The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan cause survivor's grand-children to develop specific cancers. Is a multi-generational attack justifiable?
Of course, we didn't know any of that in the 1940's, but with hindsight...?
- Anonymous2 months ago
The justification is that the alternative would have been worse, and I think that's probably still true. Because the alternative was a US invasion of the Japanese home islands. The US was actually planning for this, to start in the Fall of 1945 with another round beginning in the early Spring of 1946, in case the atomic bombings didn't work. And I think that the results would have been horrific. The US had spent two months fighting the Japanese in Okinawa. There were 100,000 Japanese soldiers killed and an equal number of Okinawan civilians. And that was for an outlying island where the population weren't ethnically Japanese. The Japanese were presumed to be even more willing to fight to defend their home islands and had been preparing to do so. The high end estimates for Hiroshima and Nagasaki are about a quarter of a million people killed. Okinawa alone was almost half that. So was the firebombing of Tokyo, which gets a lot less attention. The Americans would presumably have to have had dozens of Okinawas across the Japanese islands, dozens of continued bombing campaigns. There could have been millions of people killed in Japan. People don't like to talk about it because it's a horrific calculus to work with, but the atomic bombings were probably saved a lot of lives because they convinced the Japanese high command that the war was unwinnable and that they needed to surrender to the Americans rather than fight.
- Sir CausticLv 72 months ago
Yes. Hope this helped.