6 ms·

> Is it just me, or should we be way more horrified by the fact that the US dropped atomic bombs on civilians? What was the alternative? The Japanese leadersh

> Is it just me, or should we be way more horrified by the fact that the US dropped atomic bombs on civilians? What was the alternative? The Japanese leadership knew for a year from their own internal reports that they couldn't win the war, and simply want to grind down US resolve. Imperial Japan wanted the following conditions: * Emperor stays on throne * Japan gets to keep territory * any allegation of (e.g.) war crimes would be dealt with internally by the Japanese themselves Would it be okay for Nazi Germany to surrender if: * Hitler and the Nazis got to stay in government * Germany got to keep Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc * war crime allegations would be dealt by the Nazis themselves The first bomb was dropped on August 6. The Japanese War Cabinet held a meeting on August 9 to discuss the situation, and decided not to surrender as they didn't think the US could create more bombs. So even after the first bomb was dropped, they wouldn't surrender. In the middle of the meeting they learned of the second bomb, which was dropped that morning. The War Cabinet was split 3-3 on whether to surrender. After the second bomb. They called in the full cabinet to discuss things. The full cabinet was split. After the second bomb. They called in the Emperor at that point, and he said to end the war. Though in his announcement that was broadcast over the radio, the word "surrender" was never used: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast#C... Seriously: what was the alternative? Invade the main islands (Operation Downfall)? What would have been the US casualties? What would have been the Japanese civilian casualties? Or blockade Japan and starve them?

defrost 2y ago
You are dot point framing a complex piece of history that has a wide spread of opinion from various historians. It deserves at least an essay on just the situation and the various PoV's, see: The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Consensus View? https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u... There's a very good case to be made that the primary motivation to use the atomic weapons was the fact that they existed .. developed at very great expense for a European War that no longer existed, Germany having surrended when the weapons were finally complete - with only one test on a tower in a desert the military side wanted a real world 'battlefield' test and there was already an ongoing campaign to destroy each and every major and minor target in Japan (much much cheaper per city) using conventional HE & firebombs.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u... Well, instead of reading that article, I have already read the book that it references, Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan: * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/829496 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/829496 It goes through the timeline of the events, including who knew what, at what point. Given Japanese intransigence (and their 'counter-demands'), the experiences of Okinawa, etc, I don't see any reasonable alternatives—unless you think a bloodbath of Allied soldiers and Japanese civilians is reasonable: * https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/japans-last-ditch-force/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/japans-last-ditch-... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps If Japan was not willing to surrender after one bomb, and barely decided to surrender after two, what makes you think they'd surrender with zero bombs dropped? Truman's first priority was to the US people. If bombing Japan achieved peace faster, and thus reduced US casualties, why wouldn't he take that option? Seriously: what is the counter-factual event in what the US/Allies should have done with Japan? Invade? Blockade/starve? Not go for unconditional surrender? Other? What is (was) the alternative? And I'm aware of the author of the article, Wellerstein, having read his book Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States. He's also the creator of the Nukemap website: * https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
  - petermcneeley 2y ago
    Chomsky claims there was a bombing after the two atomic bombings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1h6wT91sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1h6wT91sc I think when the atomic bombs were dropped Japan basically didnt have any means of defense. I think nuking a country that is defenseless is probably evil even if in their hearts they are unwilling to accept unconditional surrender (this last point is even in contention).
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      > Chomsky claims there was a bombing after the two atomic bombings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1h6wT91sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1h6wT91sc The Japanese took 'too long' to surrender, so by the time they contacted the US government on August 14th, because of communication delays the sorties had already gone out early August 15th and dropped their payloads: * https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14980968 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14980968 > I think when the atomic bombs were dropped Japan basically didnt have any means of defense. The Japanese didn't think they were defenseless: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps From a 1946 article: > About a week after V-J Day, I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches." > "Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you." > "What would have happened then?" we asked. > He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender. * https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-...
oneshtein 2y ago
We only consider the killing of civilians a crime when it's committed by those we define as our enemies. Replace Hiroshima with a hypothetical New York and ask your question again. Do you see an alternative to nuking of a hypothetical New York to win a war?

defrost 2y ago

You are dot point framing a complex piece of history that has a wide spread of opinion from various historians. It deserves at least an essay on just the situation and the various PoV's, see: The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Consensus View? https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u... There's a very good case to be made that the primary motivation to use the atomic weapons was the fact that they existed .. developed at very great expense for a European War that no longer existed, Germany having surrended when the weapons were finally complete - with only one test on a tower in a desert the military side wanted a real world 'battlefield' test and there was already an ongoing campaign to destroy each and every major and minor target in Japan (much much cheaper per city) using conventional HE & firebombs.

throw0101d 2y ago
> https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-use-the-bomb-a-consensus-view/ https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u... Well, instead of reading that article, I have already read the book that it references, Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan: * https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/829496 https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/829496 It goes through the timeline of the events, including who knew what, at what point. Given Japanese intransigence (and their 'counter-demands'), the experiences of Okinawa, etc, I don't see any reasonable alternatives—unless you think a bloodbath of Allied soldiers and Japanese civilians is reasonable: * https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/japans-last-ditch-force/ https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/japans-last-ditch-... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps If Japan was not willing to surrender after one bomb, and barely decided to surrender after two, what makes you think they'd surrender with zero bombs dropped? Truman's first priority was to the US people. If bombing Japan achieved peace faster, and thus reduced US casualties, why wouldn't he take that option? Seriously: what is the counter-factual event in what the US/Allies should have done with Japan? Invade? Blockade/starve? Not go for unconditional surrender? Other? What is (was) the alternative? And I'm aware of the author of the article, Wellerstein, having read his book Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States. He's also the creator of the Nukemap website: * https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
- petermcneeley 2y ago
  Chomsky claims there was a bombing after the two atomic bombings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1h6wT91sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1h6wT91sc I think when the atomic bombs were dropped Japan basically didnt have any means of defense. I think nuking a country that is defenseless is probably evil even if in their hearts they are unwilling to accept unconditional surrender (this last point is even in contention).
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    > Chomsky claims there was a bombing after the two atomic bombings. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1h6wT91sc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s1h6wT91sc The Japanese took 'too long' to surrender, so by the time they contacted the US government on August 14th, because of communication delays the sorties had already gone out early August 15th and dropped their payloads: * https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14980968 https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14980968 > I think when the atomic bombs were dropped Japan basically didnt have any means of defense. The Japanese didn't think they were defenseless: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volunteer_Fighting_Corps From a 1946 article: > About a week after V-J Day, I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches." > "Could you have repelled this landing?" we asked, and he answered: "It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you." > "What would have happened then?" we asked. > He replied: "We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated," by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender. * https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-atomic-bomb-had-not-been-used/376238/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1946/12/if-the-...

oneshtein 2y ago

We only consider the killing of civilians a crime when it's committed by those we define as our enemies. Replace Hiroshima with a hypothetical New York and ask your question again. Do you see an alternative to nuking of a hypothetical New York to win a war?