3 ms·

Why single out the only two instances of nuclear weapons being used in anger in the entire history of their existence? Why single out the single largest escalat

Why single out the only two instances of nuclear weapons being used in anger in the entire history of their existence? Why single out the single largest escalation in force in the world's history? Why single out the two largest single bombs ever deployed against an enemy? Surely you aren't nearly so naive that you think these aren't significantly different from other bombings...

defrost 1mo ago
The difference being that it cost a lot more to destroy those two Japanese cities alone than it did in total to destroy 72 other Japanese cities to the same degree. Later on, that type of weapon became cheaper and several thousands were created and became the basis for a long window of relative peace.
- stavros 1mo ago
  Strictly speaking, the first city cost a whole lot of money, the second was basically free, through the magic of not amortizing the cost of R&D to win an online argument.
  - defrost 1mo ago
    win? Moreover, what's the argument here as you see it?
    - stavros 1mo ago
      The argument is that nuclear bombs made destroying entire cities dirt cheap, and it's one of the big atrocities of history that they were used on a civilian population. "Terrorists have hidden a nuclear bomb somewhere in Manhattan" is one of the unthinkable nightmare scenarios routinely portrayed in US films, and yet that's exactly what the US did to Hiroshima.
      - defrost 1mo ago
        I'm looking back several hours here and not seeing where this is laid out. I'm also curious as to why what the US did to Hiroshima is an unthinkable nightmare scenarios whereas what the US did to Tokyo is not (and nor is what the US did to 71 other cities in Japan also not that).
        stavros 1mo ago
        Do you see a difference in razing a city with one bomb in an instant or with thousands of bombs over months?
        account42 1mo ago
        The human suffering in both cases is the same but one ended the war while the other did not.
        stavros 1mo ago
        If your goal is to end a war, there are much easier ways. If your goal is to win the war, well...
        defrost 1mo ago
        The specific goal at the time was to test two prototype weapons of differing design.
        wredcoll 1mo ago
        Wow yes the USA and friends could have just surrendered. Brilliant insight. Very clever. I'm sure everyone being tortured to death by the various Japanese military units would super appreciate that.
        stavros 1mo ago
        As much as the people vaporized by the atomic bomb would, I'm sure.
  - account42 1mo ago
    It's my understanding that the two bombs used were not the same technology so you can't just amortize the whole research costs from one to the other.
wredcoll 1mo ago
I don't understand the naivety involved in thinking that this matters to the people dying from the bombs. I haven't personally died from a bomb, but I find it super hard to imagine a scenario where I would be happier if I died from a regular bomb vs a nuclear bomb. More people died from the single bombing raid on tokyo than died from the nuclear weapon being dropped on hiroshima. Yes, people also died from radiation poisoning during the days and months following, but people also died from all sorts of injuries sustained from the "regular bombs", burns, smoke inhalation, etc. Comparing which type of agonizing death is worse is rarely a useful way to spend time. > Surely you aren't nearly so naive that you think these aren't significantly different from other bombings... This is the point I want to make. It really wasn't that different. Yes, a city was destroyed in a single night. Over seventy other cities were destroyed in a single night in Japan alone during the year of 1945.
- forestrywat 1mo ago
  It's not about two bombings. Yes, the Tokyo bombing was a ghoulish war crime. Obviously. But nukes as a weapon are fundamentally different. A single airplane can level a city. A single submarine can destroy a country. I'm sorry, but they are a Pandora's box that was opened and changed the course of the world afterwards.
  - wredcoll 1mo ago
    So your argument is that this was worse not because of what it did to people at the time but because of what might happen in the future?

defrost 1mo ago

The difference being that it cost a lot more to destroy those two Japanese cities alone than it did in total to destroy 72 other Japanese cities to the same degree. Later on, that type of weapon became cheaper and several thousands were created and became the basis for a long window of relative peace.

stavros 1mo ago
Strictly speaking, the first city cost a whole lot of money, the second was basically free, through the magic of not amortizing the cost of R&D to win an online argument.
- defrost 1mo ago
  win? Moreover, what's the argument here as you see it?
  - stavros 1mo ago
    The argument is that nuclear bombs made destroying entire cities dirt cheap, and it's one of the big atrocities of history that they were used on a civilian population. "Terrorists have hidden a nuclear bomb somewhere in Manhattan" is one of the unthinkable nightmare scenarios routinely portrayed in US films, and yet that's exactly what the US did to Hiroshima.
    - defrost 1mo ago
      I'm looking back several hours here and not seeing where this is laid out. I'm also curious as to why what the US did to Hiroshima is an unthinkable nightmare scenarios whereas what the US did to Tokyo is not (and nor is what the US did to 71 other cities in Japan also not that).
      - stavros 1mo ago
        Do you see a difference in razing a city with one bomb in an instant or with thousands of bombs over months?
        account42 1mo ago
        The human suffering in both cases is the same but one ended the war while the other did not.
        stavros 1mo ago
        If your goal is to end a war, there are much easier ways. If your goal is to win the war, well...
        defrost 1mo ago
        The specific goal at the time was to test two prototype weapons of differing design.
        wredcoll 1mo ago
        Wow yes the USA and friends could have just surrendered. Brilliant insight. Very clever. I'm sure everyone being tortured to death by the various Japanese military units would super appreciate that.
        stavros 1mo ago
        As much as the people vaporized by the atomic bomb would, I'm sure.
- account42 1mo ago
  It's my understanding that the two bombs used were not the same technology so you can't just amortize the whole research costs from one to the other.

wredcoll 1mo ago

I don't understand the naivety involved in thinking that this matters to the people dying from the bombs. I haven't personally died from a bomb, but I find it super hard to imagine a scenario where I would be happier if I died from a regular bomb vs a nuclear bomb. More people died from the single bombing raid on tokyo than died from the nuclear weapon being dropped on hiroshima. Yes, people also died from radiation poisoning during the days and months following, but people also died from all sorts of injuries sustained from the "regular bombs", burns, smoke inhalation, etc. Comparing which type of agonizing death is worse is rarely a useful way to spend time. > Surely you aren't nearly so naive that you think these aren't significantly different from other bombings... This is the point I want to make. It really wasn't that different. Yes, a city was destroyed in a single night. Over seventy other cities were destroyed in a single night in Japan alone during the year of 1945.

forestrywat 1mo ago
It's not about two bombings. Yes, the Tokyo bombing was a ghoulish war crime. Obviously. But nukes as a weapon are fundamentally different. A single airplane can level a city. A single submarine can destroy a country. I'm sorry, but they are a Pandora's box that was opened and changed the course of the world afterwards.
- wredcoll 1mo ago
  So your argument is that this was worse not because of what it did to people at the time but because of what might happen in the future?