305
submitted 8 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

drop the bombs in the ocean, target the japanese navy, close enough that the blast will be seen from the mainland , yet far enough to avoid most civilian casualties. Then tell the Japanese to surrender, or else they’re next

The Trinity tests would have most likely been observed by Japanese spies/network, so the Japanese leadership already knew of the destructive nature of the bomb. And yet they didn't surrender when ordered, until the bomb was finally used on their citizenry.

[-] ilmagico@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

The trinity tests weren't even close to Japan's shore... yes, spies would've seen it, or heard about it, but regular army people, generals, etc. and the emperor would only know a second or third hand story.

Compare that to walking down the street and seeing a giant mushroom cloud at a safe but not so far distance, potentially with a large part of Japan's navy gone in a blink (and maybe a bit of a tsunami as well). Let's say this was timed such that the emperor himself would likely observe it. We can't know for sure, and I concede that Japanese culture was very much "victory or death" at that time, but seeing it in person might, just might've changed some people's mind, with a much smaller civilian death toll.

[-] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Doesn't matter what the population thinks ultimately, it only matters what the leadership thinks, and the leadership would have gotten a full report on the destructive nature, and the ramifications of, from the Trinity test.

So blowing up another one off on the Tokyo Harbor wouldn't have added anything to what the leadership already knew about their chances of winning the war.

[-] ilmagico@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Trust me, if the leadership saw this first hand it would make a much bigger impression.

Anyways, I think the conversation derailed a bit, I cannot claim this would've worked for sure, I don't have a time machine. My point is, this was done with the intention to cause mass civilian casualties, which today one could argue it being a war crime (and that's why I don't approve of it), but of course, the Geneva convention didn't exist yet at the time.

Maybe there was a different way to get the Japanese to surrender, with fewer casualties, but it doesn't look like the US really tried.

this post was submitted on 30 Mar 2024
305 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39129 readers
660 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS