• LordGimp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    We literally nuked them to cow them into surrender rather than spend millions of American and japanese lives in a brutal and ultimately pointless land campaign. We took away their glorious last stand on the home islands and replaced it with instant annihilation, lingering death, and the taste of the sun. It might have spared more Japanese lives in the long run, but it definitely saved a whole mess of American lives in an immediate way. That’s what really matters. USA #1 baybeee

    • Liz@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s strong arguments to be made that we nuked them so that they’d surrender to us instead of the Russians.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        The Russians had zero ability to invade the Japanese home islands. The Russian official declaration of war only cut off a potential way for the Japanese to broker a peace through a neutral Russia.

        • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          I suspect they could’ve gained a limited (big emphasis on limited) ability to invade the Japanese islands if/once they seized coastal Chinese and Korean regions that were under Japanese control, some ships might’ve been around.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s a post facto justification. Reading over the notes of the people doing the strategic planning for it all, it’s quite clear they expected the war to continue. For example, there was a debate on if they should drop the nukes as they become available (which would have been a few a month), or if they should store them up and drop a whole lot on invasion day.

      The Japanese had already fought on through the firebombing of Tokyo. That killed a comparable number of people to the atomic bombings. It just takes a lot more bombers to make it happen compared to dropping a nuke.

      • LordGimp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        Honestly I feel like we really missed something when we passed on the bat bombs. Those things would have absolutely annihilated any significant concentrations of Japanese structures. I feel like weaponizing nature could be done a lot better

        • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          In his letter, Adams stated that the bat was the “lowest form of animal life”, and that, until now, “reasons for its creation have remained unexplained”.


          In one incident, the Carlsbad Army Airfield Auxiliary Air Base … near Carlsbad, New Mexico, was set on fire on May 15, 1943, when armed bats were accidentally released.


          Bat bombs were an experimental World War II weapon developed by the United States. The bomb consisted of a bomb-shaped casing with over a thousand compartments, each containing a hibernating Mexican free-tailed bat with a small, timed incendiary bomb attached. Dropped from a bomber at dawn, the casings would deploy a parachute in mid-flight and open to release the bats, which would then disperse and roost in eaves and attics in a 20–40-mile radius (32–64 km). The incendiaries, which were set on timers, would then ignite and start fires in inaccessible places in the largely wood and paper constructions of the Japanese cities that were the weapon’s intended target.

          Thanks for this incredible bit of knowledge.

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Initially, dogs were trained to leave a timer-detonated bomb and retreat, but this routine was replaced by an impact-detonation procedure which killed the dog in the process.

              Oh great

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Just makes me think that the Japanese probably should’ve surrendered way earlier to save those lives

    • Gabu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Complete bullshit and typical 'murican propaganda. Japan was already preparing to surrender.

      • LordGimp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Lmfao yeah training women and children how to kill themselves rather than be raped to death by the Wildman invaders sounds a lot like preparing to peacefully surrender.

        Eat 15 dicks and then read a history book imbecile

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        There was a coup in the Japanese military to try to prevent a surrender after the nukes were dropped. Things are far from that simple.

        Now, one thing I’ll agree with is that Japan would have surrendered long before on the condition that the Emperor would be kept in place. Then we got the unconditional surrender, and after all the peace talks were done and documents signed, we still allowed the Emperor to keep his place. The argument here is that the American people were out for blood and public perception would only accept unconditional surrender. I don’t think that’s a very good moral argument, though, especially when it led to nukes being used in anger.