The atomic bombs resulted in less loss of life than any other option…
Even if the Allies surrendered, the Axis powers winning WW2 wouldn’t exactly have been a good result for the average human.
Those are just facts, but it’s not exactly a stretch to say it’s prevented WW3 either. Which is why it doesn’t make any sense when idiots try to say it was a “terrorist” act.
There are some historians who speculate that the Soviets joining the war effort against Japan is all Japan needed to surrender.
It seems relatively realistic in my mind, but it is speculation after the fact.
Terrorist (adj.) : unlawfully using violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims
War, is generally only supposed to be soldier vs soldiers. The Atom bombs killed so many civilians.
Soviets joining the war would have also meant a massive land invasion and conventional bombing campaigns.
The Red Army was also notorious for crimes against civilian populations.
And not just against their enemies. Just ask Poland how well they were treated by Russians after being liberated from the Nazis.
What?
Even with the atom bombs, Japans military almost overthrew their emperor to prevent the surrender.
Let that sink in.
Their loyalty to Japan and the empire almost lead to them seizing power from the empire.
They’d have fought to the last man if they didn’t think we could vaporize any city with a single bomb, and they didn’t think America would be stupid enough to use our only two atom bombs as “warning shots” instead of against serious military targets.
They had to assume that we still had at least a handful, but potentially 100s.
Japan was only going to surrender if complete defeat was inevitable. And the Americans tricked them into thinking that was true without a land invasion. The psychology behind it is almost as impressive as the physics.
War, is generally only supposed to be soldier vs soldiers. The Atom bombs killed so many civilians.
That would be laughable if real life wasn’t so dark…
It was fucking WW2, a shit ton of civilians were being killed daily all over the globe.
Civilians not dying in a war is a recent misconception in some countries because the atom bombs are deterring big military powers from invading each other directly.
We do proxy wars now. And lots of civilians still die in war even if you can’t see them.
I agree that the bombs needed to be dropped, but I’m not fully convinced they needed to be dropped directly on a city. A show of force could have been to drop it close enough to the capital that everyone could see it and tell them the next one will be on them. I know they refused to surrender after the first one but it was a city far enough away that they might not have believed the reports. If it was dropped closer it would have been scarier for the emperor/top brass while killing far fewer people.
On the other hand they only had 2 bombs at the time so I can see the point of view that they wanted maximal impact with the limited bombs they had to maximize the chances of surrender. I understand that too. WW2 was so horrific I understand being desperate to do anything you can to end it sooner. I don’t think it was the lowest loss of life solution, but I think it was the lowest loss of life solution with the maximal chance of leading to surrender.
Why make the same comment a second time after I already answered?
Not sure what you’re referring to, might be a bug?
The reality is that all cities considered were absolutely valid military targets. America had also been dropping leaflets with instructions to evacuate the cities and warning the populations of imminent destruction.
Furthermore, it seems people assume the bombs were dropped simultaneously or something and so Japan didn’t have a chance to surrender but the reality is there were several days between the two bombings. The first bombing was immediately follow by the president of the US urging the immediate surrender of Japan. They didn’t surrender over the course of several days, although the Emperor was considering it against the demands of his advisors to keep fighting. It wasn’t until 3 days later they dropped the second bomb and only then was it unilaterally decided by the Emperor to surrender.While war is a terrible thing, the dropping of the bombs probably saved millions of lives on all sides of the conflict compared to the sacrifices that would have been made under a conventional land invasion. The value of the bombs was precisely in their shock and awe, not their inflicted casualties. The fact that Japan didn’t immediately surrender after the first bomb really tells you how costly a longer war could have been, for everyone involved.
The Operations Room on YouTube released a very informative video that covers pretty much a play-by-play of the days leading up to the bombings and the bombings themself. I highly recommend watching it. The atomic bombs were harrowing weapons, but I believe they were every bit necessary to stop a Japanese nation out of control on the warpath.
deleted by creator
Name a single better option that would have resulted in less suffering to end WW2.
Bomb something else. Certainly don’t bomb two cities. If the objective was to show it could be done twice, then the second bomb need not kill anyone, it just needs to be dropped.
I don’t think you understand how effective firebombing was…
Firebomb and nuke a random Forrest and it looks the same after.
A nuke would literally flatten where it landed. It would erase whatever had been there. The threat was Japan would be completely erased and so irradiated that it couldn’t be rebuilt. Cities that had existed for thousands of years would just be gone.
It was the only option that was worse to the Japanese than surrender.
Going back to how effective firebombing was, it was killing just as many civilians. I think you qualify the atomic bombs as so barbaric, because you don’t understand how barbaric shit was before their invention.
The biggest battles were often in cities where people were still living. The rich ran off to the country, but even they didn’t fare well when an invading army came across their estate.
The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either of the atomic bombs. I don’t pretend to know the right decision about the Bombs, but I know the casualty estimates for Operation Downfall included 400,000 US deaths and 5,000,000 Japanese deaths. I think I would have been hard-pressed not to make the same decision, whether it was right or wrong.
Is it terrorism when you’re already at war?
Depends on which side you’re on, I’d suppose
No, it honestly depends on whether or not it took place before or during WWII. Terrorism was a valid tactic… until weapons like the atom bomb became available and a single act of terrorism could destroy a city, destabilize a country, and even affect the global economy. Its barbaric now only because it hurts the rich too and not “just” everyone else.
I mean, at least they didn’t complain about spoilers…
Have Musk fanboys been following this guy around since Musk tried and failed to fire him on Twitter?
I think it’s the other way around. Halli earned himself a lot of fans for how he handled musk. Musk continued to reply to his tweets for a few weeks after the blow up in a really cringey attempt to apologise/ingratiate himself. It was pretty pathetic.
A: is about x
B: but isn’t out yet
A: yeah but there were probably books about y
God I hate blue check marks
Oppenheimer is literally a book adaptation from the Oppenheimer biography.
