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

41–50 of 168 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#41

Post by PhantomGremlin »

renewiltord wrote: post #19
eska wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, wa…

I have no problem with the death of those who would prefer my death.

The most memorable line from the movie Patton (I don't know if General Patton said this IRL):

Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#42

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

kingkawn wrote: post #30
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…

A quote from General Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Japan at the moment was seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face. It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” There are more quotes, but basically everything you were taught about the necessity of wiping out hundreds of thousands of people in a flash was after the fact American propaganda to justify a war crime.

> "Japan at the moment was seeking a way to surrender with a minimum loss of face"

Not really; some in Japan were seeking a surrender and some, notably nearly all of the Japanese military, were quite definitively not. Had the internal coup intended to prevent the surrender succeeded (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident), Eisenhower's quote would have been entirely false instead of a half-truth.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#43

Post by pmachinery »

missedthecue wrote: post #17
EarthIsHome wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regardless of the number, there was no need to invade Japan.

It was already defeated, and offering to surrender, before the USSR joined the fight.

Totally surrounded/blockaded, no allies left in the world, bombed at will, what else could it do but accept defeat?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#44

Post by catalogia »

purple-again wrote: post #21
Entwickler wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In the surrendering words of the emperor himself the atomic bomb is directly mentioned as one reason for the surrender.

Words which almost weren't heard at all because some parts of the Japanese military attempted to prevent the surrender from being published.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#45

Post by gen220 »

the_af wrote: post #18
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 neut…

It’s worth noting that many in Japan sincerely believed it was the best way to end to the war.

I’ve changed my opinion on this topic many times over the years. Today I think it’s just arrogant to say it was obviously wrong or obviously right. Reality is too complicated. Counterfactuals abound.

One dimension that people haven’t discussed in this thread, is that ending the war with atomic bombs and napalm prevented a bilateral invasion of Japan, which would have led to a Korea or Germany-like partitioning of postwar Japan.

Instead of a speedy recovery and track to self determination, there would have been 50 years of Cold War tensions, perhaps proxy wars.

But maybe not! It’s very complicated.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#46

Post by hutzlibu »

manfredo wrote: post #40
the_af wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 neut…

Necessity and justification are two different concepts. Few believe it was necessary - the United States' overwhelming industrial capacity was bound to prevail over Japan. The state of the two countries warmaking capacity was totally lopsided by 1945. Thus it was not necessary to achieve victory. That is brought an end to the war with fewer casualties, both American and Japanese even moreso, is not a difficult claim…

Yes, but maybe the bombs would have had the same effect, if dropped on actual military targets (or even unhabitated land, but close enough to demonstrate the power) instead of an civilian city.

(a city with military production, sure sure, but they were choosen not because of military value, but because they were relatively undamaged, so the effect of the bombs could be studied. Concern for loss of japan civilian live was never an issue)

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#47

Post by rbecker »

manfredo wrote: post #40
the_af wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 neut…

Necessity and justification are two different concepts. Few believe it was necessary - the United States' overwhelming industrial capacity was bound to prevail over Japan. The state of the two countries warmaking capacity was totally lopsided by 1945. Thus it was not necessary to achieve victory. That is brought an end to the war with fewer casualties, both American and Japanese even moreso, is not a difficult claim…

You misunderstand - the belief is not that the US could have won the war even without the bombs, but that "bombs vs. invasion" was a false dichotomy, and that Japan would have unconditionally surrendered around the same time without the bombs, or perhaps even sooner had the conditional surrender they were already seeking been on the table.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#48

Post by [deleted] »

pmachinery wrote: post #43
missedthecue wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Regardless of the number, there was no need to invade Japan. It was already defeated, and offering to surrender, before the USSR joined the fight. Totally surrounded/blockaded, no allies left in the world, bombed at will, what else could it do but accept defeat?

[deleted]

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#49

Post by manfredo »

hutzlibu wrote: post #46
manfredo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Necessity and justification are two different concepts. Few believe it was necessary - the United States' overwhelming industrial capacity was bound to prevail over Japan. The state of the two countries warmaking capacity was totally lopsided by 1945. Thus it was not necessary to achieve victory. That is brought an end to the war with fewer casualties, both American and Japanese even moreso, is not a difficult claim…

Yes, but maybe the bombs would have had the same effect, if dropped on actual military targets (or even unhabitated land, but close enough to demonstrate the power) instead of an civilian city. (a city with military production, sure sure, but they were choosen not because of military value, but because they were relatively undamaged, so the effect of the bombs could be studied. Concern for loss of japan civilian live…

Remember, it took not one, but two atomic bombs dropped on cities for Japan to surrender. And even after that, there was an attempted coup to continue fighting the war: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

There only existed two bombs at the time. Had the bombs been dropped as a show of force, it is very likely the US and Japan would have to suffer through a costly invasion anyway.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#50

Post by mholt »

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.

I also recommend The Shadow Peace, a short 14-minute video analysis on the utility of nuclear weapons and their role in our modern era of relative peace: http://www.fallen.io/shadow-peace/1/ (unfortunately no HTTPS)

It's a slightly more optimistic take on the tragedies of the 20th century.

Post reply on HN