4 ms·

Actually, the purpose of the bomb was to save many thousands more lives than it ended. An invasion of Japan would've cost an enormous number of lives. It woul

Actually, the purpose of the bomb was to save many thousands more lives than it ended. An invasion of Japan would've cost an enormous number of lives. It would've also had a catastrophic effect on the civilian population, because they were being told that the American troops were there to enslave them. It has even been said that the propaganda being told to the Japanese civilians included the idea that the troops would kill and cannibalize their families. I'm not sure whether that latter part is true, but what is true is that the civilians were extremely incentivized to be as hostile as possible to any American invasion army, even to the extent of whole families committing suicide out of fear of being enslaved or tortured, as on Okinawa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa Simultaneously, 42,000–150,000 local civilians were killed or committed suicide, a significant proportion of the local population. Human affairs are sometimes terrible, but they often take the least terrible path out of all terrible paths. This is evidenced by the fact that the cuban missile crisis didn't result in an all-out nuclear war, and also that these bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than Americans invading Japan, which would have been far more devastating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high. Depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties. I upvoted you because I agree that everyone should be terrified at the prospect of war, because war only happens when people aren't terrified of it.

shabda 12y ago
While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no ground invasion. The allies had complete air and naval superiority and Russia had joined the the Japanese war theatre. If you have read the ethics of atomic bombings in any detail you are already aware of the details, so I would refrain from linking to wikipedia. To push your POV that the bombing was entirely necessary and entirely morally right is immoral. [Edit] As requested below: here are the detail about the military unneccesity of the atomic bombings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... There are other debates around this, but this discusses only if Japan would have speedily surrendered without the Atomic bombing.
- kyberias 12y ago
  Now is there really an equal number? How do you know?
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. EDIT: An excerpt from your link: This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. It seems hard to argue that literally firebombing an entire civilization into stoneage living conditions was more ethical than forcing a quick political decision to surrender and stop the madness. Can you imagine trying to live without basic necessities? Even if nobody was dropping bombs on you directly, you, your family, and everyone around you would be the definition of misery for the duration of the firebombing. The firebombing didn't simply destroy military targets. It also decimated infrastructure that we take for granted, such as the ability to deliver drinkable water, or to seek medical treatment at hospitals. How many were to die a miserable death due to the firebombing before Hiroshima and Nagasaki could objectively be called the more ethical decision? Also, the above analysis assumes both sides had perfect information. But information during wartime is asymmetric. It's entirely possible that America had no knowledge of the Japanese political framework at the time the decision to drop the bombs was made. If the Japanese were broadcasting their intention to surrender before the bombs were dropped, that would be different, but it doesn't seem like that was the case. Would you mind helping me understand why firebombing was more ethical than the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
  - angersock 12y ago
    We found Tokyo a city of paper, and left it a city of concrete? Maybe that's more ethical somehow?
  - deleted 12y ago
barrkel 12y ago
How many children was it worth killing to make sure Japan lost? What if the alternative to bombing Japan wasn't an invasion of Japan? How about using those bombs on or over invading fleets of Japanese - if Japan ever actually planned to invade the US?
- CocaKoala 12y ago
  You should look into the history of the relationship between e.g. Japan and Korea or Japan and China and see if anything interesting happened during the late 1930s or early 1940s. It might be the case that there were concerns other than simply "Will Japan attack the mainland".
- sehr 12y ago
  It seems like it was more a declaration of power than anything.
  - ArkyBeagle 12y ago
    This was the moment at which the Bushido Code really did the Japanese no favors. The island hopping campaign had been brutal. It did not take a great deal of imagination to make an assault on the Home Islands daunting. Things I've read indicate that there was an actual lack of trusted comms between the Imperial staff and the U.S. I believe things were going through the Soviets. Some credit that with leaving enough gap to make any offer of surrender much slower and harder to verify. And there was allegedly a power struggle within the Imperial chain of command.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  It's not like the country would have meekly gone home to lick its wounds, had the nasty Americans only left them alone. Remember the war started because of Japan's imperialistic dreams in SE Asia. You might have visions of the U.S. systematically destroying any Japanese war power that ventured out for conquest while leaving the home islands untouched, but that kind of shepherding requires a degree of total military superiority we did not posses at the time.
olavk 12y ago
The purpose of the nuclear bomb was the same as the purpose of strategic bombing in general - to destroy buildings and infrastructure and kill people indiscriminately. The nuclear bomb was not fundamentally different in that aspect - strategic bombings had been going on for years and was highly destructive and deadly already. For example the firebombing of Tokyo with conventional bombs killed more people than the Hiroshima nuclear bomb. So the use of nuclear bomb did not require any special explanation or justification. It was natural extension of the strategy in use. Of course it can be said that the purpose of the use of any weapon is to win and thereby end the was sooner, hence saving lives in the long run. In that case the purpose of any bomb, tank, landmine or gun is to save lives.
notahacker 12y ago
One can entertain the idea that the eventual outcome was ultimately better for all parties than the alternatives (though it's far from clear that's the case when the alternatives included "not playing hardball over unconditional surrender" and the scientists' favoured alternative of "demonstrate the bomb in a relatively benign manner") but the minutes of the meetings that made the decision quite explicitly discuss relative merits of targets in terms of the anticipated destructive effect on civilians, speaking favourably about wiping out Kyoto because of its high concentration of intellectuals before ultimately choosing Hiroshima over more obvious military targets because it "has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed" (and not really being militarily significant, it was largely undamaged). The notion that the surviving Japanese might ultimately be better off doesn't seem to have featured so highly in the decision-making calculus.

shabda 12y ago

While there are many people who subscribe to your view, there are an equal number who believe that Japan would have surrendered within months/weeks with no ground invasion. The allies had complete air and naval superiority and Russia had joined the the Japanese war theatre. If you have read the ethics of atomic bombings in any detail you are already aware of the details, so I would refrain from linking to wikipedia. To push your POV that the bombing was entirely necessary and entirely morally right is immoral. [Edit] As requested below: here are the detail about the military unneccesity of the atomic bombings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings... There are other debates around this, but this discusses only if Japan would have speedily surrendered without the Atomic bombing.

kyberias 12y ago
Now is there really an equal number? How do you know?
sillysaurus3 12y ago
I'm not aware of the ethical details, so feel free to correct me. It's my understanding that invasion was imminent at the time of the bombings, so America's choice was either to send bombs or soldiers. If that was truly their choice, it seems hard to argue that the bomb was the less ethical. It's fine to say that Japan would have surrendered without invasion, but such a strong assertion needs to be backed by equally strong evidence. EDIT: An excerpt from your link: This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population. It seems hard to argue that literally firebombing an entire civilization into stoneage living conditions was more ethical than forcing a quick political decision to surrender and stop the madness. Can you imagine trying to live without basic necessities? Even if nobody was dropping bombs on you directly, you, your family, and everyone around you would be the definition of misery for the duration of the firebombing. The firebombing didn't simply destroy military targets. It also decimated infrastructure that we take for granted, such as the ability to deliver drinkable water, or to seek medical treatment at hospitals. How many were to die a miserable death due to the firebombing before Hiroshima and Nagasaki could objectively be called the more ethical decision? Also, the above analysis assumes both sides had perfect information. But information during wartime is asymmetric. It's entirely possible that America had no knowledge of the Japanese political framework at the time the decision to drop the bombs was made. If the Japanese were broadcasting their intention to surrender before the bombs were dropped, that would be different, but it doesn't seem like that was the case. Would you mind helping me understand why firebombing was more ethical than the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- angersock 12y ago
  We found Tokyo a city of paper, and left it a city of concrete? Maybe that's more ethical somehow?
- deleted 12y ago

barrkel 12y ago

How many children was it worth killing to make sure Japan lost? What if the alternative to bombing Japan wasn't an invasion of Japan? How about using those bombs on or over invading fleets of Japanese - if Japan ever actually planned to invade the US?

CocaKoala 12y ago
You should look into the history of the relationship between e.g. Japan and Korea or Japan and China and see if anything interesting happened during the late 1930s or early 1940s. It might be the case that there were concerns other than simply "Will Japan attack the mainland".
sehr 12y ago
It seems like it was more a declaration of power than anything.
- ArkyBeagle 12y ago
  This was the moment at which the Bushido Code really did the Japanese no favors. The island hopping campaign had been brutal. It did not take a great deal of imagination to make an assault on the Home Islands daunting. Things I've read indicate that there was an actual lack of trusted comms between the Imperial staff and the U.S. I believe things were going through the Soviets. Some credit that with leaving enough gap to make any offer of surrender much slower and harder to verify. And there was allegedly a power struggle within the Imperial chain of command.
sliverstorm 12y ago
It's not like the country would have meekly gone home to lick its wounds, had the nasty Americans only left them alone. Remember the war started because of Japan's imperialistic dreams in SE Asia. You might have visions of the U.S. systematically destroying any Japanese war power that ventured out for conquest while leaving the home islands untouched, but that kind of shepherding requires a degree of total military superiority we did not posses at the time.

olavk 12y ago

The purpose of the nuclear bomb was the same as the purpose of strategic bombing in general - to destroy buildings and infrastructure and kill people indiscriminately. The nuclear bomb was not fundamentally different in that aspect - strategic bombings had been going on for years and was highly destructive and deadly already. For example the firebombing of Tokyo with conventional bombs killed more people than the Hiroshima nuclear bomb. So the use of nuclear bomb did not require any special explanation or justification. It was natural extension of the strategy in use. Of course it can be said that the purpose of the use of any weapon is to win and thereby end the was sooner, hence saving lives in the long run. In that case the purpose of any bomb, tank, landmine or gun is to save lives.

notahacker 12y ago

One can entertain the idea that the eventual outcome was ultimately better for all parties than the alternatives (though it's far from clear that's the case when the alternatives included "not playing hardball over unconditional surrender" and the scientists' favoured alternative of "demonstrate the bomb in a relatively benign manner") but the minutes of the meetings that made the decision quite explicitly discuss relative merits of targets in terms of the anticipated destructive effect on civilians, speaking favourably about wiping out Kyoto because of its high concentration of intellectuals before ultimately choosing Hiroshima over more obvious military targets because it "has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focusing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed" (and not really being militarily significant, it was largely undamaged). The notion that the surviving Japanese might ultimately be better off doesn't seem to have featured so highly in the decision-making calculus.