General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hiroshima - quit lying to yourselves [View all]Sirveri
(4,517 posts)It's possible that they were so close to surrender due to the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that they were going to surrender anyways. It's not possible to say with certainty what would have occurred had we not used the bombs. The bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the use of nuclear weapons, so why would the leadership desire to surrender after their usage when they didn't surrender after Tokyo?
I still believe that they were a show for the Soviets, and possibly also a chance to see what the human health effects of using the weapons were. We still didn't know much about radiation at that time and how it affected the human body. The human health effects testing is a bit more tin foil than I like, but considering the tuskegee experiment it's certainly plausible that such a thing was a factor at some level in the decision.
I'm not sure if that makes the decision more or less ethical. Or that the bombs actually ended the war any sooner.