• ilmagico@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Thanks for actually pointing out a specific atrocity committed by the Japanese, which did result in higher casualties than the bomb, though it happened over months rather than minutes, but ok, I’ll accept it.

    Still, the point is, what atrocities were the Japanese capable of perpetrating at the time the bombs were dropped, that were prevented by it, and couldn’t have been prevented in a different way. There’s a big chance that the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, and if not, maybe just the threat of dropping the bomb (maybe, say, after a demonstration at sea or otherwise away from civilians) would’ve been enough.

    • tron@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s a big chance that the Japanese were going to surrender anyways, and if not, maybe just the threat of dropping the bomb (maybe, say, after a demonstration at sea or otherwise away from civilians) would’ve been enough.

      They believe their Emperor was a God. The invasion of mainland Japan would have resulted in the Japanese fighting to the last man, woman, and child. Millions of civilian casualties. You suggest a test of the bomb would have forced Japanese surrender. But history tells the exact opposite story. There was a 3 day gap between the first and second bomb. Japanese high command thought the allies only had one bomb, refused to surrender. They only surrendered after the second bomb, when they realized this was repeatable.