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

121–130 of 275 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#121

Post by brabel »

petermcneeley wrote: post #57
throw0101d wrote: post #41

If anyone thinks that dropping the bombs was unnecessary, I would recommend reading Barrett's 140 Days to Hiroshima: The Story of Japan's Last Chance to Avert Armageddon : * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hir... * https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-... It documents, using Japanese source material including interviews with the principals involved, the decision making…

Under which conditions is nuking a city not a horrific warcrime?

Never. They could have blockaded Japan. They could have negotiated with the Russians, as at the time they were “sharing” Germany and were more or less on the same side. They could even just go home, Japan was already no military threat after the horrific fire bombing. The fact that they chose to do the unthinkable, and that Americans defend that decision to this day, goes to show what kind of people they really are. They only seek peace and diplomacy when it’s other people’s wars.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#122

Post by nelox »

impact_sy wrote: post #59

Honestly, I think the Japanese deserved it. If you see the war crimes committed by the Japanese in World War II, you will know that the atomic bomb was right.

By standards of the day, absolutely. Today, probably not.

From the military and strategic standpoint of 1945, using nuclear weapons to rapidly end the war was considered justified, necessary, and effective, especially given the precedent of widespread strategic bombing and the anticipated cost of a full-scale invasion.

While moral dissent existed, it was overridden by the dominant goal of ending the war quickly and decisively. A goal that, in the minds of U.S. leaders, justified the use of overwhelming force.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#123

Post by Synaesthesia »

throw0101d wrote: post #41

If anyone thinks that dropping the bombs was unnecessary, I would recommend reading Barrett's 140 Days to Hiroshima: The Story of Japan's Last Chance to Avert Armageddon : * https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/51089656-140-days-to-hir... * https://www.nationalww2museum.org/about-us/notes-museum/140-... It documents, using Japanese source material including interviews with the principals involved, the decision making…

Gar Alperovitz wrote the definitive book on the subject "The Decision to use the Atomic Bomb".

Many US military experts and top generals believed it was unnecessary. Japan was defeated, particularly with the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, it was over for them.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#124

Post by Synaesthesia »

nelox wrote: post #74
ekianjo wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

those are all war crimes but the victors never get prosecuted.

No, the firebombing of cities (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo) and the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not legally considered war crimes under international law as it stood, which is why they could not have been and were not prosecuted.

They are horrendous war crimes. The only reason they aren't called as such is we were the victors.

The conduct of the allies in WW2 was atrocious.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#125

Post by wat10000 »

bee_rider wrote: post #109
wat10000 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Keep in mind that every day the war continued meant thousands of innocent lives being lost under the brutal Japanese occupation that still covered vast areas of east Asia. Blockading Japan and waiting for them to starve might have been the best thing to save American lives. I think it’s unlikely to have been the best thing to save innocent lives overall.

Blockading Japan would have probably killed countless Japanese civilians via starvation, right? At least, I don’t think the island could sustain itself at that population level, particularly without fuel…

The aerial mining operation was literally called Operation Starvation, so, yeah. The big question is how quickly it makes them surrender. If they decide they’re cooked and give up fast, it might not have been too bad. If they hold out a long time then it would have been terrible.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#126

Post by ForOldHack »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #39
karlgkk wrote: post #30

The atrocities that the Japanese military committed, consistently and repeatedly and combined with their attack on pearl harbor, meant that Americans of the time on the front lines had few qualms or issues with dropping the bomb. Truman famously called Oppenheimer a "cry baby" when Oppenheimer expressed doubt. Truman had spent the past decade dealing with the war in his capacity as senator and vice president - seeing…

I agree. With the information they had at the time it made total sense to drop the bomb. After seeing how tough the Japanese military fought during the invasion of the various islands it was reasonable to assume that the invasion of the mainland would be extremely bloody. I think whatever we learned (I have read that Japan was already ready to surrender). after should be applied to future wars but not be applied to s…

"Japan was ready to surrender." It was not. The military, was ready to fight to the last man,and that was the resistance that Hirohito had to over come. And why there were 4 cabinets that the Emperor had to go though. A thuough understanding about what was actually occuring would help you understand. Read Hirohito's book.

Hirohito surendered, and insisted on doing so, that he would spare the lives and culture of the japanese people, and TO SPARE LIVES IN GENERAL.

The generals went scorched earth and they plan would have killed 20~22 million japanese people, that is what it means to fight to the last man.

Clearly, you need to read Hirohito's book.

Hirohito surendered his divinity, and instead of his people calling him a coward, they continued to worship him, in a way very few non-japanese can understand. Two of my best friends in school were japanese, and when I got to Jr high, my counselor had the internment order on his wall. I hated that the US dropped the bomb for decades, until I read Hirohito's book. Then it mostly fell into place, and I had to check with a bunch of historians, and with the senior members of the peace organization. I belonged to for decades.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#127

Post by ForOldHack »

pchristensen wrote: post #54
vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. With the information they had at the time it made total sense to drop the bomb. After seeing how tough the Japanese military fought during the invasion of the various islands it was reasonable to assume that the invasion of the mainland would be extremely bloody. I think whatever we learned (I have read that Japan was already ready to surrender). after should be applied to future wars but not be applied to s…

My favorite terrifying fact about the WW2 Pacific theater: The US expected that invading the Japanese home islands would be so bloody that they manufactured tons of Purple Heart medals, and they’re still giving them out today because they haven’t run out.

That is the terrifying fact, and I can confirm it. It was mentioned in a large volume on World war II.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#128

Post by ForOldHack »

timuckun wrote: post #103
karlgkk wrote: post #30

The atrocities that the Japanese military committed, consistently and repeatedly and combined with their attack on pearl harbor, meant that Americans of the time on the front lines had few qualms or issues with dropping the bomb. Truman famously called Oppenheimer a "cry baby" when Oppenheimer expressed doubt. Truman had spent the past decade dealing with the war in his capacity as senator and vice president - seeing…

The problem is that the Americans saw no difference between soldiers committing atrocities and old people and children living in a city (fight aged men were out fighting). They were targeting old people and children because it was easier to kill them than the soldiers.

The please explain why Kyoto was taken off the lists of targets?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#129

Post by alex_young »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #80
ekianjo wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US had no other bomb ready to be dropped actually. preparing the fissile material took a lot of time.

Is that true? I thought they had a core at Los Alamos.

This was the third core: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#130

Post by ForOldHack »

InTheArena wrote: post #22
prmph wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I understand that Japan gave up, not so much because of the bomb, but mostly because of the Soviet invasion and capture of Manchuria (and the implied threat of an invasion of the mainland), after the war in Europe had been won. But I still struggle to understand the Japanese mentality. Were they OK with the prospect of city after city being atom- or fire-bombed, so long as no ground invasion occurred?

This is mostly untrue. Most of this narrative comes from Soviet propaganda that was later propagated by anti-Western and anti-war groups in the United States. More recently, it's gotten more attention as Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Rudolfovich Solovyov use it as a useful tool to build their narrative that only Russia was responsible for World War II's victory and to justify their constant threats of nuclear warfare.…

The historical record is very clear, and I have read those words too.
Post reply on HN