Support NeoGAF

[The Lunch Legend]

What would have been the world without the atomic bomb? I bet, there would have been a third and a fourth world wars already, and we may be heading to the fifth.

Human societies were driven by war up to very recent times, and governments could easily send large mass of people to die just for the miserable interests of rulers. I believe atomic bomb was the main factor that contribute to the relatively peaceful world of today. Yes, there is still war, but most of it are localized imperialistic attacks on underdeveloped countries, and revolutions in miserable places, rather than full scale technological wars that devastate whole continents.

 

[mcz117chief]

Yeah, I think that MAD contributed a lot to world peace.

 

[JordanN]

We would have kept firebombing Japan to the point they might not even exist.

If there where any Japanese leftover, they would have been killed in hand to hand combat when we were going to invade them.

So ironically, without nukes Japan wouldn't exist today.

 

[King of Foxes]

I think we would pretty much still be in the same position as now. Air superiority and guided missiles still would be the main thing and currently America is and would still be king.

If there were no planes or missiles then China and India would have the best chances for zerg rushing their way to victory but they would probably just grind against each other.

My country would still be a poor shit hole

 

[idkisaidit]

The real tragedy is that civilizations seem to reach their greatest heights as a direct result of war. Kind of messed up to think that way, but theres really nothing else that gets huge numbers of people to work in lock step with each other toward a common goal. As an aside, im new here, are we allowed to curse?

 

[womfalcs3]

The introduction of nuclear weapons as a deterrent coincided with a prosperous time period for the world. Economic opportunity also works in favor of less conflict.

 

[The Lunch Legend]

As an aside, im new here, are we allowed to curse?

Fuck no.

 

[jts]

We would have kept firebombing Japan to the point they might not even exist.

If there where any Japanese leftover, they would have been killed in hand to hand combat when we were going to invade them.

So ironically, without nukes Japan wouldn't exist today.

This doesn’t even begin to make sense.

 

[JordanN]

This doesn’t even begin to make sense.

We killed more Japanese in the Battle of Okinawa than we did kill Germans in the entire Normandy beach landings.

An allied invasion where Japanese were instructing schoolchildren to rush at soldiers with spears and grenades would have spelled their near extinction.

Edit: And I mentioned the firebombings which actually did the same amount of damage as the nukes but Japan still wouldn't surrender at that point.

Edit 2: And the Japanese were already getting extremely desperate when they converted their own planes into suicide missiles. They were that stubborn to give up despite the war being one sided at that point.

 

[jts]

We killed more Japanese in the Battle of Okinawa than we did kill Germans in the entire Normandy beach landings.

An allied invasion where Japanese were instructing schoolchildren to rush at soldiers with spears and grenades would have spelled their near extinction.

Edit: And I mentioned the firebombings which actually did the same amount of damage as the nukes but Japan still wouldn't surrender at that point.

Edit 2: And the Japanese were already getting extremely desperate when they converted their own planes into suicide missiles. They were that stubborn to give up despite the war being one sided at that point.

So? There was still like 70 million Japanese left. Do you think they would just disappear overnight or that the conflict could logistically keep going for that long? Not to mention the implication of a genocide of such a scale, which just wouldn’t fly. There would be a surrender or other conflict resolution before that.

 

[JordanN]

So? There was still like 70 million Japanese left. Do you think they would just disappear overnight or that the conflict could logistically keep going for that long?

Japan didn't give a fuck. Not only did we still have to deal with the home islands, there was still plenty of Japanese soldiers scattered throughout the rest of Asia, even in 1945.

It's very possible we would have had to kill them all since the last Japanese soldier didn't actually surrender until 1972.

It's rose tinted goggles to look at the modern Japan and believe they're the same country but truth is, they were Taliban/ISIS level of brainwashed back then. They followed Samurai code of death before dishonor, convincing them to surrender literally took two nukes to finally break them.

Not to mention the implication of a genocide of such a scale, which just wouldn’t fly. There would be a surrender or other conflict resolution before that.

In fucking WW2?
Holy shit, you know genocides were conducted by both sides back then right? Please tell me you know this or is our education system failing badly.

 

[jts]

Japan didn't give a fuck. Not only did we still have to deal with the home islands, there was still plenty of Japanese soldiers scattered throughout the rest of Asia.

It's very possible we would have had to kill them all since the last Japanese soldier didn't actually surrender until 1972.

It's rose tinted goggles to look at the modern Japan and believe they're the same country but truth is, they were Taliban/ISIS level of brainwashed back then. They followed Samurai code of death before dishonor, convincing them to surrender literally took two nukes to finally break them.

Yet, they did surrender, so they did in fact give a fuck. 2 nukes did the trick, which doesn’t mean that they would have accepted death by 1000 papercuts instead. There was clearly a threshold for surrender, nukes or not. I don’t care what nowadays Japan looks like, it’s not important.

Again, not to mention the logistics and actual military capacity to exterminate a country of 70 million, without becoming extremely vulnerable in the process.

In fucking WW2?
Holy shit, you know genocides were conducted by both sides back then right? Please tell me you know this or is our education system failing badly.

Uh, yeah, I know, but you realize also that USA and the allies were supposed to be the “good guys”, and not be around committing the largest genocide in history instead, if maths didn’t fail you you understand what 70 million is. Time, logistics, military capacity, internal and external pressures just wouldn’t allow for it to happen.

Did you come up with this theory by yourself or are you backing something that has been studied and modeled?

 

[JordanN]

Yet, they did surrender, so they did in fact give a fuck. 2 nukes did the trick, which doesn’t mean that they would have accepted death by 1000 papercuts instead.

What did you think we were doing for 4 fucking years bro?

They waged total war against the U.S and its allies. Even when the tides officially turned at Midway, we didn't see a less defiant Japan. Again, they were crazy enough to convert all their technology into suicide weapons and launch them against our ships. They really wanted a war fought to the last man and child and their state religion/culture gave them the justification to do it.

There was clearly a threshold for surrender, nukes or not.

Damn, so why didn't it work then?

Look at Germany. Arguably less extremist compared to Japan and yet we couldn't even get Hitler to surrender without him blowing his own brains out. But you believe Japan was suppose to give up even easier once we shot all their sword wielding school kids?

Again, not to mention the logistics and actual military capacity to exterminate a country of 70 million, without becoming extremely vulnerable in the process.

Based on what?

America had complete naval and air supremacy at this point. There was also the Soviet Union but I'm not sure if that argument actually makes the war less lethal since Communists were even more bloodthirsty than the Nazis were.

Uh, yeah, I know, but you realize also that USA and the allies were supposed to be the “good guys”, and not be around committing the largest genocide in history instead,

Then you don't know your damn history because the "good guys" didn't flinch when we flattened Dresden or starved millions of Indians.

Japan had waged war against the U.S by attacking their Hawaii naval base and taking away their Filipino colony. The idea Americans wouldn't have the courage to slaughter Japan after that seems really really really naive.

if maths didn’t fail you you understand what 70 million is. Time, logistics, military capacity, internal and external pressures just wouldn’t allow for it to happen.

The damn war killed 85 million people, the hell you're talking about there was no logistics for this?

Did you come up with this theory by yourself or are you backing something that has been studied and modeled?

It's called using my brain, dog. Again, maybe the problem is school failed you.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

And yet, we’ve come shockingly close to an all out nuclear holocaust. Looking at the cold war era target maps for an all out exchange with the USSR is pretty sobering.

I think the underlying theory that MAD prevented even worse conflicts is probably true, but boy is the razor’s edge it balances on nothing to really be happy about.

 

[jts]

What did you think we were doing for 4 fucking years bro?

They waged total war against the U.S and its allies. Even when the tides officially turned at Midway, we didn't see a less defiant Japan. Again, they were crazy enough to convert all their technology into suicide weapons and launch them against our ships. They really wanted a war fought to the last man and child.


Damn, so why didn't it work then?

Look at Germany. Arguably less extremist compared to Japan and yet we couldn't even get Hitler without him blowing his own brains out. But you believe Japan was suppose to give up even easier once you we shot all their sword weilding school kids?


Based on what?

America had complete naval and air supremacy at this point. There was also the Soviet Union but I'm not sure if that argument actually makes the war less lethal since Communists were even more bloodthirsty than the Nazis were.


Then you don't know your damn history because the "good guys" didn't flinch when we flattened Dresden or starved millions of Indians.

Japan had waged war against the U.S by attacking their Hawaii naval base and taking away their Filipino colony. The idea Americans wouldn't have the courage to slaughter Japan after that seems really really really naive.


The damn war killed 85 million people, the hell you're talking about there was no logistics for this?

It's called using my brain, dog. Again, maybe the problem is school failed you.

I will not keep going in circles addressing the same points. I guess you must be as stubborn as WW2 Japan if you don’t concede it’s a stupid theory that without nukes USA would have just wiped out an entire 70M+ nation. Maybe school failed me but your brain is failing you.

 

[JordanN]

I will not keep going in circles

There are no circles.

Everyone on Neogaf can see my posts linked to sources and facts, while you have none. Don't call me stupid when you can't even address an argument.

 

[Papa]

The real tragedy is that civilizations seem to reach their greatest heights as a direct result of war. Kind of messed up to think that way, but theres really nothing else that gets huge numbers of people to work in lock step with each other toward a common goal. As an aside, im new here, are we allowed to curse?

Oh my sweet summer cunt

 

[mcz117chief]

I will not keep going in circles addressing the same points. I guess you must be as stubborn as WW2 Japan if you don’t concede it’s a stupid theory that without nukes USA would have just wiped out an entire 70M+ nation. Maybe school failed me but your brain is failing you.

Also, the Soviets were about to invade. The Japanese would surrender rather than face Soviet occupation and subsequent genocide over the next few decades. The nukes just made them surrender a couple of days earlier at most.

 

[JordanN]

Also, the Soviets were about to invade. The Japanese would surrender rather than face Soviet occupation and subsequent genocide over the next few decades. The nukes just made them surrender a couple of days earlier at most.

That didn't work for Germany, who again, where less extremist than Japan, but their leader killed himself once we reached the capital.

It's all hindsight to say they would have surrendered, even though the U.S had to do all the heavy lifting and even then, they were already planning a coup to still try and keep the war going.

Only the U.S had a weapon powerful enough to vaporize entire cities. That's what the Japanese were scared of since we already kept dropping conventional bombs on them to no prevail.

 

[mcz117chief]

That didn't work for Germany, who again, where less extremist than Japan, but their leader killed himself once we reached the capital.

It's all hindsight to say they would have surrendered, even though the U.S had to do all the heavy lifting and even then, they were already planning a coup to still try and keep the war going.

Only the U.S had a weapon powerful enough to vaporize entire cities. That's what the Japanese were scared of since we already kept dropping conventional bombs on them to no prevail.

Who knows, but the general fear or Russians in Japan was almost mythical. I don't see how turning half of Tokyo into a literal firestorm was any worse than using nuclear weapons of such scale. The damage done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't significantly worse, it could be argued that it was actually less destructive. Russian invasion or not I honestly believe the Japanese were just flexing and wouldn't allow an invasion to take place. And when it comes to Germans, they honestly weren't any less fanatical. They also employed kamikaze tactics, enlisted children to fight and did not surrender even when they had literally nothing left. The fact that the Battle of Berlin even took place is like out of some video game set to "total annihilation". Just think about it, the Germans had nothing left, no navy, no air force, no real ground forces either. And yet, they let themselves get slaughtered in the streets of Berlin for nothing. Crazy.

 

[obin_gam]

I feel this should be added here: A great expose about the nature of The Bomb.

Hardcore History 59 The Destroyer of Worlds – Dan Carlin

www.dancarlin.com

 

[JordanN]

Who knows, but the general fear or Russians in Japan was almost mythical. I don't see how turning half of Tokyo into a literal firestorm was any worse than using nuclear weapons of such scale. The damage done in Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't significantly worse, it could be argued that it was actually less destructive. Russian invasion or not I honestly believe the Japanese were just flexing and wouldn't allow an invasion to take place. And when it comes to Germans, they honestly weren't any less fanatical. They also employed kamikaze tactics, enlisted children to fight and did not surrender even when they had literally nothing left. The fact that the Battle of Berlin even took place is like out of some video game set to "total annihilation". Just think about it, the Germans had nothing left, no navy, no air force, no real ground forces either. And yet, they let themselves get slaughtered in the streets of Berlin for nothing. Crazy.

The Germans were nationalistic but they weren't fanatics outside of hardline Nazi party members.
If you want evidence of this, see early on in the war, one Nazi official tried to broker a peace deal with the UK (although in the goofiest fashion by flying a plane directly to Scotland and then being arrested).

Fighting Japan during WW2 is like fighting ISIS in the desert. They seriously believed they were god's chosen and everyone else were infidels. Watch videos of naval battles in the Pacific and even when Americans tried to rescue Japanese pilots who had fallen in the ocean, they smiled at them before pulling a grenade pin and killing themselves.



And I posted that picture early in the thread that showed Japan was handing swords and spears to their school kids. While Germany had their own militia, I don't recall the Allies seriously engaging with them. They were still fighting what was basically German soldiers towards the end of the war.

If we invaded Japan like we did with Okinawa, we would have had to machine gun kids charging at us with makeshift weapons.

 

[mcz117chief]

The Germans were nationalistic but they weren't fanatics outside of hardline Nazi party members.
If you want evidence of this, see early on in the war, one Nazi official tried to broker a peace deal with the UK (although in the goofiest fashion by flying a plane directly to Scotland and then being arrested).

Fighting Japan during WW2 is like fighting ISIS in the desert. They seriously believed they were god's chosen and everyone else were infidels. Watch videos of naval battles in the Pacific and even when Americans tried to rescue Japanese pilots who had fallen in the ocean, they smiled at them before pulling a grenade pin and killing themselves.



And I posted that picture early in the thread that showed Japan was handing swords and spears to their school kids. While Germany had their own militia, I don't recall the Allies seriously engaging with them. They were still fighting what was basically German soldiers towards the end of the war.

If we invaded Japan like we did with Okinawa, we would have had to machine gun kids charging at us with makeshift weapons.

If they were so fanatical (were willing to throw their kids in a blender)then why did they surrender at all? What was it about nukes that made them any worse than literal firestorms and massive naval bombardments? What did it matter if they would die by machine gun fire or nuclear fire?

 

[Kev Kev]

As an aside, im new here, are we allowed to curse?

yes but only if it offends someone

 

[Majukun]

for sure it's a deterrent, but we went close to world war 3 many times even with atomic bombs as a thing, so they are not THAT great for peace either.

and one might argue that the risk of total annihilation of the planet is not worth it

 

[JordanN]

If they were so fanatical (were willing to throw their kids in a blender)then why did they surrender at all?

The USA was smart.

Japan had no idea how many new bombs the U.S just possessed. Even though there where plans to make more, clearly dropping two was enough to scare Japan into thinking the enemy had something never seen before.

The firebombs didn't matter because they were already use to it and in some ways, it didn't actually wipe out everything. They could still rebuild once the planes were gone.

But a nuke put an end to that. They would have died to radiation if they stayed behind and tried to fight.

Edit: Oh yeah, and firebombing/conventional bombing wasn't always accurate. There's a reason these raids were always planned when the conditions were just right and even then, you still run the chance of being shot out of the sky.

Whereas a single plane carrying a nuclear weapon could still drop it anywhere close to a city and guarantees it's going to be flattened and radiated. Again, no country could prepare for that level of devastation.

 

[synchronicity]

The issue with peace, from my perspective, is that there are just so many moving parts - so many interests. Couple that with the fact that most people are followers rather than leaders, and it's very easy for large scale conflicts to develop as the followers march in step to the dictates of the charismatic / dominant.

The only peace to be found isn't without, but within. Searching for any lasting or real global harmony - any utopia - is a fool's errand. But the world can be whatever it will be while you remain untroubled if you stop looking for it to reflect your own desires. Surrender to what *is* and peace is ever-present.

 

[JareBear: Remastered]

reminds me of this article from a year ago

Have nuclear weapons helped to maintain global peace?

Though national and regional conflicts and international terrorism remain rife, since 1945 the world has not been subjected to truly pan-regional or trans-continental war. Here, four experts in international security debate the role nuclear arsenals may have played in curbing large-scale conflict

www.historyextra.com

Though national and regional conflicts and international terrorism remain rife, since 1945 the world has not been subjected to truly pan-regional or trans-continental war. Here, four experts in international security debate the role nuclear arsenals may have played in curbing large-scale conflict

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

The atomic bomb made full-scale conflicts too risky. WW1 and WW2 were the last echoes of the Colonialism era, not a precursor to bigger and badder wars.