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.
Yeah I'm pretty sure Stalingrad was far, far worse.
Hiroshima (1946)
81–90 of 275 posts
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#82Honestly, 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.
Saying that the Japanese people deserved it comes off as hateful. Not every Japanese person was complicit. Like I think it was pretty clear Japanese children were innocent casualties.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under which conditions is nuking a city not a horrific warcrime?
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.
With your logic, it would be ok for Isreal to nuke Gaza now ond for Russia to nuke the Ukraine.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#84If 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…
Yes, actually try and put yourself in the shoes of American leadership responsible for making the decision to continue with an invasion of Japan without using nuclear weapons.
American casualty estimates exceeded 500,000, and Japanese fatalities were expected to be in the millions—with some projections placing them between 5 million and 10 million depending on the length and scope of the conflict.
The U.S. had limited understanding of the full effects of nuclear weapons before using them. The Manhattan Project scientists estimated 70,000 to 100,000 deaths for a medium-sized Japanese city (depending on weather, geography, and building density). These were very rough estimates, focused mainly on blast and heat, not long-term radiation, which was unknowable.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#85Honestly, 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.
Civilians though?
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#86Earlier 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.
They had Fat Man and Little Boy, after detonating Trinity, so one down, two ready to go, a few near ready cores, and a production pipeline in place to produce more at one a month or so .. (the exact number is on Alex W's Nuclear Secrecy blog .. my recollection is poor and from five+ years past).
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#87The 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…
[deleted]
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
Under which conditions is nuking a city not a horrific warcrime?
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 … ?
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#89Earlier 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.
With your logic, it would be ok for Isreal to nuke Gaza now ond for Russia to nuke the Ukraine.
If UKR was fascist and on the path to genocide everywhere, it's acceptable to nuke them.
Re: Hiroshima (1946)
#90Earlier 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.
With your logic, it would be ok for Isreal to nuke Gaza now ond for Russia to nuke the Ukraine.
Again, no, not necessarily a war crime.