theprof00 said:
dallas said:
the whole point of the bombs was the assumption that the japanese wouldn't surrender. At the very least, we should be looking at their willingness to fight even when outnumbered, the culture's emphasis on extreme motivation which pushed them to do things like the banzai attacks (hope that's spelled right) , an analysis of the amount of people that could die in dropping a few bombs vs an attack on japan. Also, the japanese that were unaware of the war's end doesn't have a lot to do with the discussion of whether the bombs ultimately saved lives, or not
|
You're making the point that the rationalization of using the bombs was to end the search and destroy guerilla warfare they would have had to do, and such.
The atomic bombs did not do that. Islands of Japan continued to fight throughout several years. Americans surely knew this. They were not stupid people.
I assume that you believe the atomic bombs were a devastating and catastrophic weapon that scared the japanese into surrender.
I hold my opinion because I disagree not only in opinion but in fact.
Nukes are impactful in 2 ways, 1 radiation, 2 explosion
1. At the time radiation effects of the bomb were not known. Americans were helping clean and rebuild those cities and subsequently developed cancer and mutations. No, the devastating effect of radiation was not the tipping point in surrender.
2. The blast from a single atomic warhead, especially the earlier ones like the ones dropped on hiroshima and nagasaki were of significantly less capability than the firebombings were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
"
The first raid using low-flying B-29s carrying incendiary bombs to drop on Tokyo was in February 1945 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km²) of the city.[citation needed] Changing their tactics to expand the coverage and increase the damage, 335 B-29s took off[3] to raid on the night of 9–10 March, with 279 of them[3] dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Fourteen B-29s were lost.[3] Approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) of the city were destroyed and some 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the resulting firestorm, more than the immediate deaths of either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bombs.[4][5] The US Strategic Bombing Survey later estimated that nearly 88,000 people died in this one raid, 41,000 were injured, and over a million residents lost their homes. The Tokyo Fire Department estimated a higher toll: 97,000 killed and 125,000 wounded. The Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department established a figure of 124,711 casualties including both killed and wounded and 286,358 buildings and homes destroyed. Richard Rhodes, historian, put deaths at over 100,000, injuries at a million and homeless residents at a million.[6] These casualty and damage figures could be low; Mark Selden wrote in Japan Focus:
The figure of roughly 100,000 deaths, provided by Japanese and American authorities, both of whom may have had reasons of their own for minimizing the death toll, seems to me arguably low in light of population density, wind conditions, and survivors' accounts. With an average of 103,000 inhabitants per square mile (396 people per hectare) and peak levels as high as 135,000 per square mile (521 people per hectare), the highest density of any industrial city in the world, and with firefighting measures ludicrously inadequate to the task, 15.8 square miles (41 km2) of Tokyo were destroyed on a night when fierce winds whipped the flames and walls of fire blocked tens of thousands fleeing for their lives. An estimated 1.5 million people lived in the burned out areas. [7]The destruction and damage were greatest in the parts of the city to the east of the Imperial Palace.[citation needed] Over 50% of Tokyo was destroyed by the end of World War II.[citation needed]"
As far as pure batshit insane fear-potential, firebombings created firestorms, which were literally tornados of fire, vortexes pulling people and cars in from kilometers away.
The nukes were a warning to the russians, and seeing as how they quite immediately sparked the cold war, maybe you can begin to understand the situation a little bit better.
Additionally, russia had at the time recently invaded manchuria and were about to commence a land war in Japan.
Also, there had been a previous discussion of surrender by which Japan refused to sign because they wanted to maintain their independence, but they were fine with everything else. That was about a week before.
They then agreed to unconditional surrender on the eve of russian land invasion.
|
