5 ms·

The atomic bombs were not more devastating to Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were conventional bomb campaigns to other similar cities in Japan toward the end of Wo

by nwatson 12y ago

The atomic bombs were not more devastating to Hiroshima and Nagasaki than were conventional bomb campaigns to other similar cities in Japan toward the end of World War II. The damage from atomic bombs did not stand out as extraordinary to the Japanese leadership at the time. What forced Japan to surrender was Russia's declaration of war. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_di... " ... But if you graph the number of people killed in all 68 cities bombed in the summer of 1945, you find that Hiroshima was second in terms of civilian deaths. If you chart the number of square miles destroyed, you find that Hiroshima was fourth. If you chart the percentage of the city destroyed, Hiroshima was 17th. Hiroshima was clearly within the parameters of the conventional attacks carried out that summer. ..."

mikeash 12y ago
Now chart out the number of planes used in the attack and the potential rate of attacks once the production pipeline really got going. That's what made it remarkable. A thousand B-29s fly over your city and leave it a smoking ruin is Tuesday, but two B-29s fly over and do the same and that's something new and scary. Contrary to your statement that the attack was considered unremarkable, reports of the attack were initially disbelieved by the Japanese government because they knew of nothing that had occurred that could have caused such damage: "It was generally felt at Headquarters that nothing serious had taken place, that it was all a terrible rumor starting from a few sparks of truth." From http://www.abomb1.org/hiroshim/hiro_med.html#SUMMARY http://www.abomb1.org/hiroshim/hiro_med.html#SUMMARY The ultimate effect of the atomic bombings on the surrender compared to the Soviet intervention is highly debatable, of course, but it wasn't irrelevant just because it wasn't the most devastating attack of the war.
ceejayoz 12y ago
> Hiroshima was clearly within the parameters of the conventional attacks carried out that summer. That's like saying we'd treat a shooting incident where 500 people died the same as 500 individual murders.
- Someone 12y ago
  Its more like saying that a single bomb that kills 500 is on par with an attack by an army in which 500 are shot dead. I agree with that idea. Apart from the fact that they were single-plane attacks, there was little that set the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings apart from what happened to almost every city in Japan. Yes, radiation sickness is awful, but so are napalm burns on half your skin. One thing that I wonder about whenever this subject comes up is whether it would have been cheaper to deploy use conventional bombs against those targets. It would have been fairly easy to send a thousand bombers with conventional payloads (or just 200 that made 5 sorties each)
timdiggerm 12y ago
It wasn't so much that Hiroshima & Nagasaki were so awful, but rather the potential destruction they represented

by nwatson 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

Now chart out the number of planes used in the attack and the potential rate of attacks once the production pipeline really got going. That's what made it remarkable. A thousand B-29s fly over your city and leave it a smoking ruin is Tuesday, but two B-29s fly over and do the same and that's something new and scary. Contrary to your statement that the attack was considered unremarkable, reports of the attack were initially disbelieved by the Japanese government because they knew of nothing that had occurred that could have caused such damage: "It was generally felt at Headquarters that nothing serious had taken place, that it was all a terrible rumor starting from a few sparks of truth." From http://www.abomb1.org/hiroshim/hiro_med.html#SUMMARY http://www.abomb1.org/hiroshim/hiro_med.html#SUMMARY The ultimate effect of the atomic bombings on the surrender compared to the Soviet intervention is highly debatable, of course, but it wasn't irrelevant just because it wasn't the most devastating attack of the war.

ceejayoz 12y ago

> Hiroshima was clearly within the parameters of the conventional attacks carried out that summer. That's like saying we'd treat a shooting incident where 500 people died the same as 500 individual murders.

Someone 12y ago
Its more like saying that a single bomb that kills 500 is on par with an attack by an army in which 500 are shot dead. I agree with that idea. Apart from the fact that they were single-plane attacks, there was little that set the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings apart from what happened to almost every city in Japan. Yes, radiation sickness is awful, but so are napalm burns on half your skin. One thing that I wonder about whenever this subject comes up is whether it would have been cheaper to deploy use conventional bombs against those targets. It would have been fairly easy to send a thousand bombers with conventional payloads (or just 200 that made 5 sorties each)

timdiggerm 12y ago

It wasn't so much that Hiroshima & Nagasaki were so awful, but rather the potential destruction they represented