4 ms·

> Now, this isn't to say that America was right or not right to drop one or both bombs. It may "feel" like I'm saying "the Japanese deserved it for their behavi

> Now, this isn't to say that America was right or not right to drop one or both bombs. It may "feel" like I'm saying "the Japanese deserved it for their behavior" - that's not a belief I hold, either. Some contemporaries of note didn't think it was justified either [1]. Eisenhower, a decorated war hero who later cautioned against the over-expansion of the military industrial complex in his Presidential farewell speech, said of the bombing in his memoir: > I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. [...] I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced [...] my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly, because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives I vacationed in Japan a few months ago via a tour group and we went to Hiroshima. It was one of the most emotionally-taxing experiences of my life. The bomb was literally dropped on a hospital [2]. The heat of the explosion melted the tops of headstones in a neighboring graveyard and seared some poor soul's shadow into the nearby steps that they were sitting on. Hundreds of thousands of civilians' lives were erased or permanently altered in a matter of seconds. Grabbing a sandwich from the 7-11 next door and eating it while I stared at where it all happened 80 years prior definitely fucked with me a bit. I've never experienced war or lost somebody I care about to an enemy combatant. All things considered I've led a rather easy life. I can't say how I'd feel otherwise, but the me that exists right now thinks that our military shouldn't have done what it did. That they haven't done it again makes me wonder whether they realize this too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shima_Hospital https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shima_Hospital

userbinator 1y ago
but the me that exists right now thinks that our military shouldn't have done what it did. It's worth remembering that if it weren't for them doing what they did, you might not have the life you do now.
- adrianN 1y ago
  If you go sufficiently far back in history, this is true for every event.
- alexjplant 1y ago
  > you might not have the life you do now. I mean, yeah. The act is one of many countably infinite quantum events that contribute to the reality that I experience. My point is that there's a strong argument to be made that the US not dropping the bomb would have resulted in largely the same state of the universe with significantly less suffering in it.
- mitthrowaway2 1y ago
  Maybe? We can go around in circles on this but there were so many other options the Allies could have tried: - Drop the first bomb in the ocean in front of an envoy of observers and give Japan a week to deliberate their response - Blockade the island, threaten land invasion, and wait for the emperor to call for surrender as they gradually run out of fuel - Drop a bomb on Hiroshima but give more than 3 days for the government to understand what happened and consider surrendering before dropping a bomb on Nagasaki - Allow the USSR to go ahead with a ground invasion while the US sits on the sidelines etc... But sure, in the fine grained detail, if the US has not dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, we would not today be commenting on Hiroshima (1946) saying "they shouldn't have dropped nuclear bombs on Japan"
  - wat10000 1y ago
    Keep in mind that every day the war continued meant thousands of innocent lives being lost under the brutal Japanese occupation that still covered vast areas of east Asia. Blockading Japan and waiting for them to starve might have been the best thing to save American lives. I think it’s unlikely to have been the best thing to save innocent lives overall.
    - bee_rider 1y ago
      Blockading Japan would have probably killed countless Japanese civilians via starvation, right? At least, I don’t think the island could sustain itself at that population level, particularly without fuel…
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
opo 1y ago
I find it is important to be skeptical of people's descriptions of what they were supposedly thinking years earlier. Much better is to find contemporaneous accounts. For example: >...my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, The last major battle before the dropping of the atomic bombs was the battle for Okinawa and it was the bloodiest and fiercest battle fought against the Japanese. Absolutely no one who knew about that battle would have claimed that Japan was already defeated. >...When the guns fell silent, more than 240,000 people had lost their lives in the campaign for Okinawa. The American loss rate was 35 percent of the force, totaling 49,151 casualties. >...So close to the home islands, most Japanese soldiers refused to surrender and fought to the death. Their fanaticism contributed to a dreadful toll. Some 110,000 Japanese and conscripted Okinawan defenders were killed in action. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs-victory-last-battle https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs...
- 542354234235 1y ago
  Don't forget the thousands of civilians that committed suicide. There are accounts of soldier interpreters pleading with civilians through loudspeakers on their ship to just surrender and be taken care of, while they jumped from cliffs into the sea. Every option (invasion, mass starvation via blockade, atomic bombing) was a horrific nightmare of death for the Japanese.
- lou1306 1y ago
  > Absolutely no one who knew about that battle would have claimed that Japan was already defeated. On a strategic level they were. The archipelago was being blockaded, they had no way to contest Allied air supremacy, they were reduced to send children into battle, etc.
  - opo 1y ago
    Yes, they had no chance of winning and it should have been obvious long before Okinawa. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean they were ready to surrender.
yes_really 1y ago
> the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives FYI it is estimated that the war would go on until 1947 if the bombs were not dropped. There would be millions of American lives lost in that case.
- karlgkk 1y ago
  > FYI it is estimated that the war would go on until 1947 if the bombs were not dropped FYI it is also estimated that the war would end within a few months if the bombs were not dropped. It really depends on whoever was estimating lol This is a heavily contested issue that has been actively discussed for almost a century by full time professional historians and analysts. Making confident assertions isn’t particularly helpful
  - yes_really 1y ago
    What is the argument that the war would have ended in a few months? Is it that the US would have reached Tokyo by then? Or Japan would have surrendered before then? Both are hard to believe
    - karlgkk 1y ago
      The core point of my post has not sunk in. Your personal belief does not mean that you get to confidently issued judgment on this matter, as if there are no other perspectives. Again, this is a hotly contested issue, contested by people who in some cases, have a full-time profession in studying this issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...

userbinator 1y ago

but the me that exists right now thinks that our military shouldn't have done what it did. It's worth remembering that if it weren't for them doing what they did, you might not have the life you do now.

adrianN 1y ago
If you go sufficiently far back in history, this is true for every event.
alexjplant 1y ago
> you might not have the life you do now. I mean, yeah. The act is one of many countably infinite quantum events that contribute to the reality that I experience. My point is that there's a strong argument to be made that the US not dropping the bomb would have resulted in largely the same state of the universe with significantly less suffering in it.
mitthrowaway2 1y ago
Maybe? We can go around in circles on this but there were so many other options the Allies could have tried: - Drop the first bomb in the ocean in front of an envoy of observers and give Japan a week to deliberate their response - Blockade the island, threaten land invasion, and wait for the emperor to call for surrender as they gradually run out of fuel - Drop a bomb on Hiroshima but give more than 3 days for the government to understand what happened and consider surrendering before dropping a bomb on Nagasaki - Allow the USSR to go ahead with a ground invasion while the US sits on the sidelines etc... But sure, in the fine grained detail, if the US has not dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, we would not today be commenting on Hiroshima (1946) saying "they shouldn't have dropped nuclear bombs on Japan"
- wat10000 1y ago
  Keep in mind that every day the war continued meant thousands of innocent lives being lost under the brutal Japanese occupation that still covered vast areas of east Asia. Blockading Japan and waiting for them to starve might have been the best thing to save American lives. I think it’s unlikely to have been the best thing to save innocent lives overall.
  - bee_rider 1y ago
    Blockading Japan would have probably killed countless Japanese civilians via starvation, right? At least, I don’t think the island could sustain itself at that population level, particularly without fuel…

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

opo 1y ago

I find it is important to be skeptical of people's descriptions of what they were supposedly thinking years earlier. Much better is to find contemporaneous accounts. For example: >...my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, The last major battle before the dropping of the atomic bombs was the battle for Okinawa and it was the bloodiest and fiercest battle fought against the Japanese. Absolutely no one who knew about that battle would have claimed that Japan was already defeated. >...When the guns fell silent, more than 240,000 people had lost their lives in the campaign for Okinawa. The American loss rate was 35 percent of the force, totaling 49,151 casualties. >...So close to the home islands, most Japanese soldiers refused to surrender and fought to the death. Their fanaticism contributed to a dreadful toll. Some 110,000 Japanese and conscripted Okinawan defenders were killed in action. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs-victory-last-battle https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/okinawa-costs...

542354234235 1y ago
Don't forget the thousands of civilians that committed suicide. There are accounts of soldier interpreters pleading with civilians through loudspeakers on their ship to just surrender and be taken care of, while they jumped from cliffs into the sea. Every option (invasion, mass starvation via blockade, atomic bombing) was a horrific nightmare of death for the Japanese.
lou1306 1y ago
> Absolutely no one who knew about that battle would have claimed that Japan was already defeated. On a strategic level they were. The archipelago was being blockaded, they had no way to contest Allied air supremacy, they were reduced to send children into battle, etc.
- opo 1y ago
  Yes, they had no chance of winning and it should have been obvious long before Okinawa. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean they were ready to surrender.

yes_really 1y ago

> the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives FYI it is estimated that the war would go on until 1947 if the bombs were not dropped. There would be millions of American lives lost in that case.

karlgkk 1y ago
> FYI it is estimated that the war would go on until 1947 if the bombs were not dropped FYI it is also estimated that the war would end within a few months if the bombs were not dropped. It really depends on whoever was estimating lol This is a heavily contested issue that has been actively discussed for almost a century by full time professional historians and analysts. Making confident assertions isn’t particularly helpful
- yes_really 1y ago
  What is the argument that the war would have ended in a few months? Is it that the US would have reached Tokyo by then? Or Japan would have surrendered before then? Both are hard to believe
  - karlgkk 1y ago
    The core point of my post has not sunk in. Your personal belief does not mean that you get to confidently issued judgment on this matter, as if there are no other perspectives. Again, this is a hotly contested issue, contested by people who in some cases, have a full-time profession in studying this issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing...