3 ms·

they try to argue an indefinite (Japan would have surrendered if we hadn't done this) against a definite (We bombed them and they surrendered immediately) No,

by gruseom 13y ago

they try to argue an indefinite (Japan would have surrendered if we hadn't done this) against a definite (We bombed them and they surrendered immediately) No, the article is not arguing against a factual claim like that, but against a causal one: that Japan surrendered because of the atomic bombs. The latter may be the mainstream view but it's just as "indefinite" by your standard. And causal claims can be weakened by evidence, which is what most of the article tries to do. Also, one of the article's major claims is that Japan didn't surrender immediately. That argument is more intricate and interesting than I expected.

jlgreco 13y ago
> Also, one of the article's major claims (its first, in fact) is that Japan didn't surrender immediately. I find it hard to reconcile this idea with the relatively persuasive reasoning that the second bomb was unjustifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki_bombing_unnecessary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand the full magnitude and novel nature of such an event. The second bomb was probably necessary, but even in an alternative universe where it was not, I think it would be foolish to expect a surrender that immediately.
- gruseom 13y ago
  Different people read these things differently, of course, but it seems to me that the article's factual claims—for example, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't of such dramatic magnitude as we think, in context; or that there weren't many city targets left to destroy—answer your objection. If the article is wrong it must be either because its facts are wrong or because it leaves out more important facts. It's true that the Wikipedia article paints a completely different picture. I'd like to know what the OP would say about that.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    Well, from what was immediately observable to anyone who wasn't in the city at the time, the result really wasn't uniquely dramatic. The radiation and the fact that a single plane with a single bomb did it were game-changers but to anyone outside the city looking in it would appear to be another fire-storm bombing, albeit larger than Dresden and in a far shorter time-frame than Tokyo. That is why I think it really would take more time for things to settle in after a single bomb. The second bomb drives home the "yes, this really is what it looks like; this isn't like before." factor. I think it would have taken more time for a complete appreciation of what happened at Hiroshima to sink in. Whether or not a complete appreciation of that single bombing would have lead to surrender is debatable, I'm inclined to think not.
- mpyne 13y ago
  I believe the logic of the U.S. military planners was that they were worried the Japanese would assume the bomb was truly unique and novel. They didn't want the Japanese to assume they could simply hunker down and expect a bomb every 2-3 months or so; the Japanese were already surviving equivalent damage from mere conventional bombing raids. That doesn't mean the U.S. couldn't have waited more (the Nagasaki bombing occurred while Hirohito's Supreme Council were discussing Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion), but I don't think they would have waited much longer either.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    The second bomb and the surrender were probably both independently inevitable. Better to drop the second bomb before there were Soviet troops in the same country laying claim to it though. I find it easy to believe that they rushed the second bomb because they didn't want to miss the opportunity to use it.
- moogleii 13y ago
  >I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand the full magnitude and novel nature of such an event. The article addresses this.
  - jlgreco 13y ago
    We must be reading different articles. The extent to which the article covers this it appears to be agreeing with me. Basically that they heard there was a bombing, did not consider it a crisis, and had not yet received their full reports. The article argues that the surrender could not have been motivated by the bomb because the timing was wrong and they did not yet have a full appreciation of what happened. To this extent, the article meshes neatly with the assertion that the second bomb was dropped before the first was understood. However, the notion that the bombs would not have made them surrender is not supported by the fact that they did not surrender following the bombs. They did not have time to do so. It is an unknown if they would have, had they been given more time.

by gruseom 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

> Also, one of the article's major claims (its first, in fact) is that Japan didn't surrender immediately. I find it hard to reconcile this idea with the relatively persuasive reasoning that the second bomb was unjustifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Nagasaki_bombing_unnecessary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand the full magnitude and novel nature of such an event. The second bomb was probably necessary, but even in an alternative universe where it was not, I think it would be foolish to expect a surrender that immediately.

gruseom 13y ago
Different people read these things differently, of course, but it seems to me that the article's factual claims—for example, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't of such dramatic magnitude as we think, in context; or that there weren't many city targets left to destroy—answer your objection. If the article is wrong it must be either because its facts are wrong or because it leaves out more important facts. It's true that the Wikipedia article paints a completely different picture. I'd like to know what the OP would say about that.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  Well, from what was immediately observable to anyone who wasn't in the city at the time, the result really wasn't uniquely dramatic. The radiation and the fact that a single plane with a single bomb did it were game-changers but to anyone outside the city looking in it would appear to be another fire-storm bombing, albeit larger than Dresden and in a far shorter time-frame than Tokyo. That is why I think it really would take more time for things to settle in after a single bomb. The second bomb drives home the "yes, this really is what it looks like; this isn't like before." factor. I think it would have taken more time for a complete appreciation of what happened at Hiroshima to sink in. Whether or not a complete appreciation of that single bombing would have lead to surrender is debatable, I'm inclined to think not.
mpyne 13y ago
I believe the logic of the U.S. military planners was that they were worried the Japanese would assume the bomb was truly unique and novel. They didn't want the Japanese to assume they could simply hunker down and expect a bomb every 2-3 months or so; the Japanese were already surviving equivalent damage from mere conventional bombing raids. That doesn't mean the U.S. couldn't have waited more (the Nagasaki bombing occurred while Hirohito's Supreme Council were discussing Hiroshima and the Soviet invasion), but I don't think they would have waited much longer either.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  The second bomb and the surrender were probably both independently inevitable. Better to drop the second bomb before there were Soviet troops in the same country laying claim to it though. I find it easy to believe that they rushed the second bomb because they didn't want to miss the opportunity to use it.
moogleii 13y ago
>I am not entirely convinced that it was so, but I do think it is reasonable that a few days is not sufficient time to understand the full magnitude and novel nature of such an event. The article addresses this.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  We must be reading different articles. The extent to which the article covers this it appears to be agreeing with me. Basically that they heard there was a bombing, did not consider it a crisis, and had not yet received their full reports. The article argues that the surrender could not have been motivated by the bomb because the timing was wrong and they did not yet have a full appreciation of what happened. To this extent, the article meshes neatly with the assertion that the second bomb was dropped before the first was understood. However, the notion that the bombs would not have made them surrender is not supported by the fact that they did not surrender following the bombs. They did not have time to do so. It is an unknown if they would have, had they been given more time.