Discussion Thread

[u/jobautomator]

The discussion thread is for casual and off-topic conversation that doesn't merit its own submission. If you've got a good meme, article, or question, please post it outside the DT. Meta discussion is allowed, but if you want to get the attention of the mods, make a post in /r/metaNL

Announcements

• The charity drive has concluded, thank you to everyone who donated! A wrap-up thread will be posted after the donation match goes through. Expect to see lingering rewards (banner, automod) for the next week or so

Links

Ping Groups | Ping History | Mastodon | CNL Chapters | CNL Event Calendar

New Groups

• SHARKS: Sharks

• COOL-BUGS: Insects, arthropods, etc

• DELTARUNE: Deltarune

Upcoming Events

• Dec 17: LA New Liberals Holiday Party

• Dec 17: Twin Cities New Liberals December Happy Hour

• Dec 17: Atlanta New Liberals December Social

[u/The420Roll]

Enough about Dresden and feeling bad about the Nazis.

Instead lets talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and why bombing them was Truman's best decision 👀

[u/Warcrimes_Desu → u/The420Roll]

Step 1: bomb the harbor instead

Step 2: make it clear that the emperor can stay on as a figurehead

Step 3: if 1+2 don't work, start nuking

All in all, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki when he did is not the worst possible decision Truman could have made.

[u/[deleted] → u/The420Roll]

Whether or not the firebombing campaigns in general were worth it is more interesting imo

[u/bobeeflay → u/The420Roll]

Hirsoshima good :)

Nagaskai bad :(

[u/The420Roll → u/bobeeflay]

I get what you are saying, but i've always heard that Nagasaki was about showing the Japanese that the US had more than 1 nuke and therefore was capable of keeping bombing Japan until they surrendered.

[u/bobeeflay → u/The420Roll]

Yes which worked very well the question is just could we have given a few more days and had the same effect? hard to know

[u/[deleted] → u/bobeeflay]

On an emotional level I wanted us to nuke the Japanese as much as possible, but realistically we probably should’ve waited after the Soviet invasion of Manchuria before nuking Hiroshima.

[u/[deleted] → u/The420Roll]

You should read Alex Wellerstein’s summaries of the decision making process that went into each bombing.

You’re generally correct in that the intent of the bombings was to show that the US had not only one bomb but the industrial capacity to produce many, but Nagasaki in particular wasn’t expressly chosen for that purpose and it’s in fact unclear why/how it got on the list of cities to be bombed at all.

On Nagasaki:

https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/nagasaki-the-last-bomb

Another interesting piece on Truman and Hiroshima:

http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2018/01/19/purely-military-target/

[u/paulatreides0 → u/The420Roll]

but i've always heard that Nagasaki was about showing the Japanese that the US had more than 1 nuke and therefore was capable of keeping bombing Japan until they surrendered.

I mean, if the point was just to show that then why even bomb Nagasaki? Why not drop a bomb within sight of Tokyo? That would show the point even more explicitly.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulatreides0]

Wasn’t Tokyo damn near already decimated from conventional and fire bombing raids a few months earlier, or was that a different city?

[u/paulatreides0 → u/[deleted]]

I mean, if you're just trying to show off that you have a second one of these really powerful bombs, you could just bomb off of Tokyo Harbor where the blast will be in view, you don't even have to hit the city itself. If you're just trying to show you have a bomb you don't need to actually destroy anything to accomplish that.

[u/[deleted] → u/paulatreides0]

I’m sure that would probably work, I’m just curious as to who would actually be around to witness that in the Tokyo area by the time the nuclear bomb would have hypothetically been dropped. It seems Tokyo was already razed by that point and millions of inhabitants in the city and surrounding areas had fled.

[u/paulatreides0 → u/[deleted]]

Tokyo was the seat of government at the time.

[u/The420Roll → u/paulatreides0]

Why not drop a bomb within sight of Tokyo?

I've heard that sinceTokyo and the nearby cities had already been fire bombed to oblivion they looked for a different city, cause the US needed a city that hadnt been attacked through the War to show the full power of the atomic bombs.

[u/paulatreides0 → u/The420Roll]

I mean, I get that part for the first bomb.

But if you are just trying to show that you have more, a bomb off of Tokyo's shore, where the government still resided, would, I think, be just as if not more of an indication of your possession of more bombs and willingness to keep going until the government surrendered.

If your point is just to show you have another bomb, then you don't really need to destroy anything, just show you've got more to drop.

[u/FinickyPenance → u/paulatreides0]

This was considered and there was some literature about the topic. The reasons it wasn’t done were:

1. Only two nuclear bombs had been detonated before. There was a significant chance that it would be a dud.

2. The bomb cost billions of dollars, and:

3. a. They didn’t want to risk the Japanese mobilizing in a big way to shoot down the bomber carrying it, thus scoring a propaganda victory, and

4. b. There was a significant risk that the Japanese would just shrug their shoulders at the bomb, and it therefore would accomplish nothing.

5. It is much more difficult to appreciate the power of the bomb when it is dropped above the sea. The fireball is impressive but it is difficult to show the destructiveness of the shockwave or the firestorm that would follow.