, which hastened the end of the war... All I can say is, I'm glad I'm not the one who had to make these decisions in real time.

CamperBob2 3y ago

People who have to be nuked twice to get them to surrender are not likely to surrender after an uninhabited island is nuked once. Keep in mind that we had already conducted firebombing raids on Tokyo and Dresden that did a comparable amount of damage, inflicted comparable loss of life, and carried comparable moral and ethical implications. At the time, the only thing special or unusual about the atomic bomb was that it required only one airplane to deliver. It wasn't yet an item of totemic significance.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
Yes, I wouldn't buy memorabilia signed by a firebombing flight crew either.
- CamperBob2 3y ago
  (Shrug) War is hell. The only winning move is not to start one. The second-best move, if you still insist on starting one, is to do it by bombing somebody else's harbor.
  - namaria 3y ago
    War is not hell. There's no innocents in hell.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]