61–70 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even assuming it did bring an end to the war: was it really necessary to drop two bombs for that?
Similarly, can someone explain why the bombs weren't dropped a few miles out to sea? It would still have clearly demonstrated the capability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
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?
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?
This is blatantly false. Even after two atomic bombs had fallen on Japan, their military leaders -- and indeed most of their population -- remained committed to fight on until the nation of Japan ceased to exist. It was only the intervention of the emperor himself (who never gets involved in matters of war) that convinced the military and the people to surrender after the bombs were dropped.
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.
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…
We had a discussion about this in high school, I think my junior year. Most of these types of discussions were very lopsided, so the teacher would usually have to encourage people to take the “bad/unpopular” position somehow. But this one was right down the line in my class and produced a lively debate. I still think about it, but my opinion hasn’t changed — it was the correct decision.
Our debate came down to whether or not directly / immediately killing hundreds of thousands of citizens was justified by potentially preventing even more dying in a subsequent invasion. The class was similarly split.
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.
If the war aim was the permanent political defeat of Japanese fascism, then this was important. You don't just want the leader's signature on paper, you want defeat to be undeniable to everyone.
In both cases, the naval blockade left a lot of civilians hungry, and was great military value-for-money. But politically, that was easier to forget afterwards. Your adversary's ability to destroy whole cities with one plane was not.
(In germany's case, having two different armies in Berlin for half a century was also kind-of hard to forget.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even assuming it did bring an end to the war: was it really necessary to drop two bombs for that?
The second bomb coming so quickly was key to convincing Hirohito’s to surrender. The military had argued that Hiroshima was a one time thing, and the US couldn’t possibly build another bomb any time soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Offering to surrender conditionally . Specifically, on the condition that it keep Korea and Taiwan (and maybe Manchuria, too), and that it's military government remain largely unchanged. This is was not a surrender that was acceptable to the Allies. This thread is being rate limited, reply in edit: Denying Korea and Taiwan is easier said than done. Remember that Japan essentially won the continental war against China…
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.
For some reason, this reminds me of the refactoring advice.