9 ms·

Yes, actually try and put yourself in the shoes of American leadership responsible for making the decision to continue with an invasion of Japan without using n

by nelox 1y ago

Yes, actually try and put yourself in the shoes of American leadership responsible for making the decision to continue with an invasion of Japan without using nuclear weapons. American casualty estimates exceeded 500,000, and Japanese fatalities were expected to be in the millions—with some projections placing them between 5 million and 10 million depending on the length and scope of the conflict. The U.S. had limited understanding of the full effects of nuclear weapons before using them. The Manhattan Project scientists estimated 70,000 to 100,000 deaths for a medium-sized Japanese city (depending on weather, geography, and building density). These were very rough estimates, focused mainly on blast and heat, not long-term radiation, which was unknowable.

slg 1y ago
Why is this discussion always a binary choice between a land invasion of Japan or dropping the bombs exactly how we did? For example, there is rarely any discussion of whether another target with fewer civilian casualties could have accomplished the same result.
- jandrewrogers 1y ago
  It wasn’t like they were sitting on a pile of nukes. They had to make the maximum concrete, visceral impact with the couple they had such that there would be minimal second-guessing on the part of Japan. You are suggesting that they should have selected a target that was virtually guaranteed to have less impact and leverage with a very scarce resource. They couldn’t afford to take that risk with American lives.
  - slg 1y ago
    >They had to make the maximum concrete, visceral impact with the couple they had such that there would be minimal second-guessing on the part of Japan. And yet they didn't decide to bomb Tokyo or Kyoto. There was clearly a calculus done in selecting the targets to find the right balance of all the various factors involved. I don't see the problem in questioning whether they came to the right decision. Too often the target selection decision is assumed to be right and the only decision that is questioned is the yes or no of actually going through with the bombing.
    - snickerbockers 1y ago
      NTA but Tokyo is the worst place you could possibly drop an atom bomb if your goal is to minimize civilian casualties.
      - slg 1y ago
        Yes, that was the point I was making. The bombs were not dropped on the largest cities which shows the argument that "maximum concrete, visceral impact" was not the only priority. There was some consideration for civilian casualties which opens up the discussion of whether the right balance was struck.
        throw0101d 1y ago
        > The bombs were not dropped on the largest cities which shows the argument that "maximum concrete, visceral impact" was not the only priority. The atomic bombs were not dropped on the largest cities because the largest cities were already levelled. Nothing would be demonstrable on an already-destroyed city.
    - sneak 1y ago
      They did decide to bomb Kyoto, for exactly that reason. The secretary of war, Henry Stimson, objected to it, due to cultural significance, and convinced Truman to choose an alternate, which was Nagasaki. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182
      - slg 1y ago
        Yes, I know this and it was part of my point. If "cultural significance" was part of determining bombing sites, then we know "maximum concrete, visceral impact" was clearly not the only goal.
    - kbouck 1y ago
      Tokyo was (fire) bombed a few months earlier causing ~100k deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_194...
- snickerbockers 1y ago
  The same result as what? The OP just explained how the bombs being deployed in the manner they were barely led to a surrender. Anyways, the battle of Okinawa alone killed as many people as both atomic bombs combined and that's the most remote part of (what is today considered) Japan.
  - slg 1y ago
    >The same result as what? The OP just explained how the bombs being deployed in the manner they were barely led to a surrender. The result of surrendering. What makes you think they wouldn't have surrendered if other targets were bombed?
    - snickerbockers 1y ago
      I'm sure there could have been other targets that would have led to a surrender but if the goal is to do so with a minimal amount of casualties then i find it extremely difficult to believe that it is possible considering that the two targets which were bombed nearly failed to produce the desired result even after a brutal 8-year war.
      - strken 1y ago
        You're assuming a linear relationship between civilian casualties and Japanese military leadership's willingness to surrender. Why would e.g. dropping the first bomb on a less-populated shipyard and the second on a city centre have been less effective?
        snickerbockers 1y ago
        That was Hiroshima. Although there was a high number of civilian casualties it was actually chosen on the basis of its importance to the Japanese imperial army, both as a base and an industrialized city. >Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.[117] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops.[78] It supported a large war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.[118] Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima...
- nelox 1y ago
  Roughly 18 potential cities were considered, which were narrowed down to a shortlist of five, and eventually finalized into four reserved targets (Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki as alternate).
- wiseowise 1y ago
  Because purpose of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t to inflict as many casualties as possible? They were two major military hubs.
- throw0101d 1y ago
  > For example, there is rarely any discussion of whether another target with fewer civilian casualties could have accomplished the same result. There weren't many targets left. The US had been fire bombing Japan for months—which did nothing to lead the Japanese leadership to surrender. The leadership didn't seem to care about losses—or rather the honour of Japan as a country/collective was more important than the losses (?). Some internal Japanese estimates had up to 20M dead from defending against a US landing and the Japanese leadership was fine with that.
  - slg 1y ago
    This is the type of argument that immediately folds in on itself. If they didn’t care about civilian losses, why do people believe the civilian losses in these bombings were necessary? Why is it assumed that the US needed to kill civilians and ended up killing just the right amount of civilians to force surrender?
    - throw0101d 1y ago
      > If they didn’t care about civilian losses, why do people believe the civilian losses in these bombings were necessary? Why is it assumed that the US needed to kill civilians and ended up killing just the right amount of civilians to force surrender? The number of people killed (civilian and military) was irrelevant. The fire bombings killed as much, if not more, people. The Japanese leadership didn't care about numbers: after the first bomb dropped the War Cabinet ignored it thinking it was a bluff on the US part, and they didn't have any more bombs. It was only after the second bomb that they started re-considering. Even then, after two bombings, the War Cabinet was still deadlocked at 3-3. The Emperor had to be called in to break the stalemate. The difference was in the psychological effect of a new type of weapon. From Hirohito's statement: > Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast#C... I would recommend reading the book, which goes over the Japanese government deliberations using internal Japanese minutes/documents and interviews of those involved: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hiroshima https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hir... * https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-days-hiroshima-story-japans-last-chance-avert-armageddon https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-...
yard2010 1y ago
Where goes the line?
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  I don't know exactly, but at least they could have dropped one bomb instead of two.
throw0101d 1y ago
> American casualty estimates exceeded 500,000, and Japanese fatalities were expected to be in the millions—with some projections placing them between 5 million and 10 million depending on the length and scope of the conflict. Per Barrett, some Japan leadership said that as many as 20M Japanese (civilians) would die in a defence of an invasion (but also because of starvation and such), and the leadership was fine with that.
mbs159 1y ago
Many of the top US generals at the time thought that the blockade and imminent Soviet invasion would have been enough to force the Japanese into surrender. The land invasion comparison was propped up as a good "justification" for dropping the bomb, though.

by nelox 1y ago

slg 1y ago

Why is this discussion always a binary choice between a land invasion of Japan or dropping the bombs exactly how we did? For example, there is rarely any discussion of whether another target with fewer civilian casualties could have accomplished the same result.

jandrewrogers 1y ago
It wasn’t like they were sitting on a pile of nukes. They had to make the maximum concrete, visceral impact with the couple they had such that there would be minimal second-guessing on the part of Japan. You are suggesting that they should have selected a target that was virtually guaranteed to have less impact and leverage with a very scarce resource. They couldn’t afford to take that risk with American lives.
- slg 1y ago
  >They had to make the maximum concrete, visceral impact with the couple they had such that there would be minimal second-guessing on the part of Japan. And yet they didn't decide to bomb Tokyo or Kyoto. There was clearly a calculus done in selecting the targets to find the right balance of all the various factors involved. I don't see the problem in questioning whether they came to the right decision. Too often the target selection decision is assumed to be right and the only decision that is questioned is the yes or no of actually going through with the bombing.
  - snickerbockers 1y ago
    NTA but Tokyo is the worst place you could possibly drop an atom bomb if your goal is to minimize civilian casualties.
    - slg 1y ago
      Yes, that was the point I was making. The bombs were not dropped on the largest cities which shows the argument that "maximum concrete, visceral impact" was not the only priority. There was some consideration for civilian casualties which opens up the discussion of whether the right balance was struck.
      - throw0101d 1y ago
        > The bombs were not dropped on the largest cities which shows the argument that "maximum concrete, visceral impact" was not the only priority. The atomic bombs were not dropped on the largest cities because the largest cities were already levelled. Nothing would be demonstrable on an already-destroyed city.
  - sneak 1y ago
    They did decide to bomb Kyoto, for exactly that reason. The secretary of war, Henry Stimson, objected to it, due to cultural significance, and convinced Truman to choose an alternate, which was Nagasaki. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182
    - slg 1y ago
      Yes, I know this and it was part of my point. If "cultural significance" was part of determining bombing sites, then we know "maximum concrete, visceral impact" was clearly not the only goal.
  - kbouck 1y ago
    Tokyo was (fire) bombed a few months earlier causing ~100k deaths. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_1945) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_(10_March_194...
snickerbockers 1y ago
The same result as what? The OP just explained how the bombs being deployed in the manner they were barely led to a surrender. Anyways, the battle of Okinawa alone killed as many people as both atomic bombs combined and that's the most remote part of (what is today considered) Japan.
- slg 1y ago
  >The same result as what? The OP just explained how the bombs being deployed in the manner they were barely led to a surrender. The result of surrendering. What makes you think they wouldn't have surrendered if other targets were bombed?
  - snickerbockers 1y ago
    I'm sure there could have been other targets that would have led to a surrender but if the goal is to do so with a minimal amount of casualties then i find it extremely difficult to believe that it is possible considering that the two targets which were bombed nearly failed to produce the desired result even after a brutal 8-year war.
    - strken 1y ago
      You're assuming a linear relationship between civilian casualties and Japanese military leadership's willingness to surrender. Why would e.g. dropping the first bomb on a less-populated shipyard and the second on a city centre have been less effective?
      - snickerbockers 1y ago
        That was Hiroshima. Although there was a high number of civilian casualties it was actually chosen on the basis of its importance to the Japanese imperial army, both as a base and an industrialized city. >Hiroshima was a supply and logistics base for the Japanese military.[117] The city was a communications center, a key port for shipping, and an assembly area for troops.[78] It supported a large war industry, manufacturing parts for planes and boats, for bombs, rifles, and handguns.[118] Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima...
nelox 1y ago
Roughly 18 potential cities were considered, which were narrowed down to a shortlist of five, and eventually finalized into four reserved targets (Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki as alternate).
wiseowise 1y ago
Because purpose of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn’t to inflict as many casualties as possible? They were two major military hubs.
throw0101d 1y ago
> For example, there is rarely any discussion of whether another target with fewer civilian casualties could have accomplished the same result. There weren't many targets left. The US had been fire bombing Japan for months—which did nothing to lead the Japanese leadership to surrender. The leadership didn't seem to care about losses—or rather the honour of Japan as a country/collective was more important than the losses (?). Some internal Japanese estimates had up to 20M dead from defending against a US landing and the Japanese leadership was fine with that.
- slg 1y ago
  This is the type of argument that immediately folds in on itself. If they didn’t care about civilian losses, why do people believe the civilian losses in these bombings were necessary? Why is it assumed that the US needed to kill civilians and ended up killing just the right amount of civilians to force surrender?
  - throw0101d 1y ago
    > If they didn’t care about civilian losses, why do people believe the civilian losses in these bombings were necessary? Why is it assumed that the US needed to kill civilians and ended up killing just the right amount of civilians to force surrender? The number of people killed (civilian and military) was irrelevant. The fire bombings killed as much, if not more, people. The Japanese leadership didn't care about numbers: after the first bomb dropped the War Cabinet ignored it thinking it was a bluff on the US part, and they didn't have any more bombs. It was only after the second bomb that they started re-considering. Even then, after two bombings, the War Cabinet was still deadlocked at 3-3. The Emperor had to be called in to break the stalemate. The difference was in the psychological effect of a new type of weapon. From Hirohito's statement: > Furthermore, the enemy has begun to employ a new and cruel bomb, causing immense and indiscriminate destruction, the extent of which is beyond all estimation. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in the ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but it would also lead to the total extinction of human civilization. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast#Content https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast#C... I would recommend reading the book, which goes over the Japanese government deliberations using internal Japanese minutes/documents and interviews of those involved: * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hiroshima https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hir... * https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-days-hiroshima-story-japans-last-chance-avert-armageddon https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-...

yard2010 1y ago

Where goes the line?

vouaobrasil 1y ago
I don't know exactly, but at least they could have dropped one bomb instead of two.

throw0101d 1y ago

> American casualty estimates exceeded 500,000, and Japanese fatalities were expected to be in the millions—with some projections placing them between 5 million and 10 million depending on the length and scope of the conflict. Per Barrett, some Japan leadership said that as many as 20M Japanese (civilians) would die in a defence of an invasion (but also because of starvation and such), and the leadership was fine with that.

mbs159 1y ago

Many of the top US generals at the time thought that the blockade and imminent Soviet invasion would have been enough to force the Japanese into surrender. The land invasion comparison was propped up as a good "justification" for dropping the bomb, though.