International Hiroshima was NOT a mistake

[Blayt7hh]

You can't really dismiss the objections of Ralph Bard, Eisenhower, MacArthur, Leahy or McCloy as people "without skin in the game" or because they also wanted an end to the war.
However, unless you are enamoured with national myths, you should be able to clearly see from the written evidence that the statements about Hiroshima as a military target, the targets being selected to "avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians", the justifications with ever inflated casualty estimates and the lies to congress about the nature and effect of radioactive fallout were all bullshit.
Not just in hindsight. With the declassification of records, their own previously written words reveal that they knew better.
Would you really argue that indiscriminately using weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations is ethically justified by hypothetically averting the exaggerated estimates of casualties of an invasion? A number which grew as the years passed after the event and never featured in the original decision?

Where do you see anything about MacArthur objecting to using the bomb? He’s the one that tried to nuke China after he knew what it would do.

You’re putting your own spin on this. It’s evident when you type things like “exaggerated projected casualties”. They weren’t exaggerating. Japan was ready to fight to the death. There was literally a story last week about how we finally ran out of all the Purple Hearts that had been produced in anticipation for the invasion.

When you say things like that it makes me think you either really don’t understand how determined and terrible Japan was. When you ask if it was ok to kill civilians, I would point out that they had already been doing that and more on an industrial scale. No I do not feel like we were obligated to send hundreds of thousands of our own conscripts to die in order to stop them. I’m not sympathetic to the idea that young men ripped up from their home should be sacrificed to spare the civilians of a country engaged in mass war crimes

 

[djacobox372]

Well you aren't going to convince me of the revisionist nonsense in the slightest. I feel pretty proud America went and kicked ass for freedom in world War 2 , I think it was the right decision and I think the Japanese deserved it. Total war is nation vs nation and its on til someone quits. It's truly impossible to calculate the amount of American lives saved and even harder to speculate on if those bombs are the reason America and Russia didn't sling them in the 50s. I straight up think what you are saying is absurd. The position you have staked out is not a luxury those men then had to work with....
They were not sitting content in 2024 they were engaged in the craziest war we as humans have ever fought in

It's not "revisionist nonsense." It was majority thinking in the day.

Before the bomb was dropped a plea to the president to not use the bomb was drafted and signed by 70 senior scientists working on the Manhattan project.

In addition 150 scientists working on the project were polled as to what should be done, only 15% agreed with it being used. The rest recommended a demonstration, or not using it at all.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Watching 'Three Body Problem.' No spoilers:

Big expensive project is going on and one of the characters said something to the effect of 'the last time smart people got in the room and had unlimited funds, they gave us HIROSHIMA!'

As if it's the big bad thing that all of humanity has done. You hear it quite frequently- with all the historical revisionism that's going on- that Hiroshima was some gigantic atrocity. It was not.

WWII was TOTAL WAR. None of us in our times of peace have any idea. And if the situation arose again, where the entire world was in play, are these soft headed historically ignorant people saying that we would not repeat the action to save potentially millions of lives-- even those of the enemy?

It's ridiculous.

An assault on Japan proper would likely have resulted in, depending on who you ask, an additional 3M to 30M casualties. It was the correct choice.

Loved the books. Show looked like woke trash. Looks like I was right.

 

[ShadowRun]

 

[Madmick]

The US dropped a bomb on civilians and killed numerous innocent people.

So if Putin deploys a small nuke in Ukraine to win his war and save Russians it is ok? Can Israel fire off nukes also?

The Ukraine didn't bomb Russia without military provocation, and the Ukraine didn't invade dozens of other sovereign countries.

So, to answer your ridiculously stupid question, no. No, it isn't okay if Putin drops a nuke on the Ukraine.

And he's already the worst war criminal in the world without doing that.

 

[fedorthegoat777]

The Ukraine didn't bomb Russia without military provocation, and the Ukraine didn't invade dozens of other sovereign countries.

So, to answer your ridiculously stupid question, no. No, it isn't okay if Putin drops a nuke on the Ukraine.

And he's already the worst war criminal in the world without doing that.

Of course I agree attacking Russia was wrong.

Worst war criminal we have today might be much.

My point is according to Russia, according to Putin, they think they are justified. They think they are in the right.

Use a different example if you like. Regardless, you have to deal with is it ok to drop nukes. If it is, you have to deal with people like North Korea, Hitler, and Putin who think there scenario puts them in the right.

 

[Ruprecht]

Where do you see anything about MacArthur objecting to using the bomb? He’s the one that tried to nuke China after he knew what it would do.

You’re putting your own spin on this. It’s evident when you type things like “exaggerated projected casualties”. They weren’t exaggerating. Japan was ready to fight to the death. There was literally a story last week about how we finally ran out of all the Purple Hearts that had been produced in anticipation for the invasion.

When you say things like that it makes me think you either really don’t understand how determined and terrible Japan was. When you ask if it was ok to kill civilians, I would point out that they had already been doing that and more on an industrial scale. No I do not feel like we were obligated to send hundreds of thousands of our own conscripts to die in order to stop them. I’m not sympathetic to the idea that young men ripped up from their home should be sacrificed to spare the civilians of a country engaged in mass war crimes

I'm talking about the documented evidence which is now declassified. Go read it for yourself.
MacArthur testified to the senate inquiry that he had not recommended the use of nukes. Again, recorded history. He also responded to Hoover's public statement just after the bomb was dropped, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." with a letter saying , that if Truman had followed Hoover's “wise and statesmanlike” advice to modify the surrender terms and tell the Japanese they could keep their emperor, “the Japanese would have accepted it and gladly I have no doubt". Along with other anecdotes such as the diary entry of his pilot from August 7th that, “General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster.”

In fact of the 8 five star generals/admirals at the end of the 2nd world war, 7 of them publicly said the nukes were uneccessary, immoral or both. They weren't exactly hippies or the sort to commonly and openly contradict the decisions of their commanders in chief either.
Leahy, Truman's own Chief of staff, later wrote, “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

Admiral Halsey's testimony to Congress was much the same, “I believe that bombing – especially atomic bombing – of civilians, is morally indefensible. . . . I know that the extermination theory has no place in a properly conducted war.”

On the other hand there's no records of MacArthur requesting to nuke the Chinese, and he denied it in the senate. Specifically, "atomic bombing in the Korean War was never discussed either by my headquarters or in any communication to or from Washington".
It was part of his stoush with Truman. Maybe he started losing it in Korea, maybe not, but unlike the records of the casualty estimates, no records have been released which directly contradict his claims.
We have the casualty estimates discussed prior to the bombing and it wasn't 500,000 or 1 million dead (or even casualties) as stated by Stimson in 1947 as a justification in face of mounting criticism after the detailed reports about Hiroshima had become public (and especially John Hersey's "Hiroshima"). A number which has only been exaggerated more and more since then.

You're justifying the indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction on civilians with, "they started it" and the false dichotomy that the only options were a long drawn out invasion or a demonstration of America's willingness to commit nuclear genocide (as opposed to a strategic demonstration on actual military targets, exactly as Truman had lied about doing at Hiroshima).

 

[BIKES!]

Would the left today make any decisions to save American lives? No.

These creatures won’t even allow allies to respond to the most evil terrorist groups that strap babies to their vest for propaganda fodder…

 

[Blayt7hh]

I'm talking about the documented evidence which is now declassified. Go read it for yourself.
MacArthur testified to the senate inquiry that he had not recommended the use of nukes. Again, recorded history. He also responded to Hoover's public statement just after the bomb was dropped, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." with a letter saying , that if Truman had followed Hoover's “wise and statesmanlike” advice to modify the surrender terms and tell the Japanese they could keep their emperor, “the Japanese would have accepted it and gladly I have no doubt". Along with other anecdotes such as the diary entry of his pilot from August 7th that, “General MacArthur definitely is appalled and depressed by this Frankenstein monster.”

In fact of the 8 five star generals/admirals at the end of the 2nd world war, 7 of them publicly said the nukes were uneccessary, immoral or both. They weren't exactly hippies or the sort to commonly and openly contradict the decisions of their commanders in chief either.
Leahy, Truman's own Chief of staff, later wrote, “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender …. In being the first to use it we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages.”

Admiral Halsey's testimony to Congress was much the same, “I believe that bombing – especially atomic bombing – of civilians, is morally indefensible. . . . I know that the extermination theory has no place in a properly conducted war.”

On the other hand there's no records of MacArthur requesting to nuke the Chinese, and he denied it in the senate. Specifically, "atomic bombing in the Korean War was never discussed either by my headquarters or in any communication to or from Washington".
It was part of his stoush with Truman. Maybe he started losing it in Korea, maybe not, but unlike the records of the casualty estimates, no records have been released which directly contradict his claims.
We have the casualty estimates discussed prior to the bombing and it wasn't 500,000 or 1 million dead (or even casualties) as stated by Stimson in 1947 as a justification in face of mounting criticism after the detailed reports about Hiroshima had become public (and especially John Hersey's "Hiroshima"). A number which has only been exaggerated more and more since then.

You're justifying the indiscriminate use of weapons of mass destruction on civilians with, "they started it" and the false dichotomy that the only options were a long drawn out invasion or a demonstration of America's willingness to commit nuclear genocide (as opposed to a strategic demonstration on actual military targets, exactly as Truman had lied about doing at Hiroshima).

Well a quick google determines your rebuttal of the MacArthur thing is false. He denied it, but he also submitted (is on record) the request to the joint chief of staff for the weapons and had a list of targets(is on record). He also had a plan to drop 30 - 50 of them to create a radioactive no man’s land. I think it’s safe to say he was comfortable with their use.

I want you to answer this- why do you think we weee obligated to sacrifice conscripts to save Japanese civilians? Don’t try to tap dance away from it by claiming a lot of them wouldn’t die either. No one supports this weird belief you seem to have that invading Japan would have been a breeze. A lot of our soldier would have died if we had invaded.

You’re right though it is a false dichotomy. The other option is we do neither and we let them go back to actually committing genocides. I just figured since you’re a staunch opponent of genocide I was free to omit that option

 

[Ruprecht]

Well a quick google determines your rebuttal of the MacArthur thing is false. He denied it, but he also submitted (is on record) the request to the joint chief of staff for the weapons and had a list of targets(is on record). He also had a plan to drop 30 - 50 of them to create a radioactive no man’s land. I think it’s safe to say he was comfortable with their use.

I want you to answer this- why do you think we weee obligated to sacrifice conscripts to save Japanese civilians? Don’t try to tap dance away from it by claiming a lot of them wouldn’t die either. No one supports this weird belief you seem to have that invading Japan would have been a breeze. A lot of our soldier would have died if we had invaded.

You’re right though it is a false dichotomy. The other option is we do neither and we let them go back to actually committing genocides. I just figured since you’re a staunch opponent of genocide I was free to omit that option

MacArthur claimed that list was submitted when it was requested of him, and that request is also on record, although his denied request for access to weapons does throw doubts on his claim. No reports of him requesting to nuke China though and that list is the basis of the claim he had a plan to nuke 34 Chinese cities. No actual plan, discussion or request to do so is recorded. He denied recommending the use of nukes in Japan as well. Weird that you would place so much stock in the demonstrated lies of Truman and Stimson and take their word over MacArthur's.

I don't think those were the options. I think that's bullshit as shown in the records. I think a military target as demonstration of atomic weapons, as had in fact been proposed, as Truman claimed had happened and as the top ranking generals claimed was more than was necessary, would have sufficed.
Even if there's no way they weren't going to nuke something given the money spent, the desire to use it and the impending threat of more conflicts.
Like I said. False dichotomy.
But yes, I do think there's no moral justification for indiscriminately nuking civilians, even if it saves soldiers lives.
The point with the numbers and how they've grown is to point out how the basic assertions about the decision from Stimson were bullshit. Starting from Truman's initial claim that they had chosen military targets and tried to minimise civilian casualties, all the way through to the exaggerated numbers they claim were given for the estimations for invasion, the assertion that nuking civilians was necessary to force a surrender, the idea that no other options were considered or possible and Groves report that there were almost no deaths from radiation and that if there were any "freak cases", radiation poisoning was a pleasant, peaceful way to die. All bullshit, and they knew it was bullshit. A myth.

 

[Cherry Brigand]

Of course I agree attacking Russia was wrong.

Worst war criminal we have today might be much.

My point is according to Russia, according to Putin, they think they are justified. They think they are in the right.

Use a different example if you like. Regardless, you have to deal with is it ok to drop nukes. If it is, you have to deal with people like North Korea, Hitler, and Putin who think there scenario puts them in the right.

You are a historically ignorant doofus, sir.

 

[AWilder]

The bomb could have been demonstrated instead of dropped on civilians... Japan didn't surrender because of the 100's of thousands killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they surrendered because of the fear that Tokyo was next.

demonstrated? what?

 

[AWilder]

The Ukraine didn't bomb Russia without military provocation, and the Ukraine didn't invade dozens of other sovereign countries.

So, to answer your ridiculously stupid question, no. No, it isn't okay if Putin drops a nuke on the Ukraine.

And he's already the worst war criminal in the world without doing that.

you know it's just Ukraine, right? There is no need to call it "the ukraine".

 

[Madmick]

Of course I agree attacking Russia was wrong.

Worst war criminal we have today might be much.

My point is according to Russia, according to Putin, they think they are justified. They think they are in the right.

Use a different example if you like. Regardless, you have to deal with is it ok to drop nukes. If it is, you have to deal with people like North Korea, Hitler, and Putin who think there scenario puts them in the right.

Putin's opinion is irrelevant to the objective basis for the difference I just articulated to you.

you know it's just Ukraine, right? There is no need to call it "the ukraine".

OId habits die hard, my ignorant young grasshopper.

It’s ‘Ukraine,’ not ‘the Ukraine’ – here’s why

That three-letter word erases the country’s political sovereignty.

theconversation.com

 

[King Joffery]

People keep saying they could have demonstrated it with fewer civilian casualties. Maybe but even if say killing half the amount reduced the odds of ending the war from 100% to 90% it still wouldn't be worth it as the costs of not ending the war would be in the millions so even an estimated 10% drop in probability of ending the war would have a negative EV of a few hundred thousand deaths . Millions were saved at the cost of around 100 to 200,000. It was definitely the right decision to drop the bomb, whether or not they hit the sweet spot is debatable, its possible they took an unnecessary risk by not killing enough too and got lucky it was enough to get the job done.

 

[avenue94]

Japanese estimates were given as casualty ratios by MacArthur, and varied from 22:1 (based on the last years overall reports) down to about 5:1.
How credible or accurate the estimations were is really another question, but we know these were the numbers discussed base on the records.

I think they're fairly credible and point to Japan surrendering at that point saving lives (certainly US, likely Japanese as well), even if we're taking the more conservative estimates.

It's not "revisionist nonsense." It was majority thinking in the day.

Before the bomb was dropped a plea to the president to not use the bomb was drafted and signed by 70 senior scientists working on the Manhattan project.

In addition 150 scientists working on the project were polled as to what should be done, only 15% agreed with it being used. The rest recommended a demonstration, or not using it at all.

These scientists had their own biases and blindsides, much like the military members of the pertinent committees for atomic bombs. A demonstration was never on the table as a realistic solution, and it's not hard to see why it was quickly ruled out.

I think a military target as demonstration of atomic weapons, as had in fact been proposed, as Truman claimed had happened and as the top ranking generals claimed was more than was necessary, would have sufficed.

Let's say the US demonstrates the bomb on an unoccupied island. How would Japan have responded in your estimation?

 

[My Spot]

And then Emperor Hirohito's grandson was gonna come to WWE to get revenge on the US.

 

[Rob Battisti]

Japan was already defeated on all fronts. Surrender was imminent. Dropping the bombs was a show of force / deterrent for any potential enemies post war.

It was completely unnecessary and took more lives than it saved.

One of the silliest takes I’ve ever seen.

 

[Hdfi]

Japan concerned over U.S. officials' remarks on atomic bombings​

Japan is increasingly concerned about a series of recent remarks by U.S. officials justifying the August 1945 atomic bombings of the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Many in the United States take a positive view of the atomic bombings in the closing days of World War II. Tokyo, which opposes the use of nuclear weapons, has informed Washington of its position, but is struggling to have its stance acknowledged.

In a U.S. congressional meeting on May 8, Lindsey Graham, an influential Republican senator, made a remark defending the atomic bombings. Graham is close to former U.S. President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee in the November presidential election.

The remark came when Graham was talking about support for Israel over the Palestinian situation.

Tokyo conveyed its stance to Washington following Graham's remark. Nevertheless, the senator said in a television program Sunday that the decision to drop the atomic bombs was correct and that the bombings helped end the war.

"Why is it OK for America to drop two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end their existential threat war? ... I thought it was OK," Graham said in an NBC News program. "That was the right decision."

At a subcommittee meeting of the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 8, Graham referred to the atomic bombings when he urged U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and others to provide ammunition to Israel. Austin suggested, in response to a question from Graham, that the U.S. atomic bombings were necessary to end the war.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi told a news conference Monday that these remarks are "extremely regrettable."

The atomic bombings "took many precious lives, caused (a number of) people to suffer unspeakable hardships such as illnesses and brought about an extremely regrettable humanitarian situation," the top government spokesman said.

The Japanese government told the U.S. government and Graham's office that the use of nuclear weapons is not in line with the spirit of international law.

Japan plans to continue efforts to spread an accurate understanding of the reality of the atomic bombings. However, a senior Foreign Ministry official suggested that there are limits to what the government can do.

The remarks in question could put a damper on bilateral ties despite Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and U.S. President Joe Biden having confirmed their bonds when they met in April during Kishida's state visit to the U.S.

Also, Biden called Japan "xenophobic," along with China and Russia, at an event in Washington on May 1, prompting Tokyo to lodge a protest.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2024/05/15/japan/politics/japan-us-atomic-bomb-remark-concern/

 

[Hog-train]

I mean the US also unnecessarily bombed civilian areas on purpose. They destroyed Kobe.

Anybody ever see Grave of the Fireflies? One of the saddest, soul shattering movies ever.