Hiroshima (1946) • Hacker News Board

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#201

Post by throw0101d » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:19 PM UTC

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?

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

When the alternative was millions of Japanese dead instead of a few hundred thousand.

(Never mind American lives, or all of those living under Japanese rule in Manchuria, etc.)

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#202

Post by throw0101d » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:20 PM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #62

defrost wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Under which conditions is nuking a city any more or less a horrific warcrime than the destruction of city via HE and incendiary bombs? Recall that 72 Japanese cities, including Tokyo, were destroyed prior to Hiroshima, which was on a target list to be destroyed whether by atomic or conventional means already. https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2014/09/22/tokyo-hiroshima/ Outside of Japan many other cities received the s…

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

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

Neither did (some of) the losers in the case of Japan

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

* https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#203

Post by throw0101d » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:21 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #176

bigDinosaur wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the moral lesson: if we have a WW3, don't target civilians? What if our enemies are doing exactly that without compunction? What if civilians and military infrastructure are colocated? What if those civilians simply want us all to die and will work to any ends for that result (e.g. they may have been effectively brainwashed as the allies were indeed preparing for with Japan)? It's not that the answers are mora…

Targeting civilians is a war crime. No excuse for that. Targeting civilians in places like Tokyo or Dresden didn't even help the war cause much. The Soviet Union defeated the Nazis without mass bombings of German cities. Yes war is the supreme crime and what we should avoid in the first place. Still there are different ways you can conduct war. A nuclear exchange would necessarily target civilians and be unlike anyth…

> Targeting civilians is a war crime. No excuse for that.

What does "civilian" mean when it comes to Imperial Japan?

* https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/there-are-no-...

The official Japanese plan to defend against a US landing was to have children attack the invading US soldiers:

* https://www.hiroshimapeacemedia.jp/?p=141048

* https://apjjf.org/mark-ealey/1689/article

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Operation_K...

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#204

Post by throw0101d » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:24 PM UTC

kketch wrote: post #88

nelox wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Throwing around these terms without understanding, how and why they apply is foolhardy. The use of nuclear weapons is not explicitly prohibited under current international law, and is not automatically classified as a war crime per se. Their use could constitute a war crime depending on the circumstances, especially if they violate core principles of international humanitarian law (IHL).

How could detonating a nuke over a city not violate humanitarian law … ?

> How could detonating a nuke over a city not violate humanitarian law … ?

Would you rather have millions of Japanese die—either from trying to repel a US landing or through starvation if a blockade was enact—or 'just' a few hundred thousand?

The atomic bomb was strangely the most humane way, that probably saved the most Japanese lives, of ending the war.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#205

Post by throw0101d » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:28 PM UTC

kketch wrote: post #92

ForOldHack wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the alternatives of nationalism are to fight to the very last man, and cause 8 times the number of casualties. ( Perhaps somewhat more...). Hirohito knew that the military was going to do that.

You are saying the responsibility for the instant incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians lies with the bombed, and not the bomber?

> You are saying the responsibility for the instant incineration of hundreds of thousands of civilians lies with the bombed, and not the bomber?

The Japanese leadership knew they could not win the war for about a year before the bombings. Yet they chose to continue the war regardless of the suffering it caused their own people.

Was the US supposed to give up?

Would it been okay if Germany was allowed to surrender on the following conditions:

* Hitler stayed in power

* the Nazis stayed in power

* all land conquered by Germany was kept by Germany

* any allegations of war crimes would be handled internally by the Germans themselves

Because those were the terms Japan was waiting for:

* Emporer stayed in power

* the government stayed in power

* all land conquered by Japan was kept by Japan

* any allegations of war crimes would be handled internally by the Japanese themselves

Would you have been okay with WW2 ending against either party on those terms?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#206

Post by throw0101d » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:33 PM UTC

Synaesthesia wrote: post #123

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.

> 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.

Yes, Japan was defeated a year before the bombs were dropped. The problem was Japan decided not to surrender even though themselves they knew they lost.

That's the problem.

Japan not surrendering even when they knew.

Per Japanese documents even after one bomb was dropped they still would not surrender. It took the second bomb, and even then the war cabinet was split on 3-3 on whether to surrender.

Two bombs dropping only got them to the point of a tie. The Emperor had to be called in to break the tie after two bombings.

And the Japanese knew the Soviets were going to enter the war. That was already in their calculations and they still were for fighting.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#207

Post by Symmetry » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:35 PM UTC

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…

One important thing the US could have done to get the Japanese to surrender without dropping the bomb would have been to promise that Japan would not be turned into a republic after the war but allowed to keep its imperial family as ceremonial heads of state. As, you know, actually happened after they surrendered.

Promising to do what we actually did would have been more than enough to save a huge number of lives, and honestly we should have had Hirohito "go into seclusion" in favor of a successor.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#208

Post by vjvjvjvjghv » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:36 PM UTC

ForOldHack wrote: post #126

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…

"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…

I find it a little questionable to make Hirohito the victim and hero of this story.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#209

Post by clarionbell » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 12:56 PM UTC

dzonga wrote: post #170

Would the atom bomb have been used on Germany ? Japan was giving up, but it wasn't a white majority population country. Hence the atom bomb was used to show the soviets America's new toy. & after that the world changed. the bombs should have never been developed or even dropped.

Yes and Japan was not giving up.

Bombs should have been developed and must have been dropped.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#210

Post by sgnelson » Tue, Aug 05, 2025, 1:07 PM UTC

There's a lot of argument about whether or not the bomb should have been dropped, and that debate will go on forever.

And while the following is not as important as the decision to drop the bomb, I think the decisions to publish "Hiroshima" and how it was published (especially in 1946) is very much worth understanding. This was not a story the US Government did not want to get out.

The US military/government tried to hide many of the facts about what happened at Hiroshima/Nagasaki for various reasons (military secrecy was one, but I think hiding the true impacts of the horrors of the bomb from the American (and world) public was the big one.)

You can read about the coverup of the nuclear weapons impact on Hiroshima in the book "Fallout" by Lesley Blune: https://scribepublications.com.au/books-authors/books/fallou...

And here's a short article that I quickly googled that discusses the story behind the story using "Fallout" as a reference: https://insidestory.org.au/the-making-of-john-herseys-hirosh...