• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Did America win the world by dropping the Atomic Bomb?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sybrix

Member
Over the last 60/70 years there seems to be a race between superpowers to be the first at everything so they can claim victory etc but to me i dont think anything will top the detonation of the Atomic Bomb over Japan.

It seems to me that the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Japan, however horrific its power, is the single most incredible event in the last 500 years from a scientific, social, political and military point of view.

To me the Atomic Bomb changed the world forever in so many ways and i cant think of any other event that has changed the world as dramatically.

Am i wrong?

Is the moon landing more significant?
 

dorkimoe

Member
You are correct. Listening to an interview from people who faught in the war and said they would have done it again if they had to and how necessary it was. That alone makes me support the decision. I think its more incredible nobody has used another one.
 

Cyberpunkd

Gold Member
You are correct. Listening to an interview from people who faught in the war and said they would have done it again if they had to and how necessary it was. That alone makes me support the decision. I think its more incredible nobody has used another one.
It was not necessary at all, Japan was beaten, USSR was moving all tank divisions to the Eastern front ready to steamroll the Japanese.
The fuck did you guys study at school?
 
Last edited:

6502

Member
America won by inheriting Britain's place as the worlds manufacturer and world trade in oil being done in dollars.

The bomb won the war in Japan. Strategy won USA the world. And it will also cost you it sooner than you think.

For Britain, aside from you thwarting attempts to reestablish a level of dominance shortly after and our own poorly managed decline, USA was a good country to take over. Great ideals, same language etc. The next handover will not be so pleasant for either of us.
 

kingkaiser

Member
See? Someone paid attention in school.
We also should not forget that Robert Oppenheimer's father was from Europe, putting the A-bomb on the long list of inventions the “migrated” to the US. This immense brain drain from all over the world was what made America great in the first place, but now the merits of immigrating there have become almost non-existent. If the EU plays its card right, the world super power status might actually come home to the old continent.
 

TheMan

Member
It’s kind of hard thing to argue. You could say medical advancements like vaccinations or antibiotics have had a bigger impact in terms of saving lives and improving quality of life. The internet has radically changed society for better or worse. Etc etc
 
Last edited:

BigBooper

Member
Yes, probably. It set the US up as the guy to go back for seconds at the buffet when they bring out a new hot dish just as the rest of the world got the scraps from the last dish.

We were in a position to control everything. Europe was devastated, Japan was completely neutered, China was in ruins from Japanese occupation, and the Soviets were broke. USA was able to use that advantage to control the next 100 years. It's more complicated than that, but you could certainly make the argument that the bomb made it happen. There was a possibility of Japan holding out in a guerilla warfare defense against invasion without it, which would have been extremely costly in lives and money.

Did it cause us to win the war? no the Allied forces would have done that anyways. But definitely helped us get worldwide control.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
To my understanding the Japanese were ready to surrender under certain conditions and the Americans wanted unconditional surrender.

Unconditional could mean anything from eradicating culture to genocide because that's what the Japanese were trying to do so the Americans did make things worse by insisting on unconditional surrender.
 
Last edited:
It was not necessary at all, Japan was beaten, USSR was moving all tank divisions to the Eastern front ready to steamroll the Japanese.
The fuck did you guys study at school?

They studied that the atom bomb was the be all end all reasoning as to why wwii ended. Which I mean...lol
 

Quasicat

Member
It was not necessary at all, Japan was beaten, USSR was moving all tank divisions to the Eastern front ready to steamroll the Japanese.
The fuck did you guys study at school?
Truman was very hesitant in dropping it in the first place and even warned the Japanese government about the magnitude of these bombs. The Japanese government was more split on the decision to either surrender or fighting until the end. The generals in charge were willing to give everything for a victory.
To my understanding the Japanese were ready to surrender under certain conditions and the Americans wanted unconditional surrender.

Unconditional could mean anything from eradicating culture to genocide because that's what the Japanese were trying to do so the Americans did make things worse by not being clear what would happen after their surrender.

McArthur had a big part in that since he was concerned about military superiority throughout Asia. His concern was Japan would just come back and do it again in the 60s or 70s, so he pushed for unconditional surrender. This is why the US is bound by the San Francisco treaty of 1948 to come to Japan’s aid since they have something closely resembling the coast guard instead of a full military.

More on topic: I think it won the war, but not the world. If Truman had let McArthur, and to a lesser extent Eisenhower, do what he wanted and take out China, it would be a different situation.

I’m trying to be intentionally vague in order to not break the rules on politics. Mods, please let me know if I went too far and need to edit this.
 
Last edited:

FunkMiller

Gold Member
Over the last 60/70 years there seems to be a race between superpowers to be the first at everything so they can claim victory etc but to me i dont think anything will top the detonation of the Atomic Bomb over Japan.

It seems to me that the dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Japan, however horrific its power, is the single most incredible event in the last 500 years from a scientific, social, political and military point of view.

To me the Atomic Bomb changed the world forever in so many ways and i cant think of any other event that has changed the world as dramatically.

Am i wrong?

Is the moon landing more significant?

If you’re talking about just WW2, then the Battle Of Britain is more significant than the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. As are the D Day landings. Both events were turning points in WW2 far more than the use of nuclear weapons towards its conclusion, against an aggressor already on the back foot. The allies would have still won the Pacific campaign, it would have just required far more bloodshed in a land invasion of Japan.

The use of the atom bomb was ‘necessary’ in so far as it saved needless losses. It wasn’t necessary in ending the war.

I wouldn’t actually put the use of the atom bomb in the top five incident across human history that were important turning points. But as a display of overwhelming power, it stands unrivalled. We should all be thankful the Nazis didn’t put more effort into their nuclear program.
 
Last edited:

ManaByte

Gold Member
Truman was very hesitant in dropping it in the first place and even warned the Japanese government about the magnitude of these bombs. The Japanese government was more split on the decision to either surrender or fighting until the end. The generals in charge were willing to give everything for a victory.


McArthur had a big part in that since he was concerned about military superiority throughout Asia. His concern was Japan would just come back and do it again in the 60s or 70s, so he pushed for unconditional surrender. This is why the US is bound by the San Francisco treaty of 1948 to come to Japan’s aid since they have something closely resembling the coast guard instead of a full military.

More on topic: I think it won the war, but not the world. If Truman had let McArthur, and to a lesser extent Eisenhower, do what he wanted and take out China, it would be a different situation.

I’m trying to be intentionally vague in order to not break the rules on politics. Mods, please let me know if I went too far and need to edit this.

Nope this explains it well, and I don't think it's political at all because you're just talking about history. The people who aren't educated in history and protest the use of the two bombs and the 226,000 who died seem to be perfectly fine with the potential of 1,000,000 deaths that (conservatively) would've resulted from Operation Downfall in November of 1945 if the Japanese didn't surrender.
 
D

Deleted member 17706

Unconfirmed Member
The use of the atom bomb was ‘necessary’ in so far as it saved needless losses. It wasn’t necessary in ending the war.

It was sadly necessary in order to end the war before losing half or more of the country to Soviet occupation (thanks to Roosevelt and Stalin's backroom deal in Yalta). There were prominent factions in the Japanese ruling apparatus that actively desired to lose to the Communists rather than surrender to the Americans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i always thought that the aftermath of Cannae was the important single event that shaped the modern world, but it's hard to attribute just one human event to such an all-encompassing statement. oh, and thanks a lot for all the crap you caused in the 20th century, Gavrilo Princip!
 

Xenon

Member
It was not necessary at all, Japan was beaten, USSR was moving all tank divisions to the Eastern front ready to steamroll the Japanese.
The fuck did you guys study at school?

Rationally this make sense, but Japan was much less rational back then. All this talk of they would've surrendered is kind of pointless because most people don't understand the mindset of that culture and how they would react to that situation. There is a huge difference between talking about surrendering but actually getting a culture that has such a superiority complex to actually do it is another thing entirely. Plus even then what would that surrender look like and how would that have played out over the next 50 years compared to what happened after the bombs. For all we know they could have been setting up another nazi Germany. Instead they dropped the bombs and Japan surrender not only in is in a treaty but I think culturally they accepted that they weren't the power they thought they were and sped up what could have been a long coming to terms with their past actions and their place in the world.


As for the OP, I would say World War II definitely did that. The United States spread out its culture and currency across the world through it's large presence during the conflict and by establishing military bases. The bombs were just the exclamation point.
 

dorkimoe

Member
It was not necessary at all, Japan was beaten, USSR was moving all tank divisions to the Eastern front ready to steamroll the Japanese.
The fuck did you guys study at school?
We learned you mess with the bull you get the horns
2JoYw3X.gif
 

Amiga

Member
the bomb made everyone else want the bomb. it wasn't used again because adversaries got it and could use it. it would have certainly been used again and again if it was exclusive. the space race was about getting the most advantage in a possible nuclear shootout. the scale of possible destruction made the powers shift to a cold war using proxies to shift the cost to other nations.

history is ever changing. sometimes faster than others.
 

MaestroMike

Gold Member
I remember writing a paper in hs and if I remember correctly a lot more lives would've been loss if we didn't drop them. Japan was super hardcore and would've kept pushing and not give up.
 

Lanrutcon

Member
Eh. The war was over. Japan was beaten and flailing around. Russia had gotten shit done and the US was feeling...inadequate? I doubt American schools paint an accurate picture (you know what they say about history).

As for the single most incredible event: the internet, probably. It's changed the world more than any nuclear weapon or war has ever done. It's affecting every facet of human society as we speak. We've only just begun to see how our race is affected by the information age.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
I doubt American schools paint an accurate picture (you know what they say about history).

America schools forget to mention Hitler.

it would have certainly been used again and again if it was exclusive.

They were going to bomb Japan a third time around August 19th, but Truman stopped it.

I remember writing a paper in hs and if I remember correctly a lot more lives would've been loss if we didn't drop them. Japan was super hardcore and would've kept pushing and not give up.

If Japan didn't surrender, the Allies were planning a massive land invasion of Japan called Operation Downfall around November of 1945 that would consist of two separate parts, one for Southern Japan and the other invading Tokyo bay. The most conservative estimates of fatalities were 500,000 at the low end up to 1,000,000. Both atomic bombs killed 260,000 people total (including Americans). But, again, the people raised without a historical reference who protest the use of the bombs seem to be perfectly fine with a million deaths if they weren't used.
 
Last edited:

daveonezero

Banned
No glassing doesn’t let you occupy countries. It is the threat of the atomic bomb and the 120 military bases spanning the globe.
 

haxan7

Volunteered as Tribute
America dominated everything in the time period following WW2. Trying to reduce it to "America became what it was by nuking Japan" is a gross mischaracterization of reality. But hey, you do you. I don't try to guide people out of their gutter-thoughts around here anymore.
 

FunkMiller

Gold Member
America dominated everything in the time period following WW2. Trying to reduce it to "America became what it was by nuking Japan" is a gross mischaracterization of reality. But hey, you do you. I don't try to guide people out of their gutter-thoughts around here anymore.

It was America’s post war efforts that made them the biggest superpower, not what happened during the war.

The turning of war built factories into peace time manufacturing, along with the returning GIs for the labour turbo charged the US economy.

Winning a war doesn’t make a nation powerful, money does. And America profited mightily from a nation ready to spend their money, and work hard To earn it.
 
Last edited:
Do you think Iran would win the world if they dropped a nuke? Your analysis is too simplistic.

You know what happened right after that was a lot more significant. Created the United Nations. Engaged in diplomacy across the world. Helped nations rebuild. Innovated economically for decades. Promoted cultural values and entertainment that were valued across the world.
 
Last edited:

Hari Seldon

Member
It was America’s post war efforts that made them the biggest superpower, not what happened during the war.

The turning of war built factories into peace time manufacturing, along with the returning GIs for the labour turbo charged the US economy.

Winning a war doesn’t make a nation powerful, money does. And America profited mightily from a nation ready to spend their money, and work hard To earn it.
It is the fact that we won the war and suffered zero devastation and relatively light casualties.

The atomic bomb was 1000% necessary for that as it prevented at least as many US casualties as had already happened in the war. There is no scenario where the atomic bomb would not have been used other than if it hadn’t been invented. The US was already doing genocidal fire raids on Japanese civilians just like Britain was doing to the German cities.
 

Gp1

Member
It was not necessary at all, Japan was beaten, USSR was moving all tank divisions to the Eastern front ready to steamroll the Japanese.

Japan was preparing a fierce defense guerrilla for the home island, that would have to be invaded if it wasn't for the A-bombs. The country was being carpet bombed for almost a year before the Hiroshima and Nagaski and the japanese military was still up to a fight. The japanese military junta was dreadlocked between surrendering and keep up fighting until almost the last minute after the second bomb if it wasn't for the emperor.

Japan army had at the time of their surrendering more than 6 million soldiers between Japan and Manchuria. Imagine that as a effective and well equipped guerrilla force on the main land and parts of China. It would make both Vietnam and the Soviet Afghanistan campaign a walk in the park.

And that without even considering the civilian casualties, famine on both Japan an Chine etc...

If the bomb wasn't dropped on both cities and the USSR was involved in the japanese invasion the cold war would be way easier to the USSR. They would have a way better foothold on both the pacific and Indian ocean than they actually had.

It wasn't the great single most incredible event of the last 500 years but it froze the frontiers of the world for almost 50 years.
 

llien

Member
America didn't land on the moon, the germans made it possible
America did land on the moon, one brilliant nazi played a key role in it.
I would say decisive role.

their resolve was so strong that they would have fought to the last baby.
How long did it take USSR troops to run over Japanese army (which wasn't destroyed, but surrendered)?

If the first bombing could even remotely be justified, the second was totally unnecessary.
 

llien

Member
And on "America has become.. by nuking" that is one weirdo take on things.

At the end of WWII USA has emerged as super power:
1) At manufacturing (what was it, a carrier a month or even faster)
2) Technology (radars played key role in defeating Japanese fleets)
3) Science (US gathered hands down the best scientists of the world and in large numbers)
4) And overall was the richest nation on Earth

Building nukes was made possible by the list above.

How on earth could actually using nukes (essentially against civilians) be seen as "an incredible event" is beyond my imagination....

Mark Wahlberg Reaction GIF by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment


i'm speaking of mainland Japan and the citizens there. completely irrelevant comparisons.
No true Scotsman.
 
Last edited:

ManaByte

Gold Member
If the first bombing could even remotely be justified, the second was totally unnecessary.

Yes it was. After Hiroshima, PM Suzuki said they would ignore the American threats of more bombs and continue to fight on. Like Doolittle bombing Tokyo, the first bomb did nothing to Japan's resolve.
 

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
nah, russia developed the hydrogen bomb in the 50s and pretty much every superpower had it by the 60s.

the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings were just responsible for ending the war faster with fewer casualties on both sides. read up on iwo jima and you will see why the u.s said fuck it, these people are crazy and will die before they give an inch. invasion of mainland japan was not something anyone wanted.

read up on the fire bombings of tokyo. they killed more people in a week than hiroshima and nagasaki combined.

America won because they didnt enter the war until 3 years in. they won because their mainland had no casualties. no destruction. they all got rich supplying everyone arms. same thing happened in world war 1 where they entered the war in the last year or so.

europe was ravaged. russia and china too. japan had been cucked in ways even germany wasnt after the treaty of Versailles. U.S had no real competition.
 
No true Scotsman.
yeah, these aren't Carthaginians at the time of the third Punic War we're talking about, the Japanese would not simply accept defeat without a fight, and whatever the outcome of the fight was to be (and it would surely be nasty) they were prepared to engage it.
 

llien

Member
Yes it was. After Hiroshima, PM Suzuki said they would ignore the American threats of more bombs and continue to fight on. Like Doolittle bombing Tokyo, the first bomb did nothing to Japan's resolve.
Oh yeah, that's fairly convenient.
And it also happened that the second bomb had different design so there was that totally justified temptation to test it out.

And I remember, "resolve" and all (I guess radiation was needed to address it) and, of course, major formation of Japanese troops surrendering in a matter of days in Manjuria doesn't disprove "resolve" as it is that special, convenient type of resolve, that was specifically in the mainland.

Luckily, USSR didn't invade mainland Japan, so we can spare the world from "but on that very island, there was that resolve" arguments.
 

ManaByte

Gold Member
How on earth could actually using nukes (essentially against civilians) be seen as "an incredible event" is beyond my imagination....

Maybe study history a little bit and learn context, as during WWII neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki were civilian targets.
 

llien

Member
And let me cite american (!!!) historian Martin J Sherwin: "The evidence has become overwhelming that it was the entry of the Soviet Union on 8 August into the war against Japan that forced surrender but, understandably, this view is very difficult for Americans to accept."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom