created Godzilla
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731Its insane how Japan went from being one of the most evil countries in the world to what they are now, in the span of 80 years.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Wow. That was a tough readUnderstatement for some the worst war criminals in the biggest war in human history.
Wasn't the second one just mainly to show USSR they've got more than just oneThere's some argument that it was to show Japan there was more than one, but this could have been achieved with a demonstration. Shock value for the first one, iffy but can at least see the point. That's no longer a factor when you're just proving you have more of them.
That's a lot of lives lost to make a point
I'd say it was the right thing to do if and only if it's the main reason there hasn't been a nuclear war since then.I think there's a very good chance of that. More specifically, I think there were only two real options for how nuclear weapons would get used in war:
Couldn't they have bombed a remote location in Japan to show the bombs power and threaten to detonate one on a major city if they didn't surrender? Would that have worked?They probably wanted to one-up the shock felt from Pearl Harbor, is my thinking.
Understatement for some the worst war criminals in the biggest war in human history.Don't forget that Shir Ishii got immunity.
The first one was arguable.This i suppose
Not a chance on the second one.
And that alone makes it totally worth it.
Don't forget that Shir Ishii got immunity.Nazi and japanese scientists getting immunity is so absolutely sickening. Even if their research was useful, which im pretty sure most of it wasnt they were essentially rewarded for extreme war crimes
The thing that actually caused Japan to surrender was the declaration of war from the USSR. Even if you (wrongly) believe that the revelation of the nuclear bomb's existence was the reason Japan surrendered, it's entirely possible to reveal it in a way that doesn't murder 100,000 innocent civilians. It was a completely unnecessary war crime.I mean its easy to say this looking back. Much harder to make a rational decision when shit was actually happening
Yes,Again, this is a false dichotomy. In any hypothetical history scenario where the US can choose not to atom bomb Hiroshima & Nagasaki, it can also choose not to blanket firebomb entire cities and not to plan a comprehensive land invasion premised on Japan never ever surrendering.
was fire bombing Japan any better? If the nukes werent used thats what wouldve been the fate of Japan before the inevitable invasion that wouldve seen countless more deaths.
I mean its easy to say this looking back. Much harder to make a rational decision when shit was actually happeningJapan had lost any capacity to meaningfully challenge the American military by this point. Japan was being blockaded and they could simply starve them out until they gave up. Regardless, even if you STILL (wrongly) believe that Japan knowing about American nuclear weapons was the thing that caused them to surrender, you don't have to let them know by vaporizing innocent civilians.
Yes, it saved a lot of lives.
Also it caused the creation of anime.
It saved more lives on both sides than it cost so from a purely objective sense, yes.
Now was it worth the political turmoil it brought on? Probably not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731Add in Nanjing
yes how was any1 supposed 2 kno what it was gonna doThe Trinity test would've given them a fairly good idea, even if they couldn't be sure of the exact impact. Also some scientists thought Little Boy would be more powerful than Trinity (it was somewhere between half and three-quarters as powerful, depending on what estimates you go by). Fat Man was pretty close to Trinity, as expected.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731Shit like this is why they needed to unconditionally surrender and be demilitarized.