TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings

Go To

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#126: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:02:02 PM

The few remaining ships in the Tsushima Straits region would have effortlessly sank the Soviet Pacific Fleet.
Maybe if they had any fuel left. The Japanese fleet and air force were out of resources. Sure, Stalin couldn't have pulled it off right away, but with the Soviet war machine no longer occupied by the European theatre? He did have plans to take Hokkaido.

Sorry, still don't buy the argument that the bombs were necessary. The real game changer of the time was the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo on the same day as the Nagasaki bombing, which ended the last source of resources for Imperial Japan. I don't see how the nuke itself was the deciding factor.

  • The atomic bomb is a terrible weapon, but all it did was flatten cities and kill civilians - which non-atomic bombs were just as capable of doing.
  • Using the nuke to speed up the war and prevent the hardliners from pulling a coup isn't a strong argument - Army soldiers under Major Hatanaka Kenji attempted a coup anyways, seizing the imperial palace, after official surrender plans were made.
  • Using the nuke to force terms that would have broken up the old economic and political power structures is a moot argument. The imperial family remained in place, as did the major businesses of Japan contributing to the war effort. What do you think Mitsubishi and Toyota were making during the war, cars?
  • Using the nukes to break the will of their leadership is a moot point: while the strategy of fighting to the last was the official policy, and members of the Big Six were looking forward to bloodying the noses of the Americans after their unbroken string of defeats, the emperor had been begging the Soviets to mediate a peace deal for a while and they understood that they weren't going to get terms much better than "unconditional surrender". And we knew this, because we'd broken the Japanese codes.

Here's an interesting place to start reading, though as always Wikipedia should not be taken at face value. I'll let you judge the United States Strategic Bombing Survey's opinion instead:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#127: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:04:55 PM

Once again, it was not the actual outcome of the weapon going off (lots of people and stuff being obliterated) so much as the time it took. It takes days or even weeks to actually flatten a city, and that can be countered with AA and anti-bomber aircraft. This bomb instantaneously vaporized an entire city. That is why they gave in.

Also, why in god's name would you think letting the Russians take over more land is a better outcome?

edited 4th Sep '11 5:05:32 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#128: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:08:42 PM

Their fighters couldn't operate at the altitudes the B 29s were flying at.

Their anti-air guns were out of ammo since we'd wrecked their factories nonstop.

All it would have taken? "You can surrender to us, or we can let Uncle Joe go to town on you, and he's got the population to not give a shit about your last-stand kamikaze shenanigans." But hey, I left the link to the War Department's analysis, and they said we only needed to be patient until about November. You can argue with their conclusions.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
lordGacek Since: Jan, 2001
#129: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:09:35 PM

@USAF: in Soviet Japan, you rape an octopus?

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#130: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:12:20 PM

Well, hopefully the threat of being annexed by Soviet Russia would have scared the Japanese into surrendering to us instead, since we wouldn't break up their industrial leadership completely. Or launched a ruinous invasion.

Communist Japan could have had some WEIRD fucking propaganda though.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#131: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:13:08 PM

in Soviet Japan, you rape an octopus?

I [lol]'d so hard when I realized what this was referring to.

I think the War Department is being severely optimistic on the willingness of Japanese leadership to surrender, and a popular revolt, unlikely as it was, would only have resulted in about the same, if not more, amount of death anyhow.

Also, a Soviet-controlled Japan would have resulted in so much geopolitical crap later. Not to mention all the people who would have been cleansed.

No matter what you do, a shitton of people are going to die. This is the option we chose. At the very least, it showed us why we must never use nukes again. That, I think, is worth it, all things considered and thinking about how this choice was a Morton's Fork...

I am now known as Flyboy.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#132: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:21:34 PM

I think the War Department is being severely optimistic on the willingness of Japanese leadership to surrender, and a popular revolt, unlikely as it was, would only have resulted in about the same, if not more, amount of death anyhow.
"Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace[...]"
- Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, July 13 1945 wiring to the Japanese ambassador in Moscow.

Seriously, read the links I dropped. They were done, they knew it, and we knew they knew it. The hardliner's position was actually to surrender after sufficiently bloodying the American's noses with a last stand defence. Now, you had to be a special kind of bastard to throw away civilian lives, much less those of your own troops, on a fight you can't win just for the sake of pride, but the point being was that even those guys understood surrender would have to happen quickly.

Also, a Soviet-controlled Japan would have resulted in so much geopolitical crap later. Not to mention all the people who would have been cleansed.
Oh God, yes. I am operating on the assumption that the Japanese would be smart enough to surrender to the U.S. rather than to the Soviets. Surrendering to Soviet Russia just to avoid surrendering to the States would have been a serious case of cutting off Japan's nose to spite her face.
No matter what you do, a shitton of people are going to die. This is the option we chose. At the very least, it showed us why we must never use nukes again. That, I think, is worth it, all things considered and thinking about how this choice was a Morton's Fork...
I am worried by the possibility that humanity could be so stupid as to not realize that nukes should never be used without somebody getting nuked. Never should have developed the damn things.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
TuefelHundenIV Night Clerk of the Apocalypse from Doomsday Facility Corner Store. Since: Aug, 2009 Relationship Status: I'd need a PowerPoint presentation
Night Clerk of the Apocalypse
#133: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:23:32 PM

It was not in the interest of the u.S. or our allies to give the Soviets any more foot holds outside of what they arleady had.

Who watches the watchmen?
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#134: Sep 4th 2011 at 5:32:37 PM

Seriously, read the links I dropped. They were done, they knew it, and we knew they knew it. The hardliner's position was actually to surrender after sufficiently bloodying the American's noses with a last stand defence. Now, you had to be a special kind of bastard to throw away civilian lives, much less those of your own troops, on a fight you can't win just for the sake of pride, but the point being was that even those guys understood surrender would have to happen quickly.

Problem being that they brainwashed their army into never surrendering. It took a good smack to the face (the nuke) to make them realize that there were, in fact, battles that honor wasn't worth winning over. Just because the leadership wasn't quite drinking its own Kool-Aid anymore at the end doesn't mean the troops weren't still doing it...

Oh God, yes. I am operating on the assumption that the Japanese would be smart enough to surrender to the U.S. rather than to the Soviets. Surrendering to Soviet Russia just to avoid surrendering to the States would have been a serious case of cutting off Japan's nose to spite her face.

Bad assumption. People are stupid, and the Japanese might have surrendered to the Soviets just to spite the Americans, who, after all, wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor and associated bullshit on the part of the Japanese. Remember, hindsight is 20/20; the Japanese had no clue how we'd treat them. The Soviets were a known factor, on the other hand, and had no personal reason to want to kill all the Japanese, unlike, say, the US or China...

I am worried by the possibility that humanity could be so stupid as to not realize that nukes should never be used without somebody getting nuked. Never should have developed the damn things.

Once again, Humans Are Morons. The nuke was inevitable. At least we had first-hand experience with which to say, without a doubt, that it was a really bad thing. I got a good backstory once on an alternate history where we went with Downfall instead of H&N, and the later nuclear war was not pretty. Fiction, yes, but it was based on very hard Alternate History, and the world can now thank us for, if nothing else, giving us a reason to make sure the Cold War stayed cold.

I am now known as Flyboy.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#135: Sep 4th 2011 at 8:42:01 PM

It was not in the interest of the u.S. or our allies to give the Soviets any more foot holds outside of what they arleady had.
Agreed, I'm just not sure we needed to smoke two cities full of civilians in order to achieve that end. And if we did, we could be a bit more clear with our communiques, and make a waterburst happen outside of Vladistovok.
Problem being that they brainwashed their army into never surrendering.
And those troops tried their coup anyways, and were smacked down. Non-argument.
People are stupid, and the Japanese might have surrendered to the Soviets just to spite the Americans, who, after all, wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor and associated bullshit on the part of the Japanese. Remember, hindsight is 20/20; the Japanese had no clue how we'd treat them. The Soviets were a known factor, on the other hand, and had no personal reason to want to kill all the Japanese, unlike, say, the US or China...
No, the Soviets were a known factor, known to immediately break up the 'bourgoisie' economic power structures, which would have been the end for the zaibatsu syndicates that were and still are the framers and leaders of Japan's economy. Not to mention a little grudge from the Russo-Japanese war. Surrendering to the Soviet Union would have been all sorts of fucking stupid. I doubt that the guys who were running an empire would act so clearly against their own self-interest.
The nuke was inevitable. At least we had first-hand experience with which to say, without a doubt, that it was a really bad thing.
This is the possibility that worries me. If we start going down that road and concluding that somebody had to be nuked, well then that's all well and good, but who wants to be the guy drawing the radioactive short straw? An argument could be made for any major power in the history of the 20th century deserving a nuke. Maybe it should have been China. Maybe it should have been Russia. Maybe it should have been one of the Europeans. Maybe it should have been the U.S. Do we wanna start asking those questions?

Wherever it had to go off, I wish no civilians had to lose their lives to one. Or anybody, really. It's not like the guys who saw the initial tests, free of casualties as they were, couldn't tell that this thing was bad news.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
tropetown Since: Mar, 2011
#136: Sep 4th 2011 at 8:48:05 PM

Yes. Yes, we did need to drop the nukes. The alternative would have been an invasion of Japan, which would have been a hundred times worse than the destruction of two cities; see the Allied occupation of Okinawa for an example of what would have happened all over Japan. Sometimes there is no nice guy choice to take: dropping the bombs saved American lives, which are the lives that the American military should be concerned with protecting, and it arguably saved Japanese lives, as well, since an invasion would have left Japan utterly ruined as a result.

edited 4th Sep '11 8:48:35 PM by tropetown

USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#137: Sep 4th 2011 at 9:19:56 PM

Taoist, the Japanese had no reason to believe the US would be any better. Look at the concentration camps. We were pissed after Pearl Harbor. As far as they knew, we would march in and kill all of them. At least the Soviets only actively killed a certain subsection of the people. Classism isn't as bad as racism, when it comes down to numbers.

I personally think that if there was anybody that "deserved" a nuke in World War Two, it was the Soviets, with Hitler's Germany coming in second. I think the very idea of someone deserving a nuke is rather ridiculous, however. We made the nuke first, and Japan was unlucky enough to be the target. We can't change that, and we can be glad that it gave us the knowledge that nuclear weapons must never be used again, or at least, never again so long as we want to continue living as a species...

I am now known as Flyboy.
tropetown Since: Mar, 2011
#138: Sep 4th 2011 at 9:30:41 PM

The Japanese military was as bad as the Nazis, if not worse: at least the Nazis had their own twisted, ideological reasons for acting the way they did. The Japanese military committed unspeakable atrocities for literally no reason at all (actually, I'd say that putting the pressure on the soldiers to either win, or not come back, and having them under that kind of mental stress, day in and day out probably contributed to some degree). There wasn't even a charismatic demagogue constantly stirring them into committing these actions; everything they did, they did purely out of their own inherent dickishness. Here's a link, if you're interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

As for the Soviets being worse than the Nazis, well, since the Soviet Union didn't have a vicious racial policy or an inherently racist, genocidal ideology behind them, no, they weren't worse. Not that they were saints, mind you, but they were definitely not as bad as the Nazis. The Japanese civilians, on the other hand, were not responsible for the actions of their military, so they arguably didn't deserve a nuke (though dropping the nukes was necessary to forestall further bloodshed); the German people allowed the Holocaust to go on in front of them, the Japanese people had nothing to do with their country's brutal imperialism.

edited 4th Sep '11 9:34:00 PM by tropetown

USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#139: Sep 4th 2011 at 9:34:17 PM

I say the Soviets because they were willing to sacrifice three times what Hitler managed for the sake of "progress." They're the ultimate combination of Hitler's ideological insanity and Japan's random dickishness...

I am now known as Flyboy.
tropetown Since: Mar, 2011
#140: Sep 4th 2011 at 9:37:14 PM

Yes, but keep in mind that: a) it was over a much longer period of time, b) was done more out of ruthlessness than active malice, and c) did, in the end, work out: had Stalin not been so brutal, it's possible that the Soviet Union wouldn't have been ready for the Nazis. It's probable that Stalin went too far, but nobody can say that what he did didn't end up working out for the Soviets in the end.

Communism is a system doomed to fail, anyhow; the only way it could be made to work is through Stalinism, more or less, which isn't even pure Communism, but a practical realization of an impossible dream.

edited 4th Sep '11 9:38:41 PM by tropetown

USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#141: Sep 4th 2011 at 9:38:17 PM

The ends do not justify the means.

And I now end this derail with the Roosevelt-grade ANTI-TRUST HAMMER OF DOOMY DOOM!!! tongue

I am now known as Flyboy.
tropetown Since: Mar, 2011
#142: Sep 4th 2011 at 9:50:08 PM

What if the ends are to prevent something far worse than the means from happening (A Nazi takeover being one of them)? Keep in mind that sometimes, there are no good means toward a necessary end.

edited 4th Sep '11 9:54:06 PM by tropetown

RufusShinra Statistical Unlikeliness from Paris Since: Apr, 2011
Statistical Unlikeliness
#143: Sep 4th 2011 at 10:26:39 PM

@Barkey: about the Purple Hearts, here is a quote from The Other Wiki:

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the 60 years following the end of World War II—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars—have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[50] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

As the size of an explosion increases, the number of social situations it is incapable of solving approaches zero.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#144: Sep 4th 2011 at 10:30:25 PM

[up] 0_o

I am now known as Flyboy.
Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#146: Sep 4th 2011 at 10:32:37 PM

Well, on the one hand, it would be pretty cool to get a Downfall Heart. On the other hand, as a pilot, getting wounded to get it... wouldn't end well...

I am now known as Flyboy.
Kino Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: Californicating
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#148: Sep 4th 2011 at 10:36:19 PM

...fly planes. wink

Really, I think they actually skimped. Downfall would have had casualties in the millions. Whoever makes the Purple Hearts must have been feeling pretty optimistic...

I am now known as Flyboy.
tropetown Since: Mar, 2011
#149: Sep 4th 2011 at 10:40:14 PM

[up] And that's just on the Allied side: the Japanese would have lost over ten times that amount. All things considered, Operation Downfall would have been the bloodiest part of World War II, which is saying a lot; since the effects of nuclear fallout weren't well-understood at the time, and they wanted to use tactical nuclear weapons, the death toll on both sides would have risen exponentially.

edited 4th Sep '11 10:50:31 PM by tropetown

RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#150: Sep 4th 2011 at 11:58:53 PM

I'm still gonna trust the Air Force logistics experts trying to do the best wartime analysis the War Department could pay for when they said:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.
(Requoting. Emphasis mine.))

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Total posts: 183
Top