Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

11–20 of 196 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#11
> However I may feel about the bomb having been used, I don't doubt it saved more lives than it took.

I won't apologize for being rude: fuck you. What judgmental and self-centered view. Views like that are reason for americans being hated worldwide.

Would it be the same if a nuke dropped in Chicago, or Las Vegas?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#12
post #6
post #3

> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…

> I don't doubt it saved more lives than it took > I'm not sure there's a clear answer there. You need to investigate your beliefs. I will not make a stand, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... a long going debate.

I'm not sure what to think, but here's an interesting argument. What would the counterargument look like?

"When Okinawa was finally declared secure, the cost had been horrific. Some 150,000 Okinawans died, approximately one-third the island's population. An additional 10,000 Koreans, used by the Japanese military as slave labor, died as well. Of the 119,000 or so Japanese soldiers, as many as 112,000 were killed in the battle or forever sealed inside a collapsed cave or bunker. Aside from the human cost, most of the physical aspects of Okinawan culture were razed. Few buildings survived the 3 months fighting. Collectively, the defenders lost more dead than the Japanese suffered in the two atomic bombings combined. The United States lost 13,000 dead: almost 8,000 on the island and the remainder at sea; another 32,000 were wounded.

The loss of life on both sides, particularly among the Japanese civilians, caused immense worry in Washington. New President Harry Truman was looking at the plans for a proposed assault on the Japanese main islands, and the casualty projections were unacceptable. Projections numbered the potential casualties from 100,000 in the first 30 days to as many as 1 million attackers, and the death count for the Japanese civilians would be impossible to calculate. If they resisted as strongly as did the citizens of Okinawa -- and the inhabitants of the home islands would be even more dedicated to defending their homeland -- Japan would become a wasteland. It was already looking like one in many areas. The U.S. bombing campaign, in place since the previous September, was burning out huge areas of Japanese cities. How much longer the Japanese could have held out in the face of the fire bombing is a matter of much dispute; some project that, had the incendiary raids continued until November, the Japanese would have been thrown back to an almost Stone Age existence. The problem was this: no one in the west knew exactly what was happening in Japan. The devastation could be estimated, but the resistance could not.

Thus, with the casualties of the Okinawa battle fresh in his mind, when Truman learned of the successful testing of an atomic bomb, he ordered its use. This is a decision debated since 6 August 1945, the date of the bombing of Hiroshima, and even before. Just what was known of Japanese decision-making processes before that date is also argued to this day. Was the Japanese government in the process of formulating a peace offer, in spite of the demand for unconditional surrender the Allies had decided upon in February 1943? If they were doing so, did anyone in the west know about it? Who knew what, when they knew it, and what effect that knowledge had or may have had on Truman's decision making is a matter of much dispute. Whatever the political ramifications of the atomic bomb on the immediate and postwar world, Truman's decision was certainly based in no small part on the nature of the fighting on Okinawa. Truman wrote just after his decision, "We'll end the war sooner now. And think of the kids who wont be killed."

Horrible as the effects of the two atomic bombs were, the number of casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as compared with the potential number an invasion could have caused is small indeed."

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#13
post #9
post #3

> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…

By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it. Iraq invades Kuwait? Nuke it. North Korea developing weapons of mass destruction? Nuke it. Why mess around with invasions. Note the scientists who developed the bomb begged the US government to first drop one off the coast of Japan to demonstrate to them what they were facing. Instead we killed tens of thousands of civilians on purpose, not once…

Well not really. Estimates for the cost of invading Japan were approx 1m US casualties, 5m Japanese. None of the above issues produce anything like that.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#14
post #9
post #3

> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…

By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it. Iraq invades Kuwait? Nuke it. North Korea developing weapons of mass destruction? Nuke it. Why mess around with invasions. Note the scientists who developed the bomb begged the US government to first drop one off the coast of Japan to demonstrate to them what they were facing. Instead we killed tens of thousands of civilians on purpose, not once…

> By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it.

I don't think you actually understand said logic. US was in war with Japan for a long time, and was steadily winning; however, against self-interest of their country, Japanese command would not surrender. Continuing assault, US inflicted enormous civilian losses on Japan. The firebombing of Tokyo alone was at least as deadly as Hiroshima atomic bomb. And yet, Japan command did not want to surrender. Only atomic bomb finally succeed in ending the war.

It didn't happen because of some abstract "score"; it happened because of sheer moral shock of how one bomb was able to destroy an entire city. If US had decided to just bomb Hiroshima with conventional methods, inflicting exactly the same amount of death and destruction, it most likely wouldn't have ended the war.

Iraq, North Korea and other situations you can link with "this logic" are _not_ similar to this.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#15
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't doubt it saved more lives than it took > I'm not sure there's a clear answer there. You need to investigate your beliefs. I will not make a stand, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... a long going debate.

I'm not sure what to think, but here's an interesting argument. What would the counterargument look like? "When Okinawa was finally declared secure, the cost had been horrific. Some 150,000 Okinawans died, approximately one-third the island's population. An additional 10,000 Koreans, used by the Japanese military as slave labor, died as well. Of the 119,000 or so Japanese soldiers, as many as 112,000 were killed in t…

I don't think many people doubt that a land invasion to the bitter end would kill more people than dropping the bombs, but the argument is was the bomb necessary? Some higher ups in the military at the time thought Japan was on the brink of total surrender.

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." - DWIGHT EISENHOWER (in 1963)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons." - Admiral William Leahy, Truman’s chief military advisor

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#16
post #3

> In the street, the first thing he saw was a squad of soldiers who had been burrowing into the hillside opposite, making one of the thousands of dugouts in which the Japanese apparently intended to resist invasion, hill by hill, life for life; the soldiers were coming out of the hole, where they should have been safe, and blood was running from their heads, chests, and backs. They were silent and dazed. However I ma…

This counterfactual loses much of its appeal when you learn that Japan was beaten and had been trying, through back channels, to conditionally surrender for months prior to the bombing. Their sole condition was guaranteed safety for the Emperor: the US refused to grant this, and so the fighting continued.

As history shows, the US had no intention of harming the emperor -- so why wouldn't it accept this condition? And why did it target civilians, rather than (as the Los Alamos scientists had called for) a demonstration just off the coast which would have made the point equally well?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#17

It must have been a surreal experience, to walk through the burning remains of your world, without an explanation as to "How".

One particularly nice detail in the piece, the kind of detail you could only get from talking to real survivors shortly afterwards, is the kinds of theories and rumors that were going around the day of/after the bomb. People thought the Americans had sprinkled gasoline and lit it on fire, or thought that there had been some kind of trick involving dusting the city with magnesium. The weird rumors remind me of the kind of stuff I heard on the day of 9/11.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#18
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't doubt it saved more lives than it took > I'm not sure there's a clear answer there. You need to investigate your beliefs. I will not make a stand, there's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombing... a long going debate.

I'm not sure what to think, but here's an interesting argument. What would the counterargument look like? "When Okinawa was finally declared secure, the cost had been horrific. Some 150,000 Okinawans died, approximately one-third the island's population. An additional 10,000 Koreans, used by the Japanese military as slave labor, died as well. Of the 119,000 or so Japanese soldiers, as many as 112,000 were killed in t…

That's a straw man. There were many alternatives apart from an invasion, such as a submarine blockade (as the navy was proposing), or simply accepting the conditional surrender which Japan had been offering through back-channels for weeks.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#19
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even with an explanation to "How", "Why" is the more common question when faced with intentional and extreme tragedy against yourself and loved ones.

Having gone through Katrina and been deployed for Fukushima, I assure you, there is plenty of time for the survivors to contemplate all the questions. That is arguably part of the tragedy of survivorship: facing down all the questions, and knowing with cruel certainty there will be time to face them.

I also went through Katrina and the thing in this piece that reminded me the most of that experience was how people quickly became numb to the horror of their situation and dealt with things practically, one thing after the other. Or alternately became totally nonfunctional.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#20
post #13
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By this logic, the US should just nuke any area causing problems for it. Iraq invades Kuwait? Nuke it. North Korea developing weapons of mass destruction? Nuke it. Why mess around with invasions. Note the scientists who developed the bomb begged the US government to first drop one off the coast of Japan to demonstrate to them what they were facing. Instead we killed tens of thousands of civilians on purpose, not once…

Well not really. Estimates for the cost of invading Japan were approx 1m US casualties, 5m Japanese. None of the above issues produce anything like that.

Now explain why we decided to vaporize tens of thousands more civilians a few days later.
Post reply on HN