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

31–40 of 168 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#31

Post by rbecker »

eska wrote: post #7
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…

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.

> Likewise most people don't realize how much more death there would've been on both sides if the US invaded Japan by sea.

That's begging the question - was a US invasion the only alternative? https://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/08/05/nuclear-war-or... argues that Japan would have surrendered without the bombings. And that's for unconditional surrender - a conditional one would be even more easily achievable.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#32

Post by manfredo »

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.

We also have Germany as a point of comparison. 1945 Was the bloodiest year of the European theater, a fact made even more palpable considering that the European war ended in May. Compound this with the fact that the ratio of troops killed vs surrendered for Germany was about 4:1 versus 120:1 for Japan (granted this isn't really a straightforward comparison, Japan was often fighting over heavily fortified islands that afforded little opportunity to encircle large formations which is what precipitates most surrenders).

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#33

Post by idlewords »

If you ever get a chance to visit the Hiroshima Peace Museum, it is a moving and worthwhile place to go. Give yourself a few hours so you can spend time watching eyewitness interviews. The main tram line through downtown goes right past Ground Zero, which never stops being shocking.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#34

Post by mholt »

If you're interested in this, I highly recommend watching In This Corner of the World. The perspective of a young woman who lives her life during the war, and her family's tragic experience with the bomb.

If I'm not mistaken, it is the first anime the Emperor of Japan has gone to see personally in theaters (https://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2019/12/18-1/japans-e...).

Spoiler-free analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPS2U2ijBkU

US Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/title/80192244

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#35

Post by jmknoll »

renewiltord wrote: post #29
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 fascinating comparison with British steadfast resolve in the face of overwhelming force. Britons would fight on the beaches, and on the landing grounds and streets. They would never surrender, even against overwhelming odds. Truly inspiring in comparison with the robotic obedience of the Japanese who would dig in to protect their island, whatever the cost may be.

I see the point you’re trying to make, and by no means am I saying that the British were without fault, but there is a very significant difference between the the British defending their liberal democracy from Nazi domination and a largely rural, largely uneducated Japanese population being conscripted into fighting a war of aggression on behalf of a totalitarian state.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#36

Post by catalogia »

senand wrote: post #10
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…

Even assuming it did bring an end to the war: was it really necessary to drop two bombs for that?

Even after the second bomb, some Japan's military leadership wanted to keep fighting.

> The Kyūjō incident (宮城事件, Kyūjō Jiken) was an attempted military coup d'état in the Empire of Japan at the end of the Second World War. It happened on the night of 14–15 August 1945, just before the announcement of Japan's surrender to the Allies. The coup was attempted by the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and many from the Imperial Guard to stop the move to surrender.

> The officers murdered Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori of the First Imperial Guards Division and attempted to counterfeit an order to the effect of occupying the Tokyo Imperial Palace (Kyūjō). They attempted to place the Emperor under house arrest, using the 2nd Brigade Imperial Guard Infantry. They failed to persuade the Eastern District Army and the high command of the Imperial Japanese Army to move forward with the action. Due to their failure to convince the remaining army to oust the Imperial House of Japan, they performed ritual suicide. As a result, the communiqué of the intent for a Japanese surrender continued as planned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

Would resistance to surrender have found more support if only a single bomb had been dropped? We will never know.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#37

Post by walleeee »

senand wrote: post #10
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…

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.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#38

Post by catalogia »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #20
renewiltord wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wiping out one city in one single gigantic unprecedented flash was pretty convincing.

Not to everybody it wasn't. Some Japanese officers wanted to keep fighting even after two cities were wiped out. (Three if you count the firebombing of Tokyo, which you probably should...)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

As proven earlier with Operation Ten-Go / The Battle of the East China Sea, many in the Japanese military preferred spiteful suicidal attacks to surrender, even when the hopelessness of their situation was abundantly clear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#39

Post by dylan604 »

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…

> Surely, we have the tools and desire, don't we? I hope.

Military conflicts through out the world since suggest we do not.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#40

Post by manfredo »

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…

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 to support. Japan planned to fight a defensive war against an amphibious invasion in order to negotiate more favorable surrender terms. The Japanese estimated that this would incur 20 million Japanese casualties, and this plan was approved. Even if we assume that Japan's war machine would collapse before this figure of lives lost was reached, it is almost certain that the death toll would be in the millions. Germany, without the advantage of being a mountainous island nation and having a lower population than Japan, fought on its own soil in 1945 to the effect of several million dead. Thus, it's almost certain that the atomic bombings resulted in an order of magnitude fewer Japanese lives lost than an conventional invasion.

Post reply on HN