On this date 78 years ago, the first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima. Survivors involuntarily provided key medical data for years, without receiving any help
As General Dwight Eisenhower said, Japan was at that moment seeking some way to surrender with minimum loss of face, and “it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.”
[…]wanted to keep not just the emperor but to avoid an Allied occupation, disarmament, and war crimes trials.[…] They were determined to fight a final, all-out “decisive battle” to bleed the United States invaders until the Americans sued for peace.
We can at least say, whether you agree with the necessity of the use of atomic bombs on Japan, that humankind never again should make use of an atomic bomb.
Here is a GIF to remember (and look up the NSFW version of it…
It is debated whether it was necessary, but the position that it was wrong is self-contradictory.
It assumes that the atomic bombs were not a huge factor in the decision to surrender, as they would surrender anyway due to conventional warfare (US bombing and USSR attacking and removing the best negotiating venue for a conditional surrender). Which might be true. But, at the same time it assumes that the nuclear bombs were somehow worse than the conventional bombing that has been going on. So the atomic bombs had to be both ineffectual and hugely damaging at the same time.
Interestingly, it’s still debated if it was necessary to drop not one but two awful bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
More left-wing positions argue Japan was already on the brink of surrendering. Here is one publication summing it up pretty well m:
Saving face meant for one part of the Japanese military to keep the Emporer untouched. On the other hand, the Japanese military, contrary to the Japanese government:
We can at least say, whether you agree with the necessity of the use of atomic bombs on Japan, that humankind never again should make use of an atomic bomb.
Here is a GIF to remember (and look up the NSFW version of it…
https://gfycat.com/flusteredartisticjanenschia
It is debated whether it was necessary, but the position that it was wrong is self-contradictory.
It assumes that the atomic bombs were not a huge factor in the decision to surrender, as they would surrender anyway due to conventional warfare (US bombing and USSR attacking and removing the best negotiating venue for a conditional surrender). Which might be true. But, at the same time it assumes that the nuclear bombs were somehow worse than the conventional bombing that has been going on. So the atomic bombs had to be both ineffectual and hugely damaging at the same time.