-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Hiroshima
Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
No, we have the proper, and correct perspective.
About 70k died in the blast at Hiroshima. Less died at Nagasaki.
More than 100k died in the fire bombing of Tokyo.
Were the Tokyo people any less dead? Why is it so terrible that an atom bomb killed the Hiroshima people, as opposed to a bunch of incendiary bombs in Tokyo?
Nobody is glad that the bomb was dropped from the perspective of the people of Hiroshima, but the absolute fact of the matter is, Japan was not even close to surrendering, and an invasion would have cost FAR more lives, both Allied AND Japanese.
Even after both bombs were dropped, the Japanese military did not want to surrender. All the while, even women and children were being taught hand-to-hand combat and armed with bamboo spears.
There were thousands and thousands of planes held in reserve on the mainland for a final battle. They had over a million soldiers on the mainland.
They fought to the last man to defend hunks of volcanic rock in the Pacific. There is no doubt they'd have fought even harder to defend their homeland.
No, nobody is happy the civilians died, but it's likely just as many, if not more, would have died in an invasion, not to mention the million casualties the Allies were expected to take.
Looking at the A-bombing of Hiroshima with the perspective of how terrible today's nuclear weapons are is what is the wrong thing to do.
The idiot radicals that want to say there were 2-300k victims of the bomb are full of it. Sorry, but an 85 year old who dies this year of cancer is NOT a victim of Hiroshima.
Exactly. This revisionist history that's been going on for a long time now is really pissing a lot of people off.
Fact is, the atom bomb, while terrible, wasn't anymore terrible than the fire bombing of Tokyo, Desden, the Rape of Nanking, etc, etc, that happened in that war.
These people are applying their knowledge of how awesome today's nuclear weapons are to the Hiroshima bomb, and acting like it was as horrible as today's bombs.
Sorry, but it's not even close.
Hiroshima: 1 bomb, 70k people died, maybe 20-30k died later. 100k dead, give or take. Terrible.
Tokyo: Lots of bombs, about the same amount of city destroyed, 100k dead, give or take. Terrible.
Why is Hiroshima any worse, simply because it was one bomb and not thousands?
mugs
Lifer
But then we wouldn't have chosen who got to die. I think that's what people get hung up on. It doesn't matter that more people would have died if we invaded - we chose a large group of civilians who had to die to save the rest. (disregarding arguments about how "civilian they really were)
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
Most of the world sees it as a war crime. With the rise of Asia I suspect in the future even most Americans will as our influence declines.
That's the way the world works.
That's the way the world works.
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
Yeah, but the difference is the civs that die in Iraq get in the way. They aren't targeted directly by US forces. That wasn't the case with Hiroshima. Civilians were directly targeted.
JulesMaximus
No Lifer
It was an ugly solution to a very ugly problem. I think it would be best to try to take away from this as many positives as we can and try to never let it happen again. Arguing about it now is pointless.
I can't imagine living in the aftermath of those bombs though, it must have been hell on earth. My heart goes out to those who were injured or killed...especially the women and children. 🙁
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
What does the current US govt say about combatants targeting civlilians?
What does the current state of the world have to do with WWII? 😕
The only reason there has not been another major war with millions dead on all sides is because of nukes. They have deterred the major powers from all out assault.
If there ever could be another major ground war, there would be "war crimes" on all sides. The only people who pay for those crimes are the losers, however.
So
Lifer
I think a lot of you guys don't understand the concept of "total" war. WWII was the last total war that we were involved in, arguably the last one to date. In a total war, THERE ARE NO CIVILIANS.
Once one county is bent on utterly annihilating an other county, the targeted country has no choice but to commit to the same (assuming their enemy isn't completely retarded and has undertaken a task they have some chance of succeeding at).
On both sides, everyone is directly or indirectly involved in the war effort. Everyone's labor makes them a legitimate target. It's only after the war is over that people step back and consider mercy for the other side -- and the victors will punish the losers for fighting when that happens. Sorry, total wars blow, but that's how they work.
In WWII, the allies were committed to the task of guaranteeing that the Axis powers would never again take to the task of conquering the planet, and conditional surrender was not a possible plan. The Japanese might have agreed to a peace that preserved their government and the remnants of their military. Today, we delude ourselves that such a peace would have been acceptable. It was not. That was the solution to WWI, the allies had the german empire on the ropes by late 1918. Likely by late 1919, the german government would have collapsed and the allied armies would have been in Berlin. The allies accepted a conditional peace instead of pressing to the end. This left the german people convinced they hadn't really lost.
That conditional peace CLEARLY led to world war two, a much more devestating war. Even without nuclear bombs on the table, it was clear that a third world war would throw society into a dark age, no sane person at the time would have accepted a conditional surrender. It was the bomb that convinced the Japanese that an UNCONDITIONAL surrender was necessary. The allies, in turn, followed a policy that actively rebuilt their former enemies into states that would never again have the desire to conquer their neighbors.
StinkyPinky
Diamond Member
Interesting. A very fair point.
irishScott
Lifer
Boom.
/Dons flame suit
/Dons flame suit
Terzo
Platinum Member
One of the posts on the Boston site linked the following article. I found it to be an interesting read.
It's about 5 pages, pdf format.
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
It's about 5 pages, pdf format.
Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
