Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
m (Reverted edits by Herpderpmcderp (talk) to last revision by Weaseloid) |
(→But why?: another theory) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==But why?== | ==But why?== | ||
| − | The [[ethical]] justifications of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in considerable debate. Proponents maintain it was a necessary measure to prevent a costly invasion of Japan, with casualties expected to go into the millions,<ref>{{wpa|Operation Downfall}} (Double the landing force of Normandy and [[42]] aircraft carriers. Yes, you heard that correctly.)</ref> while opponents consider it [[state terrorism]] (or [[genocide|genocidal]]) and question its military necessity as [[Soviet]] forces were already cornering Manchuria from the west. | + | The [[ethical]] justifications of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in considerable debate. Proponents maintain it was a necessary measure to prevent a costly invasion of Japan, with casualties expected to go into the millions,<ref>{{wpa|Operation Downfall}} (Double the landing force of Normandy and [[42]] aircraft carriers. Yes, you heard that correctly.)</ref> while opponents consider it [[state terrorism]] (or [[genocide|genocidal]]) and question its military necessity as [[Soviet]] forces were already cornering Manchuria from the west. Gar Alperovitz and others argue that motive for the bombing was not to avoid invasion, but rather the first strike in the "Cold War," specifically, a demonstration of our technological might to the emerging Russian power. |
Arguments about the necessity of the bombing occasionally come across as being slightly [[racist]]. [[American]]s viewed the Japanese as bloodthirsty and servile, and more fanatical than citizens of the [[European]] [[Axis]] powers that didn't need to have the morale nuked out of them.<ref>http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/c/a/caw43/behrendwriting/Weingartner,%20James%20J..pdf</ref> | Arguments about the necessity of the bombing occasionally come across as being slightly [[racist]]. [[American]]s viewed the Japanese as bloodthirsty and servile, and more fanatical than citizens of the [[European]] [[Axis]] powers that didn't need to have the morale nuked out of them.<ref>http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/c/a/caw43/behrendwriting/Weingartner,%20James%20J..pdf</ref> | ||
Revision as of 11:33, 28 April 2013
| What is it good for? Absolutely nothing! |
| Don't believe us? |
“”I made one great mistake in my life.
|
| —Albert Einstein[1] |
The atomic bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima, quickly followed by the bombing of Nagasaki (on August 6 and August 9, 1945 respectively) established that the Greek myth of "opening Pandora's box" had real-life consequences.[2] With a combined death toll of at least 200,000,[3] the attacks marked the end of World War II with the total surrender of the Axis powers, the culmination of the Manhattan Project, and doomed human civilization to over 40 60 years of threatening apocalypse for diplomatic gain.
Contents |
But why?
The ethical justifications of nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in considerable debate. Proponents maintain it was a necessary measure to prevent a costly invasion of Japan, with casualties expected to go into the millions,[4] while opponents consider it state terrorism (or genocidal) and question its military necessity as Soviet forces were already cornering Manchuria from the west. Gar Alperovitz and others argue that motive for the bombing was not to avoid invasion, but rather the first strike in the "Cold War," specifically, a demonstration of our technological might to the emerging Russian power.
Arguments about the necessity of the bombing occasionally come across as being slightly racist. Americans viewed the Japanese as bloodthirsty and servile, and more fanatical than citizens of the European Axis powers that didn't need to have the morale nuked out of them.[5]
The facade of the fanatical Japanese warrior-state that would fight to the very bitter-end (images of school children and housewives using bamboo spears to defend the God-Emperor are often invoked) was not an accurate reflection of reality. There is some indication[6] that the Japanese realized there was no way they could win, and were willing to negotiate a surrender before the US dropped the two bombs. Robert Pape has argued that if the US was willing to budge just a little on some issues (not demanding total surrender from the Japanese, letting the Emperor go on pretending to be a living god), a settlement could have been reached before the bombings, though his assessment is not universally supported.
Regardless of other issues, the bombing did amount to an enormous strategic advantage for the US; by detonating not one, but two atom bombs, the US showed other would-be superpowers that Uncle Sam had the ability and the will to use such devastating weapons in conflicts.[7] How much consideration was placed into the inevitable blowback that this would cause is unknown.
Still arguing about the morality/necessity of the bombings probably isn't juvenile, as there was no consensus even among the US generals themselves.[8]
Lingering horror
Japan's diagnoses of leukemia increased significantly in the wake of the bombings.[9] This link between radiation and cancer gave birth to modern radiophobia.
See also
Historian's fallacy - In hindsight, this was obviously a bad idea.
Footnotes
- ↑ Letters of Note: Einstein to FDR
- ↑ "...and the genie can't be stuffed back in the bottle." - Lawrence Johnston, "Little Man" developer
- ↑ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/mp10.asp
- ↑ See the Wikipedia article on Operation Downfall. (Double the landing force of Normandy and 42 aircraft carriers. Yes, you heard that correctly.)
- ↑ http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/c/a/caw43/behrendwriting/Weingartner,%20James%20J..pdf
- ↑ Frank, Richard B. (2005-08-08). "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb." The Weekly Standard 010 (44)
- ↑ Alperovitz, Gar (1965). Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam. New York: Simon and Schuster
- ↑ Who disagreed with the atomic bombing?
- ↑ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2555781/