Grant comments on Rationality Quotes September 2013 - Less Wrong

5 Post author: Vaniver 04 September 2013 05:02AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (456)
Tags: quotes

Comments (456)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Grant 03 September 2013 11:24:17PM 0 points [-]

If the bombing of Nagasaki contributed more to the end of the war than the bombing of Tokyo, then we could easily say it was morally superior. That is not to say there weren't better options of course.

Comment author: TobyBartels 14 September 2013 08:20:46AM 2 points [-]

We can debate endlessly the wisdom of bombing Hiroshima, but does anybody have a defence for bombing Nagasaki? Since this is the quotation thread, I'll quote Dave Barry:

It was Truman who made the difficult decision to drop the first atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, the rationale being that only such a devastating, horrendous display of destructive power would convince Japan that it had to surrender. Truman also made the decision to drop the second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, the rationale being, hey, we had another bomb.

I'm seriously curious. (Reasonably rational arguments, of course.)

Comment author: Vaniver 15 September 2013 08:57:00PM 5 points [-]

Recommend reading the actual history, rather than comedians.

Comment author: TobyBartels 17 September 2013 12:03:07AM 0 points [-]

I read that, amongst other WP articles, while researching my comment. That one doesn't even attempt to explain the reasons for dropping the second bomb. (The quotation from the comedian is not meant to be an argument either.)

Comment author: Vaniver 17 September 2013 12:33:21AM *  7 points [-]

This section seems relevant:

At first, some refused to believe the United States had built an atomic bomb. The Japanese Army and Navy had their own independent atomic-bomb programs and therefore the Japanese understood enough to know how very difficult building it would be.[74] Admiral Soemu Toyoda, the Chief of the Naval General Staff, argued that even if the United States had made one, they could not have many more.[75] American strategists, having anticipated a reaction like Toyoda's, planned to drop a second bomb shortly after the first, to convince the Japanese that the U.S. had a large supply.[59][76]

Emphasis mine.

Comment author: TobyBartels 17 September 2013 03:03:09AM 4 points [-]

OK, thanks, I must have missed that anticipating the immediately following section.

Looking over my posts, I see that I may have given the impression that I doubted that there was any rational argument in favour of dropping the second bomb. I only meant to say that I didn't know one, because the discussion (here and elsewhere) always seems to focus on the first one.

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 15 September 2013 06:20:58PM -1 points [-]

Well, the Japanese just barely surrendered even after Nagasaki.

Comment author: gwern 15 September 2013 09:12:31PM 6 points [-]

It would be more accurate to say 'barely surrendered even after the simultaneous bombing of Nagasaki and their most feared enemy Soviet Russia declaring war on them'.

Comment author: Randaly 03 September 2013 11:36:29PM *  1 point [-]

Many (most?) historians believe that the Soviet entry into the war induced the Japanese surrender. Some historians believe that American decision makers expected Japan to surrender soon and wanted to use atomic bombs before the end of the war, to demonstrate their power to the Soviets. Gaddis Smith:

It has been demonstrated that the decision to bomb Japan was centrally connected to Truman's confrontational approach to the Soviet Union.

A very small number of historians believe that the atomic bomb on net cost American lives. Martin Sherwin:

Many more American soldiers... might have had the opportunity to grow old if Truman had accepted Grew's advice. [that all that would be needed to induce Japanese surrender starting in May was explaining that US occupying forces would follow the rules of war, not exploit the Japanese, etc, and that delaying to use the atomic bomb was wasteful]

Comment author: Lumifer 04 September 2013 01:18:30AM *  0 points [-]

Some historians believe that American decision makers expected Japan to surrender soon and wanted to use atomic bombs before the end of the war, to demonstrate their power to the Soviets.

I favor this hypothesis, it seems to me the demonstration of the power of atomic bombs was as much for Stalin's benefit as it was for the Japanese leadership's. One can make a reasonable case that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the real reason why the battle-hardened Soviet army stopped in Germany and didn't just roll over the rest of Western Europe.

Comment author: Grant 04 September 2013 01:56:42AM *  0 points [-]

That is no reason to drop the bomb on a city though; there are plenty of non-living targets that can be blown up to demonstrate destructive power. I suppose doing so wouldn't signal the will to use the atomic bomb, but in a time when hundreds of thousands died in air raids I would think such a thing would be assumed.

I suppose this highlights the fundamental problem of the era: the assumption that targeting civilians with bombs was the best course of action.

Comment author: Lumifer 04 September 2013 02:05:31AM 0 points [-]

If you drop a nuke on a Japanese city you kill three birds with one stone: you get to test how it works for intended use (remember, it was the first real test so uncertainty was high); you get to intimidate Japan into surrender; and you get to hint to Stalin that he should behave himself or else.

Comment author: Grant 04 September 2013 02:08:12AM 0 points [-]

True. Some sources indicate that some Japanese cities were left intact precisely so the American military could test the effects of a nuke!

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit