6 ms·

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 discu

by 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...
    - slg 1y ago
      Yes, and millions of people survived those bombings. If the only goal was "maximum concrete, visceral impact", a prior bombing would not have eliminated Tokyo from the list of targets for the nuclear bomb which goes to show that there were other factors in play.
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-...

by slg 1y ago

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...
  - slg 1y ago
    Yes, and millions of people survived those bombings. If the only goal was "maximum concrete, visceral impact", a prior bombing would not have eliminated Tokyo from the list of targets for the nuclear bomb which goes to show that there were other factors in play.

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-...