Live data from Hacker News

Hiroshima (1946)

newyorker.com

101–110 of 168 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#101
Great article. It's worth considering the Japanese reaction to the bomb - people thought it was cluster munitions or other conventional explosives leading to them taking sub-optimal follow-on steps. While the physicists figured it out, it was not obvious at the time to many people who experienced it firsthand what happened.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " 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.

You know more than Eisenhower?

The Eisenhower quote is from 1963. He was not a general in the pacific theater, and was not involved in postwar Japan.

IMO, his quote should be read as that of a politician (which he was, at that point, having served two terms as president), rather than that of a military general.

It was not so cut and dry, as his words imply.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#103
Japan and Germany were both utterly humbled by the war. They learnt the lessons and are now respected and vibrant democracies.

UK and USA were on the winning side. This bred myths of British and American exceptionlism, which led eventually to Brexit, catastrophic handling of COVID19 and (perhaps) Trump.

History often has a sting in it's tail.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#104
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 What about those who have no opinion one way or the other about your death, or are incapable of having an informed opinion, such as very young children?

The children raised in bushido, who would grow up to make sure the enemy took no prisoners by having all prisoners suicide attack captors? Those who didn’t grow up to be warriors an just be innocent civilians would still fall in line with a culture that would gladly sacrifice every innocent civilian in its borders to fight. Murder until not even the dust of the bones of the society remain. It isn’t some historical fantasy. Japan was in a bloodlust.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#105

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.

This always seemed like an odd conspiracy theory to me. It supposes that the U.S. is one the one hand so cavalier about dropping atom bombs that they're willing to destroy Japanese cities merely as a show of force to a potential rival, but on the other hand that they're so reserved about using it that they wouldn't use it to gain victory against the country they're engaged in a destructive war with.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#106

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.

This always seemed like an odd conspiracy theory to me. It supposes that the U.S. is one the one hand so cavalier about dropping atom bombs that they're willing to destroy Japanese cities merely as a show of force to a potential rival, but on the other hand that they're so reserved about using it that they wouldn't use it to gain victory against the country they're engaged in a destructive war with.

> willing to destroy Japanese cities merely as a show of force

We had already destroyed most Japanese cities with fire bombs. Hiroshima was one of the few cities specifically spared from fire bombs

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#107
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…

As someone who grew up outside of the US, I have found that Americans have a unique view on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. American schoolchildren are raised to believe that it was morally justified because it won - and therefore ended - the war. This attitude is so deeply and fundamentally ingrained into most Americans (including many who would self-identify as liberals) that it is very hard for them to see it as a war cri…

In a sense, the quibbling over whether or not it was a war crime is meaningless. If atomic weapons hadn't been available, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would've undergone ordinary firebombing, likely resulting in immediate casualties just as high. See, for example: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/14/world/tokyo-journal-10000... for a description of the effects of firebombing elsewhere in Japan.

One might argue that the lingering radiation effects made atomic weapons worse but, on the other hand, the firebombing would've been done more than once. Really six of one, half a dozen of the other, except you don't see that many people bringing up firebombings as a war crime.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#108

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…

> 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?"

This is captured very well in Leiji Matsumoto's "The Cockpit" anime short, where in the protagonist, a Nazi Luftwaffe Pilot, is faced with the dilemma where Nazis had access to Nuclear weapons before the Allies but ultimately told from the perspective of the Japanese and perhaps even the Hibakusha themselves as he was born in 1938 and saw the the War in Japan first hand in this lifetime. It's pretty heavy stuff but conveys how this technology should not be in the hands of Humans in their current form, as its not worth the risk of the inevitable usecases we've collectively created thus far.

> Now, my 3rd phase of thinking -- beyond any opinion on tactics or reaction or bombs in the moment of a war -- is how do we get people to help themselves get out of the path to war? Each and every one of us, who whether by support or indifference, or tacit approval, or compounded misinformation, or ego, get ourselves into situations that we look back 50 years from now and say, "what happened?".

Honestly, War, especially to that massive destructive scale is only capable under the Nation-State model, which is what initially got me interested in Anarchism: as a tool for effective Anti-war measures.

I just fear Humanity may never truly be able to accept a Social model in which the State model is entirely absent and unnecessary before these things occur again, look how close this US vs CCP rhetoric is stoking the flames of potentially WW3 (both nuclear capable) when we have a so many ongoing crises that need the collective focus of all of Humanity to come close to even trying to solve.

Sidenote: The bombing of Horoshima and Nagasaki took place after the US had effectively crippled the Japanese economy and supply lines in a nation with no natural resources of their own. Its often speculated about how much longer they could have put up a resistance, prolonging Japan's defeat, and what would ultimately create a near permanent occupation by the US, but the War effort and the manufacturing of these armaments to the level they had before was impossible by the time Fat Man and Little Boy entered the Pacific theater.

Moreover, the constant conventional bombing and air raids of Tokyo by Allies (Tokyo Daikushu) claimed more lives (that still stands to this day) than both Nuclear bombs combined at the time of it being dropped, but the tragic thing being that that Hibakusha and their descendants still suffer long after the Empire fell, but still live with the horrible birth defects and health issues to this day. The way the US via GE and Westinghouse imposed Nuclear technology on them was perhaps the most cloaked dagger to Humanity I have ever seen in the reconstruction phase of all the 'axis' nations when you see how devastating Fukushima is (at the hands of TEPCO/Abe Government) that continues to pour massive nuclear contaminated water into the Pacific Ocean to this day.

The lesson (hopefully) being, that no one 'won' and all of Humanity 'lost' as we probably embarked on a very dark and destructive phase of our Human Condition that we probably would have been better not knowing we were capable of as a Species. Just look at the tragic plight of the Marshall Islands in the race for other nations to be Nuclear capable as well.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#109

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 g…

>IMHO, this was not the result of how "evil" the German and Japanese regimes were (which seems to me to be a rationalization)

More than ten million killed in war crimes by Japan alone in less than 15 years. These weren’t some secret at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#110

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.

As a tangent to your comment, it always good to remember that big geopolitical decisions are never made in a vacuum, so when someone says “country X did Y because of Z” it usually misleading.

Some of the most fascinating reading I’ve done is the Pentagon papers because they go into exquisite detail about all of the thinking that resulted in the US’s involvement in Vietnam. It wasn’t just the Domino Theory, it wasn’t just containment of China, it wasn’t just getting France’s support for NATO, it wasn’t just Truman’s, JFK’s and Johnson’s efforts to look tough on communism.

It was all that plus a dozen other things.

Post reply on HN