5 ms·

The Allies would have won without the superweapon though (remember, Hitler had already surrended and Japan was clearly on the ropes well before Hiroshima), and

The Allies would have won without the superweapon though (remember, Hitler had already surrended and Japan was clearly on the ropes well before Hiroshima), and the jury is still out in whether it even sped things up.

hughesjj 3y ago
I always saw the atomic bomb as more of a defensive rather than offensive tactic. We were super worried about the Germans getting there first and wanted to ensure we could respond in kind of they did
- LtWorf 3y ago
  And then germany surrendered and it was still dropped. Twice. Doesn't hold.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    Japan was never going to surrender. They were going to fight until the end. More lives would have been lost. The bomb saved lives.
    - dimask 3y ago
      It was really aimed at "allies" (soviet union), not japan.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        We had really, really bad aim if those two nukes were aimed at the Soviet Union.
    - LtWorf 3y ago
      allegedly
      - Staple_Diet 3y ago
        You either have no knowledge of the topic or have some secret source of information that has evaded the world's historians, because it is a fairly acknowledged fact supported by both Allied and Japanese sources. Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb was dropped.
        kevindamm 3y ago
        I think there's nuance here that gets lost in the retelling. From what I learned of it in a university course dedicated to many aspects of the topic of that bomb, there was a demand of /unconditional/ surrender but Japan wanted to keep their emperor. The emperor was really more of a cultural and spiritual persona than a political one, but regardless the US gov't. insisted on an unconditional surrender, including dethroning the emperor. I think there was an offer of surrender by the Japanese if they could keep their emperor. I don't have proof handy and I'm not inclined to dive down that particular rabbit hole right now so I hope someone can support or correct this.
        Skgqie1 3y ago
        I vaguely recall hearing something similar, with the reasoning being that there was a fear of future hostility enabled by Emperor driven fanaticism. That said, I've also heard that there wasn't really enough time given for a response after the first bomb, and that it was largely a political move to claim they'd offered an initial surrender - and that the goal was always to drop two bombs, partly because they wanted to test out different aspects of their designs.
WalterBright 3y ago
It clearly sped things up. "Downfall" by Richard Frank https://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461 https://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire... "Code-Name Downfall" by Thomas Allen https://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Downfall-Secret-Japan-Dropped/dp/0684804069/ https://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Downfall-Secret-Japan-Dropp...
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  im not buying books to understand your point. summarize those please
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    The second bomb convinced the Japanese to immediately surrender.
    - resolutebat 3y ago
      It took 5 days from the 2nd bomb to surrender, and many historians think the Soviet Union's simultaneous declaration of war was a more significant factor.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        This theory is debunked by the two books, written by two different historians, which go into it in great detail. The second bomb made it clear that the first one was not a one-off, and that the US was going to nuke the cities one by one. The Japanese also had intelligence (that turned out to be false) that Tokyo was the next target. I've read a couple accounts by anti-nuclear activists who held that the USSR was the reason for the surrender, but if you compare those accounts with the ones written by historians, the former are crackpots. An invasion of Japan would be an absolutely massive operation (see D-Day) and the USSR was in no position to mount one.
        3y ago
_heimdall 3y ago
The has been a ton of debate since the war over whether Japan would have surrendered, and if so how early. The concern at the time, and it has always seemed reasonable to me, was that the Japanese were committed to fighting to the last person and to make them surrender through combat on their home turf would have killed many, many more than the two nukes did. I don't raise that as justification and personally wish we were never stupid enough as a species to build such a weapon, but we tend to be that stupid. I do, though, agree that we likely would have lost more people on both sides and for Japan that number still would have included a large number of civilians.
- PolygonSheep 3y ago
  I agree, it was totally reasonable and worth it.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    Oh I didn't meant to imply that I personally see the nukes as having been reasonable or worth it. Frankly, I don't know how one could ever make the decision that killing 100,000 is "worth it" and I hope I never have to. Personally I think we should never have tried to invent the nuclear bomb to begin with, avoiding the decision entirely. I understand the whole "but then the enemy would have it first" argument, I just don't buy it. Sure, maybe the "enemy" would go on to invent it but that's a burden they'll have to bear. Sometimes standing on principle includes dying on principle, we seem to have lost the importance of all that along the way. I chalk that up to the increase rate of invention making it too scary to take a step back, even for a moment, to decide whether we should do something that we know we can do.

hughesjj 3y ago

I always saw the atomic bomb as more of a defensive rather than offensive tactic. We were super worried about the Germans getting there first and wanted to ensure we could respond in kind of they did

LtWorf 3y ago
And then germany surrendered and it was still dropped. Twice. Doesn't hold.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Japan was never going to surrender. They were going to fight until the end. More lives would have been lost. The bomb saved lives.
  - dimask 3y ago
    It was really aimed at "allies" (soviet union), not japan.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      We had really, really bad aim if those two nukes were aimed at the Soviet Union.
  - LtWorf 3y ago
    allegedly
    - Staple_Diet 3y ago
      You either have no knowledge of the topic or have some secret source of information that has evaded the world's historians, because it is a fairly acknowledged fact supported by both Allied and Japanese sources. Japan didn't even surrender after the first bomb was dropped.
      - kevindamm 3y ago
        I think there's nuance here that gets lost in the retelling. From what I learned of it in a university course dedicated to many aspects of the topic of that bomb, there was a demand of /unconditional/ surrender but Japan wanted to keep their emperor. The emperor was really more of a cultural and spiritual persona than a political one, but regardless the US gov't. insisted on an unconditional surrender, including dethroning the emperor. I think there was an offer of surrender by the Japanese if they could keep their emperor. I don't have proof handy and I'm not inclined to dive down that particular rabbit hole right now so I hope someone can support or correct this.
        Skgqie1 3y ago
        I vaguely recall hearing something similar, with the reasoning being that there was a fear of future hostility enabled by Emperor driven fanaticism. That said, I've also heard that there wasn't really enough time given for a response after the first bomb, and that it was largely a political move to claim they'd offered an initial surrender - and that the goal was always to drop two bombs, partly because they wanted to test out different aspects of their designs.

WalterBright 3y ago

It clearly sped things up. "Downfall" by Richard Frank https://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire/dp/0141001461 https://www.amazon.com/Downfall-End-Imperial-Japanese-Empire... "Code-Name Downfall" by Thomas Allen https://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Downfall-Secret-Japan-Dropped/dp/0684804069/ https://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Downfall-Secret-Japan-Dropp...

red-iron-pine 3y ago
im not buying books to understand your point. summarize those please
- WalterBright 3y ago
  The second bomb convinced the Japanese to immediately surrender.
  - resolutebat 3y ago
    It took 5 days from the 2nd bomb to surrender, and many historians think the Soviet Union's simultaneous declaration of war was a more significant factor.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      This theory is debunked by the two books, written by two different historians, which go into it in great detail. The second bomb made it clear that the first one was not a one-off, and that the US was going to nuke the cities one by one. The Japanese also had intelligence (that turned out to be false) that Tokyo was the next target. I've read a couple accounts by anti-nuclear activists who held that the USSR was the reason for the surrender, but if you compare those accounts with the ones written by historians, the former are crackpots. An invasion of Japan would be an absolutely massive operation (see D-Day) and the USSR was in no position to mount one.
      - 3y ago

_heimdall 3y ago

The has been a ton of debate since the war over whether Japan would have surrendered, and if so how early. The concern at the time, and it has always seemed reasonable to me, was that the Japanese were committed to fighting to the last person and to make them surrender through combat on their home turf would have killed many, many more than the two nukes did. I don't raise that as justification and personally wish we were never stupid enough as a species to build such a weapon, but we tend to be that stupid. I do, though, agree that we likely would have lost more people on both sides and for Japan that number still would have included a large number of civilians.

PolygonSheep 3y ago
I agree, it was totally reasonable and worth it.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  Oh I didn't meant to imply that I personally see the nukes as having been reasonable or worth it. Frankly, I don't know how one could ever make the decision that killing 100,000 is "worth it" and I hope I never have to. Personally I think we should never have tried to invent the nuclear bomb to begin with, avoiding the decision entirely. I understand the whole "but then the enemy would have it first" argument, I just don't buy it. Sure, maybe the "enemy" would go on to invent it but that's a burden they'll have to bear. Sometimes standing on principle includes dying on principle, we seem to have lost the importance of all that along the way. I chalk that up to the increase rate of invention making it too scary to take a step back, even for a moment, to decide whether we should do something that we know we can do.