Nope. Japan was pretty much done with the war before the U.S. decided to use them as lab rats to their nuclear bomb experiment. They were itching to use said technology with no regard to innocent lives.
If the bomb had not been used, more people would have died.
At best, there is no way to be sure of that, and at worst, it is outright false:
"Indeed, as early as 1946 the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, in its report Japan’s Struggle to End the War, concluded that “certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered…”
There’s also the fact that there were no warnings. I’ve read some potentially conflicting accounts, but the consensus seems to be that there were no warning pamphlets dropped on Hiroshima ahead of the nuclear blast. At best, there may have been leaflets dropped that included Hiroshima amongst a list of 35 Japanese cities that could be the target of a bombing. At that time, the level of destructive capabilities were unheard of, so even seeing those leaflets, the thoughts citizens may have had is that there would be some firebombing. Destruction and death could be expected, but nothing like the complete obliteration that actually happened.
The use of atomic weapons was a demonstration of US destructive capabilities. They were a warning built of indiscriminate evil that saught only to strike fear into the eyes of anyone who would dare attack the US.
The use of atomic weapons may have legitimately reduced the number of American casualties, but I’m with you. It’s impossible to know whether lives were saved beyond those of American soldiers. Many civilians perished on those days, and that is not something to be celebrated.
Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.
Nope. Japan was pretty much done with the war before the U.S. decided to use them as lab rats to their nuclear bomb experiment. They were itching to use said technology with no regard to innocent lives.
Not just lab rats for the experiment, but examples to show the Russians what could happen if they decided to try something in Europe.
Removed by mod
At best, there is no way to be sure of that, and at worst, it is outright false:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1149003
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/history/debate-over-japanese-surrender/
Regardless, killing people indiscriminately is and always will be wrong.
There’s also the fact that there were no warnings. I’ve read some potentially conflicting accounts, but the consensus seems to be that there were no warning pamphlets dropped on Hiroshima ahead of the nuclear blast. At best, there may have been leaflets dropped that included Hiroshima amongst a list of 35 Japanese cities that could be the target of a bombing. At that time, the level of destructive capabilities were unheard of, so even seeing those leaflets, the thoughts citizens may have had is that there would be some firebombing. Destruction and death could be expected, but nothing like the complete obliteration that actually happened.
The use of atomic weapons was a demonstration of US destructive capabilities. They were a warning built of indiscriminate evil that saught only to strike fear into the eyes of anyone who would dare attack the US.
The use of atomic weapons may have legitimately reduced the number of American casualties, but I’m with you. It’s impossible to know whether lives were saved beyond those of American soldiers. Many civilians perished on those days, and that is not something to be celebrated.
https://ahf.nuclearmuseum.org/ahf/key-documents/warning-leaflets/
Removed by mod
Tough shit. That doesn’t justify the killing of civilians.
This is a bad take given the evidence.
But fighting soldiers versus fighting civilians is completely different, isn’t it? Isn’t that why we’re not really cool with the conflict in Gaza?
Removed by mod
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm