Hiroshima & Nagasaki

[Clueless Northman]

There's the complicating factors that the US wanted to send a message to Stalin (hey, look what we've got!), and that the Japanese were scared shitless by the Soviet declaration of war.

Indeed.
From a US point of view, it's possible they expected the nukes to have an effect, but actually the Japanese leaders didn't care, considering they already had most of their cities in ruins and plenty of dead civilians, but still had vast armies at their disposal for defense, that were untouched by the nukes.
Alas for everyone, the Soviets attacked Japan after the first bomb was dropped. Had the bombings be postponed by a week, odds are that Japan would've let it known it was ready to surrender to avoid an occupation by the Red Army, and nukes would've been unnecessary.
Though it's hard to assess if the nukes were deliberately used before the Soviets moved against Japan - for some realpolitik reason.

[Hayyoth]

Indeed.
From a US point of view, it's possible they expected the nukes to have an effect, but actually the Japanese leaders didn't care, considering they already had most of their cities in ruins and plenty of dead civilians, but still had vast armies at their disposal for defense, that were untouched by the nukes.
Alas for everyone, the Soviets attacked Japan after the first bomb was dropped. Had the bombings be postponed by a week, odds are that Japan would've let it known it was ready to surrender to avoid an occupation by the Red Army, and nukes would've been unnecessary.
Though it's hard to assess if the nukes were deliberately used before the Soviets moved against Japan - for some realpolitik reason.

The Japanese had asked Stalin to intercede with Truman to accept a conditional surrender, the invasion of Manchuria put paid to that idea. However even after the Soviets attacked the Imperial Army in China they were still thinking about conditional surrender to the Americans, and why not? The Red Army was in no position to launch a full scale invasion of the home islands. What caused an unconditional surrender was the Americans telling the Japanese after Nagasaki that they were able to produce an A-bomb every 2 weeks, and as soon as they were available they'd immediately drop one on Japan until they gave up. What's remarkable about the Japanese at the time was that it was ONLY the prospect of complete annihilation that made them decide to throw in the towel, they'd have literally fought to the last man, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties on the American side and millions on theres. Anyone who judges Hiroshima and Nagasaki as worse than an invasion is flat wrong.

[James Arryn]

At the time, dropping the bombs was considered less destructive to both Japan and the US military than the alternative - an all out ground invasion. And the people making that decision were probably correct.

Myth.

[James Arryn]

No one really believed an invasion was necessary. Japan was 'withering on the vine', as LeMay put it. They had zero ability to project power. They were a threat to no one. Virtually every top military commander considered the war already won, and almost all agree that they accomplished little more than hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. Review the I-d communiqués of the time for disturbing/sad reeducation. The principle openly acknowledged motivations for using the bomb on civilian targets were:

1) fear US post-war hegemony in the area would decrease as the Soviets became involved.
2) desire to show world/USSR what US could do.
3) revenge for P.H./killing 'japs' or 'Japos'.
4) return on investment.


If and when an invasion was deemed necessary to accomplish above, only then was dropping a bomb considered expedient. But the smoke job that that was the reason is pure farce. Hell, the Allied scientists formed a union to protest the usage beforehand, knowing as they did that this was not about saving lives...only that was all swept under the carpet, with the rest, in the usual rush to forgive themselves for something they would never forgive in others.

[Mladen]

As somewhat neutral in this debate, I have to say that I always considered Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be one of THE lowest moments of civilization in 20th century. I don't what horrifies me more in the entire debate. The continuous national delusion in US when it comes to this and the idea that Japanese should be thankful for the bombs (Jesus, Mary and Joseph) or perhaps the lack of military targets and attack on civilians (which somehow became modus operandi in American modern warfare). Or perhaps it was the idea that Kyoto, arguably the most beautiful city in the world, cultural center of Japan was one of the targets, just hours before choosing Nagasaki. Or was it, on top of all of that, the atomic bomb figuring as the worst biological weapon. I mean, from whatever angle I look at, whatever I consider about this, the thing is very simple - US Army committed the worst possible war crime which can never be forgotten.

 

I am not denying the horrendous nature of Japanese war crimes or defending their role in WWII. I just believe that when you want to win the war, you kinda do that without becoming the worst imaginable idea of human beings. 

[ElizabethB.]

  I just believe that when you want to win the war, you kinda do that without becoming the worst imaginable idea of human beings.

Can you give even one example this ever happening?

[Mladen]

Can you give even one example this ever happening?

 

So you believe that every war in history has been won by committing the worst atrocities? Each war sees its share of bad things, but this is whole new level. The mere biological consequences of that puts this case on the top of all known unpunished war crimes.

[James Arryn]

Can you give even one example this ever happening?

There are many, actually. Direct widespread targeting of civilians was actually out of fashion for quite a while until Guernica brought it back (and Curtis LeMay perfected it) and though widespread, was still a relative minority.


Whereas since WWII it has become an overwhelming majority. This is not accidental, but the result of choices made on how to wage industrialized warfare. It doesn't just 'happen'...people in power choose for it to happen.

[ElizabethB.]

So you believe that every war in history has been won by committing the worst atrocities? Each war sees its share of bad things, but this is whole new level. The mere biological consequences of that puts this case on the top of all known unpunished war crimes.

I was asking for even one example of your 'utopia or war' actually happening.
Please don't make assumptions of my believes based on that question, it has no logic.

You see, biological consequences dont dictate how war crimes get punished, its dictated by the winning side. Only the losing side gets punished, for war crimes, or for no war crimes.

[ElizabethB.]

There are many, actually. Direct widespread targeting of civilians was actually out of fashion for quite a while until Guernica brought it back (and Curtis LeMay perfected it) and though widespread, was still a relative minority.
Whereas since WWII it has become an overwhelming majority. This is not accidental, but the result of choices made on how to wage industrialized warfare. It doesn't just 'happen'...people in power choose for it to happen.

Those were the days!

[Mladen]

I was asking for even one example of your 'utopia or war' actually happening.
Please don't make assumptions of my believes based on that question, it has no logic.

You see, biological consequences dont dictate how war crimes get punished, its dictated by the winning side. Only the losing side gets punished, for war crimes, or for no war crimes.

 

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were some great military targets. Tokyo was. Tokyo wasn't bombed, those two cities were. That concludes the story for me.

 

And those atomic bombs were also biological weapons. And how convenient for US Army. We won... We pulled the Hitler card, but we won. And now is OK... What a great logic. True, I agree that is how things work, but nonetheless wrong.

[James Arryn]

I was asking for even one example of your 'utopia or war' actually happening.
Please don't make assumptions of my believes based on that question, it has no logic.
You see, biological consequences dont dictate how war crimes get punished, its dictated by the winning side. Only the losing side gets punished, for war crimes, or for no war crimes.

Again, many. I mean, every war since WWII where one party had nukes but did not use them, for example. This idea that wars have always been taken to the extreme in terms of possible atrocities is just incorrect. It's an attempt to deflect from the culpability of the decision made to specificly and with premeditation destroy countless civilians. Agreed that, generally speaking, only losers become convicted war criminals, but that doesn't alter the actual standard. LeMay himself said what he and USSC did were war crimes according to the definition; he just didn't consider it a priority.

[Arch-MaesterPhilip]

Hell, the Allied scientists formed a union to protest the usage beforehand, knowing as they did that this was not about saving lives...only that was all swept under the carpet, with the rest, in the usual rush to forgive themselves for something they would never forgive in others.

Why did those scientists help build it in the first place? If anyone deserved punishment in the first place it was them. So for them to build it in the first place then try and stop its usage is ridiculous.

Fire bombing Japanese cities was a bigger crime than dropping the Atom bomb though.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

I think the first one is more justifiable than the 2nd,  especially with only a 3 day wait.   I'm not sure what the magic number is,  and once you have dropped one you kind of need to be willing to drop another or that first one really wouldn't have done the job to force a surrender.

 

I think perhaps a better target could have been chosen, but I also know that everybody in that war had no issues with bombing civilians.  It was a different time with different rules and you didn't have to pretend to try to limit civilian casualties.  This is not an excuse and doesn't make it right, just makes it more understandable.

 

I also don't believe the full radiation effects where known in advance, I may be wrong here.  but if they didn't know then you can't judge them guilty to deliberately and knowingly use radiation as a weapon.   You can however hold them responsible for he outcome.     therefore when trying to reason if any of the bombs where justifiable you can only use the Bang and resultant firestorms,  which are still damn big.   If Japan hadn't been nuked then I'm sure more cities would have been firebombed, and the suffering would have been more drawn out.  I don't know if more lives would have been lost in total (certainly more allied lives would have been lost)

[James Arryn]

Those were the days!

This is what, an attempt to pretend that standards other than the ones you suggest have always prevailed weren't...or weren't sufficiently realistic, or were overly romantic?

The game didn't change itself, and the U.S. was not a hapless bystander while it changed. They played a significant and active role in it changing to what you'd call the new normal, and though I'mI the firebombings were worse, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hugely significant to that alteration.

[ElizabethB.]

This is what, an attempt to pretend that standards other than the ones you suggest have always prevailed weren't...or weren't sufficiently realistic, or were overly romantic?.

That was me mocking your argument.

[Westerosi Coast Gangster]

It's horrible that the loss of civilian life was so high but I lay them at the emperors feet.

[Mladen]

It's horrible that the loss of civilian life was so high but I lay them at the emperors feet.

 

While I understand the sentiment and find him guilty for many things, the bombing itself is solely on Truman's administration. They chose not to attack military facilities. They chose to bomb civilians. They chose not to take out Emperor and Japanese military command. They made those choices and the victims of that should be laid at their feet. No one else's.

[James Arryn]

That was me mocking your argument.

How, specifically? What was incorrect or irrelevant in my argument? You asked what wars had not see atrocities maximized, and I specifically dated the reintroduction of widespread civilian targeting, and the massive shift in the casualty burden since. Both sides in WWI had the capacity to use chemical weapons on civilian targets, for example, but this never became the norm. Why not?

What I think you are overlooking is the intended/controlled/specific targeting of civilians as opposed to the consequential. Neither victim is less dead, but morally we always argue that intent/premeditation significantly increases the guilt. And unsurprisingly, the actual numbers of civilian cadualties has shot up in correspondence with the intent. This is not just what is, it's what we have chosen, and part of the choice is forgiving ourselves by calling it inevitable as you are doing here.

[Westerosi Coast Gangster]

 
While I understand the sentiment and find him guilty for many things, the bombing itself is solely on Truman's administration. They chose not to attack military facilities. They chose to bomb civilians. They chose not to take out Emperor and Japanese military command. They made those choices and the victims of that should be laid at their feet. No one else's.

Truman made the call, yes, but the loss of life was going to be catastrophic no matter which path he chose. This path led to the least amount of American lives lost.