I appreciate this sobering reminder of a horrific yet necessary event.
I live here in Okinawa now and see the legacy of WWII daily. The prevalent US culture, military presence etc. is reminder that this island was a bloody battlefield back then and we're here for a reason.
I'm also a veteran. It's frustrating that many Americans today who have only known times of relative peace, jump on the bandwagon of historical revisionism. What feels good in the moment is damaging for long term understanding of the reasons why we used nuclear weapons back then.
I've studied the war from the Japanese perspective. As early as 1942, they knew they were fighting a losing battle. Many of the higher ups wanted out, but they had gone too far and couldn't resist the inertia that had been building since the Meiji Restoration (1860s). But as you mentioned, many of the officials were ready to sacrifice as many lives as necessary (including Japanese ones) to achieve victory. This type of enemy is a very dangerous one and must be stopped by any means. Hence the bombs became an option.
Many today can't fathom such a high death toll had the bombs not been dropped. But living over here, having seen several of the sights where many Japanese civilians and military officials committed suicide; where many American and Allied troops died taking this island, I can imagine that the alternative would have been more miserable for both sides of combatants. So, the bombs were the best option at the time.
An uncomfortable truth, many in the West have a hard time accepting today.
What would have happened if the US had not dropped the bombs on Japan? No one knows, but nuclear bombs might have been used against people somewhere else, and it might have been in a way that would have had more disastrous consequences. Japanese learned a lot from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the damage they did. The fact that nuclear bombs have not been used in war since is a silver lining that humanity can learn something from such tragedies.
There is no doubt that there were Japanese in the heart of the military who were literally willing to fight to the death. From the Japanese perspective, the Kyujo Incident tells us that the atomic bombings did not force the mainland war faction to admit defeat, although the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians undoubtedly changed the balance of power between the peace and mainland war factions among Japanese political leaders. The dropping of the atomic bombs played a decisive role in Japan's immediate acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration (i.e. unconditional surrender), but does it really mean "By any measure it saved lives compared to every other viable alternative"? For example, was it necessary to drop an atomic bomb on Nagasaki in addition to Hiroshima?
I am not here trying to argue that the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary. However, I don't think the stories and data you post really support "By any measure it saved lives compared to every other viable alternative".
Anyway, I agree with your data and conclusion as a whole. The US should not apologize for the use of the atomic bomb (although I suppose the US could apologize for the innocent people killed apart from the use of the bomb, but that's another story).
> The decision by the United States to use atomic bombs to end the Second World War was a right and just one. By any measure it saved lives compared to every other viable alternative.
However, this sentence sounds to me a bit like you are just telling yourself to justify that it was not wrong. I don't deny that the US did their best to end the war, but was it to maximize the number of lives that could be saved?
Unlike then, nuclear weapons are no longer solely the property of the US. I fear that the use of nuclear weapons will be "the only one right decision" for one of nuclear-capable nations. So I felt there was a danger of concluding that it was the "the only one right decision" without any data really convincing everyone. This is why I left my message.
I appreciate this sobering reminder of a horrific yet necessary event.
I live here in Okinawa now and see the legacy of WWII daily. The prevalent US culture, military presence etc. is reminder that this island was a bloody battlefield back then and we're here for a reason.
I'm also a veteran. It's frustrating that many Americans today who have only known times of relative peace, jump on the bandwagon of historical revisionism. What feels good in the moment is damaging for long term understanding of the reasons why we used nuclear weapons back then.
I've studied the war from the Japanese perspective. As early as 1942, they knew they were fighting a losing battle. Many of the higher ups wanted out, but they had gone too far and couldn't resist the inertia that had been building since the Meiji Restoration (1860s). But as you mentioned, many of the officials were ready to sacrifice as many lives as necessary (including Japanese ones) to achieve victory. This type of enemy is a very dangerous one and must be stopped by any means. Hence the bombs became an option.
Many today can't fathom such a high death toll had the bombs not been dropped. But living over here, having seen several of the sights where many Japanese civilians and military officials committed suicide; where many American and Allied troops died taking this island, I can imagine that the alternative would have been more miserable for both sides of combatants. So, the bombs were the best option at the time.
An uncomfortable truth, many in the West have a hard time accepting today.
What would have happened if the US had not dropped the bombs on Japan? No one knows, but nuclear bombs might have been used against people somewhere else, and it might have been in a way that would have had more disastrous consequences. Japanese learned a lot from the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the damage they did. The fact that nuclear bombs have not been used in war since is a silver lining that humanity can learn something from such tragedies.
There is no doubt that there were Japanese in the heart of the military who were literally willing to fight to the death. From the Japanese perspective, the Kyujo Incident tells us that the atomic bombings did not force the mainland war faction to admit defeat, although the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians undoubtedly changed the balance of power between the peace and mainland war factions among Japanese political leaders. The dropping of the atomic bombs played a decisive role in Japan's immediate acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration (i.e. unconditional surrender), but does it really mean "By any measure it saved lives compared to every other viable alternative"? For example, was it necessary to drop an atomic bomb on Nagasaki in addition to Hiroshima?
I am not here trying to argue that the bombing of Nagasaki was unnecessary. However, I don't think the stories and data you post really support "By any measure it saved lives compared to every other viable alternative".
Anyway, I agree with your data and conclusion as a whole. The US should not apologize for the use of the atomic bomb (although I suppose the US could apologize for the innocent people killed apart from the use of the bomb, but that's another story).
> The decision by the United States to use atomic bombs to end the Second World War was a right and just one. By any measure it saved lives compared to every other viable alternative.
However, this sentence sounds to me a bit like you are just telling yourself to justify that it was not wrong. I don't deny that the US did their best to end the war, but was it to maximize the number of lives that could be saved?
Unlike then, nuclear weapons are no longer solely the property of the US. I fear that the use of nuclear weapons will be "the only one right decision" for one of nuclear-capable nations. So I felt there was a danger of concluding that it was the "the only one right decision" without any data really convincing everyone. This is why I left my message.