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

51–60 of 275 posts

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#51

Post by alexjplant »

userbinator wrote: post #49
alexjplant wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, this isn't to say that America was right or not right to drop one or both bombs. It may "feel" like I'm saying "the Japanese deserved it for their behavior" - that's not a belief I hold, either. Some contemporaries of note didn't think it was justified either [1]. Eisenhower, a decorated war hero who later cautioned against the over-expansion of the military industrial complex in his Presidential farewell spee…

but the me that exists right now thinks that our military shouldn't have done what it did. It's worth remembering that if it weren't for them doing what they did, you might not have the life you do now.

> you might not have the life you do now.

I mean, yeah. The act is one of many countably infinite quantum events that contribute to the reality that I experience. My point is that there's a strong argument to be made that the US not dropping the bomb would have resulted in largely the same state of the universe with significantly less suffering in it.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#52

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

userbinator wrote: post #49
alexjplant wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, this isn't to say that America was right or not right to drop one or both bombs. It may "feel" like I'm saying "the Japanese deserved it for their behavior" - that's not a belief I hold, either. Some contemporaries of note didn't think it was justified either [1]. Eisenhower, a decorated war hero who later cautioned against the over-expansion of the military industrial complex in his Presidential farewell spee…

but the me that exists right now thinks that our military shouldn't have done what it did. It's worth remembering that if it weren't for them doing what they did, you might not have the life you do now.

Maybe? We can go around in circles on this but there were so many other options the Allies could have tried:

- Drop the first bomb in the ocean in front of an envoy of observers and give Japan a week to deliberate their response

- Blockade the island, threaten land invasion, and wait for the emperor to call for surrender as they gradually run out of fuel

- Drop a bomb on Hiroshima but give more than 3 days for the government to understand what happened and consider surrendering before dropping a bomb on Nagasaki

- Allow the USSR to go ahead with a ground invasion while the US sits on the sidelines

etc...

But sure, in the fine grained detail, if the US has not dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, we would not today be commenting on Hiroshima (1946) saying "they shouldn't have dropped nuclear bombs on Japan"

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#53

Post by Deanoumean »

socalgal2 wrote: post #40
Synaesthesia wrote: post #6

The singular horror of this event really is so difficult to describe, definitely one of the low points of human history which we must vow to never again repeat, under any circumstances.

Why is this special? The Japanese killed ~7 million Chinese, 0.5 to 1 million Filipinos, 500k in Korea, you can keep adding them up. Then Japan loses 0.2% of all their atrocities and it's the worst thing ever? No, it's not the worst thing ever, not even close. Sure, we'd all like it to never happen again. But if I had to pick one thing not happening again I'd pick saving all others that died in WW2 over this one inci…

The reason this is special is because no one else used a nuclear bomb, before this event or after. That's basically the definition of "special" and the number of Chinese that the Japanese killed has nothing to do with it.

Picking anything other than the nuclear bomb to never happen again is moronic because the planet can survive the other things, but if nukes were to start flying again, it would most likely not end with just two. Other countries have those weapons now too and such a war has the potential to be last one ever fought.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#54

Post by pchristensen »

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…

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.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#55

Post by wat10000 »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #52
userbinator wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but the me that exists right now thinks that our military shouldn't have done what it did. It's worth remembering that if it weren't for them doing what they did, you might not have the life you do now.

Maybe? We can go around in circles on this but there were so many other options the Allies could have tried: - Drop the first bomb in the ocean in front of an envoy of observers and give Japan a week to deliberate their response - Blockade the island, threaten land invasion, and wait for the emperor to call for surrender as they gradually run out of fuel - Drop a bomb on Hiroshima but give more than 3 days for the go…

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.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#56

Post by refurb »

defrost wrote: post #4

A surprising number of the people of Hiroshima remained more or less indifferent about the ethics of using the bomb. Unsurprising for the time given the context. While people far from Japan made much of the uniqueness and power of a single bomb destroying a single city for those on the ground it was just another single city destroyed overnight by bombing .. the 73rd such city destroyed in a relatively short duration…

I think the other thing to keep in mind is the cultural differences in how the West vs East think about government and the individual.

After living in Asia for a while, having political discussions with the people who live there, and exploring the differences in governance there, it’s not surprising there was indifference. You see this spectrum of though across many Asian countries from the authoritarian ones like China to the more democratic like Singapore.

Unlike the West which has a history of the relationship of the individual with the government and its leadership, Asia is much more influenced by Confucianism.

While people like to describe it as “what is good for the group versus what is good for the individual” I think that’s not an accurate description. It’s much more of a belief that governance happens “up there” and isn’t relevant to a commoners life.

The Eastern view of government is much more hierarchical and detached from the individual than in the West. There is strong sense that any one individual is not that important overall and that governance is a realm of the upper class, with the lower class on the receiving end rather than where power originates.

So for someone in Japan, the decisions during the war and the consequences thereafter are not theirs to judge or influence, only theirs to endure. There is a sense of fate and inability to change what happens, so it’s not really worth spending time thinking about.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#57

Post by petermcneeley »

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?

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#58

Post by wat10000 »

slibhb wrote: post #10
defrost wrote: post #4

A surprising number of the people of Hiroshima remained more or less indifferent about the ethics of using the bomb. Unsurprising for the time given the context. While people far from Japan made much of the uniqueness and power of a single bomb destroying a single city for those on the ground it was just another single city destroyed overnight by bombing .. the 73rd such city destroyed in a relatively short duration…

There was no nuclear taboo in 1945. Looking back, people forget that.

I think we were very lucky with the timing such that atomic bombs could be used in warfare just twice.

Imagine if development had been delayed a little while and the war ended without any atomic bombs. The bomb would still be built and improved. The falling out of the USSR with the other Allies would still happen. The Soviets would still get the bomb and there would still be an arms race. But would the Cold War have stayed cold without an object lesson in what nuclear warfare actually looks like? I suspect not. Even with those object lessons, it took a while for the consensus to emerge that nuclear war must be averted no matter what. That bit in Dr. Strangelove where the general said we’d only “get our hair mussed” in a war with just 10-20 million dead was pretty much the real attitude of the Air Force leadership at the time.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#59

Post by impact_sy »

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.

Re: Hiroshima (1946)

#60

Post by defrost »

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 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 same treatment, famously but not only Dresden.

Post reply on HN