3 ms·

I am listening to the Oppenheimer biography and was surprised to learn we were much closer to a surrender than I had known. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/sto

• refurb 3y ago
  The thing that blows a hole in this alternative view of history is that it took two bombs to get Japan to surrender. The militarists who controlled the government were bombed on Aug 6, 1945. Within 24 hours it was understood the magnitude of the destruction (they had their own atomic program) and loss of life. Then they sat down and asked "Is it time to surrender now?" and the answer was "no". Indeed even after the 2nd bombing on August 9, 1945 and the news of the Soviet Invasion, the War Council met and the decision was "senior leadership of the Japanese Army took the news in stride, grossly underestimating the scale of the attack. With the support of Minister of War Anami, they started preparing to impose martial law on the nation, to stop anyone attempting to make peace." It was only after other intercede with the Emperor was capitulation seriously discussed. I'm not sure how anyone could look at that and think "Yeah, Japan was on the cusp of surrendering before the atomic bombs". And the alternatives to the atomic weapons were no less grisly. A potential invasion by the USSR and US, with how many loss in lives? Iwo Jima alone cost 25,000 American and Japanese lives. And even if we decided to just blockade, how many Japanese civilians would have starved to death before the government capitulated? There were no good options, only "least worst", and the atomic bombs would at least bring the war to quick end.