this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
198 points (94.6% liked)
Clever Comebacks
1188 readers
1 users here now
Posts of clever comebacks in response to someone.
Rules:
- Be civil and remember the human. No name calling or insults. Swearing is allowed but when used to insult someone.
- Discussion is encouraged, but only in good faith. No arguing for arguments sake.
- No bigotry of any kind.
- Censor names/identifying info of everyone who isn’t a public figure.
- If you break the rules you’ll receive one warning before you’re banned.
- Enjoy this community in the light hearted manner it’s intended.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.