[kelnos]

I've read opinions/theories that suggest the US didn't really need to bomb Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and that Japan would have surrendered soon enough, due to fears of a Soviet invasion, without that invasion needing to actually happen. The bomb drops were so the US could claim the achievement of getting Japan to surrender, which would give it prestige and leverage over the Soviets, and more of a say in what happened to Japan and the Pacific theatre after the war. (Which, if true, worked exactly as planned.)

Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure I agree with that line of thinking, but I can't dismiss it either.

[ericmay]

I don’t think there’s a particular moral concern and I’m not sure where that meme has arisen from. An atomic bomb is just a bigger bomb than other bombs. There’s nothing special about it besides it being exceptionally large in its destructive capability.

If you were firebombed or killed in a human meat wave in Stalingrad you are just as dead as someone killed with big bomb.

I think the moral argument about killing more and more Americans or Japanese during an invasion is a fun theoretical discussion, but in a war your people matter and the enemy’s don’t in cases like this where you have two clear nation states engaged in total war. Certainly the circumstances of the wars matter, but in the case of World War II I think it’s rather clear cut, and opinions to the contrary are generally revisionist history meant to continue to make America look like a bad guy in order to cause moral confusion and social division.

[yencabulator]

The difference is in targeting cities. Civilian targets. Let me remind you of the paragraph above:

> Beyond that, there are moral questions about the use of nuclear weapons. I know people who think it would have been more moral to force a Japanese surrender via many Japanese and American soldiers to die during an invasion of Japan, than for the US to kill civilians with nuclear weapons. [...]

[ericmay]

A civilian is just a soldier who hasn’t put on a uniform in this scenario, and a soldier is just a civilian who has put on a uniform. You’re making a meaningless distinction in this context. There isn’t some sort of magic status that changes here - the same Japanese civilians were working at shipyards and ordinance factories to build weapons to kill American soldiers - you think we shouldn’t bomb those factories because we would kill Japanese civilians building weapons to kill American soldiers and that’s ok because the Americans were wearing a costume and we call them “military personnel”?

Nuts!

[yencabulator]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_...

[ericmay]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes?wprov=sfti...

[yencabulator]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes#World...

[rstupek]

We killed almost as many civilians when we firebombed Tokyo. Is the use of the atomic bomb somehow different in your mind?

[yencabulator]

I can think of three things off the top of my head, the scale enabled by them, the timeline of the deaths, and the residual effects.

[whoknowsidont]

>I've read opinions/theories that suggest

It's not a suggestion. It's a well-supported historical fact.