Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 168 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#11

Post by renewiltord »

senand wrote: post #10
supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

Even assuming it did bring an end to the war: was it really necessary to drop two bombs for that?

Conventional wisdom is that you have to prove you can do it on demand rather than it being a one and done. If you have one, it could be the last one. If you have two, you could have infinity.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#12

Post by Entwickler »

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

I've heard the idea that atomic bombs were the deciding factor in ending the war is in large part American propaganda. The fact is the Soviets had far superior divisions (in both manpower and fire power) lined up against the Japanese in Manchuria, and shattered them within weeks.

From wikipedia(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_War), "Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week after Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off an Allied invasion from the south and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the north. Furthermore, the Japanese could no longer hope to achieve a negotiated peace with the Allies by using the Soviet Union as a mediator with the Soviet declaration of war. That, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[39][16] Others with similar views include the Battlefield series documentary,[2][11] among others, but all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not caused by only one factor or event."

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#13

Post by EarthIsHome »

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

For those interested in arguments about whether the bombings were necessary, there's a good Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombi...

I do believe the bombings were a strategic show-of-force to the Soviet Union since they were coming out of the war as a global power; USSR were instrumental in ending the war.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#14

Post by overkalix »

senand wrote: post #10
supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

Even assuming it did bring an end to the war: was it really necessary to drop two bombs for that?

I don't know how accurate this information is but they way it was completely explained to me, the Japanese government and population were not that affected by the first bomb in terms of morale. They had already suffered horrible large-scale bombings (e.g. Tokyo) and regardless of the initial effect, the US leadership had already decided to drop two bombs to give the impression that these bombs could keep coming 2-3 times a week.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#15

Post by eska »

renewiltord wrote: post #11
senand wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even assuming it did bring an end to the war: was it really necessary to drop two bombs for that?

Conventional wisdom is that you have to prove you can do it on demand rather than it being a one and done. If you have one, it could be the last one. If you have two, you could have infinity.

And the first one was likely to be a dud, thereby completely removing the psychological effect from further atomic bombs, of which there was only one for the next couple months.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#16

Post by mytailorisrich »

The allies had already started to resort to obliterating whole cities and their inhabitants before Hiroshima (see Dresden, Tokyo).

IMHO, this was not the result of how "evil" the German and Japanese regimes were (which seems to me to be a rationalization) but the result of 5 years of total war. I think that at some point people came to accept doing whatever it took to win and end the war.

In the context of what was going on I think dropping atomic bombs to precipitate the end of the war and send a message to the Soviets was perhaps not considered as big a deal as we might think because, as said, the result was already accepted looking at the conventional bombing raids that had taken place.

War is hell and total war means total hell.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#17

Post by missedthecue »

EarthIsHome wrote: post #13
supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

For those interested in arguments about whether the bombings were necessary, there's a good Wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombi... I do believe the bombings were a strategic show-of-force to the Soviet Union since they were coming out of the war as a global power; USSR were instrumental in ending the war.

The fact that the military is still awarding Purple Hearts that were manufactured for the invasion of Japan tells me that it was more than justified. Japanese intelligence itself estimated 20 million casualties during an invasion.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#18

Post by the_af »

supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

> I realized that it actually did bring an end to the war

This may be the mainstream opinion in the US, but do note it's not the mainstream opinion in other countries. Alternative explanations include that the real purpose of the two bombs was to show the Soviets the nuclear might of the US (this view is suggested in the Hiroshima museum in Japan, but just in case you discount it because Japan is obviously not a neutral party, this opinion is also held in some countries in Latin America -- even some people in the US believe this). Even at the time, some people in the US army opposed the bombing and believed it had no military justification.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#19

Post by renewiltord »

eska wrote: post #7
supernova87a wrote: post #3

When I was young in grade school, and learned about the bomb, and its terrifying aftermath, pictures, scars, I thought that this was clearly a wrong against humanity to have been dropped on anyone. Clearly the visceral kind of "this should never happen" reaction that any average person would have. "How could we put the Enola Gay on a stamp to glorify this?" Then, in college and especially after, learning about the eq…

My school education about this was also essentially "bombs are bad, kids". The Wikipedia article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_a... ) is actually quite enlightening in this matter. A lot of people seem to think that the Americans didn't try anything else before. Likewise most people don't realize how much more death there would've been on both sides if the US invaded Japan by sea.

It strikes me as odd that practically any victorious military finds all of its actions optimal. If it had not done as it did, then the outcomes would be worse. The regularity of the superiority of the action taken is fascinating.

Curiously, this website has a large number of commentators that believe that luck is one of the biggest factors in startup success. Yet, in this other domain of antagonistic participants, war, the victor is always the better strategist, having seen through the flaws of his enemy. Mere luck plays no part here. A curious result to me. It appears that Man is elevated to supreme intelligence when tasked with war, and finds himself a mere leaf on air currents otherwise.

Of course, I’m no peacenik. I have no problem over-bombing a population so I don’t really see Hiroshima and Nagasaki as tragedies. Since no one has an incentive to reveal the true minimum that would cause them to capitulate, it is usually a good idea when you’re almost winning to make sure you’re definitely winning. I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death. Just fascinated at how we conquer luck in this sphere alone.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#20

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

renewiltord wrote: post #11
senand wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even assuming it did bring an end to the war: was it really necessary to drop two bombs for that?

Conventional wisdom is that you have to prove you can do it on demand rather than it being a one and done. If you have one, it could be the last one. If you have two, you could have infinity.

Wiping out one city in one single gigantic unprecedented flash was pretty convincing.
Post reply on HN