7 ms·

Well, it cost more to design and build. I personally would consider the total cost of dropping two atomic bombs much higher, for hopefully obvious reasons. ED

Well, it cost more to design and build. I personally would consider the total cost of dropping two atomic bombs much higher, for hopefully obvious reasons. EDIT: Although, per the article, I might have been wrong about that: > The loss of life was shocking. The B-29 raid on Tokyo on the night of 9 March 1945 is thought to have killed as many as 100,000 people, making it more destructive than either of the atomic bombs that were to follow. Fascinating bit of history though, thank you for sharing.

roughly 1y ago
The US's conventional bombing raids on Japan were extensive - they had all but destroyed most Japanese cities by the time the nuclear bombs were dropped. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not large and notable Japanese cities, but they were among the only ones left by that time.
- tgv 1y ago
  Spared, even. There were more selection criteria, though, and Nagasaki was (IIRC) chosen at the last moment because of the weather.
  - ADent 1y ago
    Kokura was the primary target and three bombing runs were made before diverting to Nagasaki.
    - mrexroad 1y ago
      Thank you for sharing! I knew Nagasaki was alternate selection, but this is first time I’ve heard three runs were attempted before diverting.
    - jordanb 1y ago
      Leading to the concept of the "luck of Kokura" where you avoid a catastrophe without even being aware of it.
- pests 1y ago
  It’s a bit worse as they were the only ones left because they were purposefully saved knowing the nukes would need a target.
  - a3w 1y ago
    I always see this claim repeated, and the same for Wiesbaden and Heidelberg in Germany. But no sources give credibility to both claims.
    - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
      Wikipedia claims Hiroshima was saved for atomic bombing, about a month ahead: > On 3 July, the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed (Hiroshima) off limits to bombers, along with Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto Nagasaki was not explicitly saved, but was just a difficult target to hit: > Nagasaki had been spared from firebombing because its geography made it difficult to locate at night with AN/APQ-13 radar. > Unlike the other target cities, Nagasaki had not been placed off limits to bombers by the Joint Chiefs of Staff's 3 July directive, and was bombed on a small scale five times. Anyone with better sources could please fill out the Wikipedia article some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
      - fovc 1y ago
        Crossover from the other front page article. I tested out ChatGPT5 search mode and there are some good sources! https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68bd82908c0c8191b142b860ff91c9dc https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68bd82908c0c8191b142b860ff91c9dc
      - da_chicken 1y ago
        July 3 was one month prior to the nuclear bomb dropping. By that time, B-29 bombing raids with conventional bombs had been operating since 1944. Further, the fact that they had to order it to be preserved on July 3 implies that it hadn't been saved until that point. So, Hiroshima was saved for a month, but only after it had been an equally viable target for the prior several months to a year.
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago
  The atomic bomb was more of warning and show of force to the Soviets rather than the Empire of Japan. The purpose of the bombs wasn't (just) to get Japan to surrender, since they were already near defeat anyway, it was to show the Soviet Union that the US had the wonder weapon already working and that they should back off and fall in line unless they want a piece of that. I think many people miss that part of history.
  - Pooge 1y ago
    > It wasn't to get Japan to surrender, since they were already near defeat anyway I'm not a historian but I've always read that the Japanese government famously did not intend to surrender despite being cornered. They had some operations scheduled for October 1945—they surrendered 1 month before due to the bombs.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      I'm also no historian, but find it difficult to believe this when the firebombings on Japan did more damage than the atomic bombs. The US and Soviet Union would have leveled Japan without atomic bombs anyway. So the US history stories puts the success of the end of the war on the atom bombs, but Japan were defeated anyway, atom bombs or not.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
      - b112 1y ago
        I agree the outcome was clear. And this was a feudal system with an Emperor, and a culture of extreme adherence to culture. As in, Kamikazis because ordered, honour in death, or killing yourself with your own sword. Not really a culture of capitulation. Most of their cities were already firebombed, as you elude to, some more than once, yet there was still no surrender. Without surrender, a country isn't really done. Leave it be, and they'll arm and rebuild, still at war with you. Invade, and your troops die, for a standing army still existed. Japan also had colonies, islands, resources. And of course without surrender, even if you occupy, now you have insurgents. It's hard to view the world through the eyes of even 80 years ago. War weary, endless soldiers lost already, an unsurrendering Japan, and a way to put an end to it...
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- pfdietz 1y ago
  And they were just ramping up. Between May and August 1945, US bombers dropped an average of 34,402 tons/month of bombs on Japan. This would have reached 100,000 tons/month by September, 170,000 tons/month by January 1946, and 200,000 tons/month by March 1946.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
MrSkelter 1y ago
This is also the result of the failure of the third most expensive technical project of the war. The Norden sight. At the outset of the war it was believed that precision bombing from the air was possible. A vast sum was spent making a sight to allow accurate targeting to that end. It simply didn’t work and the result was a return to area bombing and the massive civilian casualties that resulted in. Even worse the bombing did almost nothing to lessen enemy output. In fact over the war Germany and Japan managed to constantly increase their output of weapons for various reasons. One being that having a large industrial base pre war meant they could always sift production. Ie at the start you are making bullets in a bullet factory. At the end you are making bullets in what was a sewing machine factory. We still like to believe accurate weapons make for “clean” conflicts but we never seem able to resist area bombing.

roughly 1y ago

The US's conventional bombing raids on Japan were extensive - they had all but destroyed most Japanese cities by the time the nuclear bombs were dropped. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not large and notable Japanese cities, but they were among the only ones left by that time.

tgv 1y ago
Spared, even. There were more selection criteria, though, and Nagasaki was (IIRC) chosen at the last moment because of the weather.
- ADent 1y ago
  Kokura was the primary target and three bombing runs were made before diverting to Nagasaki.
  - mrexroad 1y ago
    Thank you for sharing! I knew Nagasaki was alternate selection, but this is first time I’ve heard three runs were attempted before diverting.
  - jordanb 1y ago
    Leading to the concept of the "luck of Kokura" where you avoid a catastrophe without even being aware of it.
pests 1y ago
It’s a bit worse as they were the only ones left because they were purposefully saved knowing the nukes would need a target.
- a3w 1y ago
  I always see this claim repeated, and the same for Wiesbaden and Heidelberg in Germany. But no sources give credibility to both claims.
  - 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
    Wikipedia claims Hiroshima was saved for atomic bombing, about a month ahead: > On 3 July, the Joint Chiefs of Staff placed (Hiroshima) off limits to bombers, along with Kokura, Niigata and Kyoto Nagasaki was not explicitly saved, but was just a difficult target to hit: > Nagasaki had been spared from firebombing because its geography made it difficult to locate at night with AN/APQ-13 radar. > Unlike the other target cities, Nagasaki had not been placed off limits to bombers by the Joint Chiefs of Staff's 3 July directive, and was bombed on a small scale five times. Anyone with better sources could please fill out the Wikipedia article some more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Hiroshima_during_World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a...
    - fovc 1y ago
      Crossover from the other front page article. I tested out ChatGPT5 search mode and there are some good sources! https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68bd82908c0c8191b142b860ff91c9dc https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68bd82908c0c8191b142b860ff91c9dc
    - da_chicken 1y ago
      July 3 was one month prior to the nuclear bomb dropping. By that time, B-29 bombing raids with conventional bombs had been operating since 1944. Further, the fact that they had to order it to be preserved on July 3 implies that it hadn't been saved until that point. So, Hiroshima was saved for a month, but only after it had been an equally viable target for the prior several months to a year.
FirmwareBurner 1y ago
The atomic bomb was more of warning and show of force to the Soviets rather than the Empire of Japan. The purpose of the bombs wasn't (just) to get Japan to surrender, since they were already near defeat anyway, it was to show the Soviet Union that the US had the wonder weapon already working and that they should back off and fall in line unless they want a piece of that. I think many people miss that part of history.
- Pooge 1y ago
  > It wasn't to get Japan to surrender, since they were already near defeat anyway I'm not a historian but I've always read that the Japanese government famously did not intend to surrender despite being cornered. They had some operations scheduled for October 1945—they surrendered 1 month before due to the bombs.
  - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
    I'm also no historian, but find it difficult to believe this when the firebombings on Japan did more damage than the atomic bombs. The US and Soviet Union would have leveled Japan without atomic bombs anyway. So the US history stories puts the success of the end of the war on the atom bombs, but Japan were defeated anyway, atom bombs or not.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - b112 1y ago
      I agree the outcome was clear. And this was a feudal system with an Emperor, and a culture of extreme adherence to culture. As in, Kamikazis because ordered, honour in death, or killing yourself with your own sword. Not really a culture of capitulation. Most of their cities were already firebombed, as you elude to, some more than once, yet there was still no surrender. Without surrender, a country isn't really done. Leave it be, and they'll arm and rebuild, still at war with you. Invade, and your troops die, for a standing army still existed. Japan also had colonies, islands, resources. And of course without surrender, even if you occupy, now you have insurgents. It's hard to view the world through the eyes of even 80 years ago. War weary, endless soldiers lost already, an unsurrendering Japan, and a way to put an end to it...
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pfdietz 1y ago
And they were just ramping up. Between May and August 1945, US bombers dropped an average of 34,402 tons/month of bombs on Japan. This would have reached 100,000 tons/month by September, 170,000 tons/month by January 1946, and 200,000 tons/month by March 1946.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

MrSkelter 1y ago

This is also the result of the failure of the third most expensive technical project of the war. The Norden sight. At the outset of the war it was believed that precision bombing from the air was possible. A vast sum was spent making a sight to allow accurate targeting to that end. It simply didn’t work and the result was a return to area bombing and the massive civilian casualties that resulted in. Even worse the bombing did almost nothing to lessen enemy output. In fact over the war Germany and Japan managed to constantly increase their output of weapons for various reasons. One being that having a large industrial base pre war meant they could always sift production. Ie at the start you are making bullets in a bullet factory. At the end you are making bullets in what was a sewing machine factory. We still like to believe accurate weapons make for “clean” conflicts but we never seem able to resist area bombing.