Oppenheimer - New Christopher Nolan Movie/Should the U.S. have used the atomic bomb?

Okay so I'm a big Christopher Nolan fan..here's the trailer for the movie coming out next summer.

Also - any thoughts on the conversation around using the atomic bomb? I've also recently read a book about it (Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the 116 Days that Changed the World) and it got me thinking about the debate around it.

Using it vs an invasion? How many people would have died in that case? Is it possible to be morally correct in war? Here's a quote from the book

“I hope for some sort of peace - but i fear that machines are ahead of morals by some centuries and when morals catch up there’ll be no reason for any of it” - Harry Truman

Anyways, here's the trailer.

If you want to watch something on the same topic, check out 1989's "Fat Man and Little Boy".

Floyd Robertson wrote:If you want to watch something on the same topic, check out 1989's "Fat Man and Little Boy".

Thanks, Floyd. Would also love any and all suggestions for more watching/reading.

Cillian Murphy is one of my favorite actors and Nolan one of my favorite filmmakers so I am really looking forward to this.

Yes, we should have dropped the bombs otherwise that war would have raged on until someone else did.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Okay so I'm a big Christopher Nolan fan..here's the trailer for the movie coming out next summer.

Also - any thoughts on the conversation around using the atomic bomb? I've also recently read a book about it (Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the 116 Days that Changed the World) and it got me thinking about the debate around it.

Using it vs an invasion? How many people would have died in that case? Is it possible to be morally correct in war? Here's a quote from the book

“I hope for some sort of peace - but i fear that machines are ahead of morals by some centuries and when morals catch up there’ll be no reason for any of it” - Harry Truman

Anyways, here's the trailer.

It wasn’t about either of these things.

The Soviet Union joined the war against Japan on August 8. An invasion would have taken a lot of time, and involve the Soviets helping, and it would have ultimately given the appearance that they came in to save our shit from a war that we couldn’t win ourselves over 4 years.

There’s a lot more to it, but my thesis here is that ultimately it was more about the Soviets than it was Japan.

Anyway interesting movie I’ll check it out I’m sure

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Okay so I'm a big Christopher Nolan fan..here's the trailer for the movie coming out next summer.

Also - any thoughts on the conversation around using the atomic bomb? I've also recently read a book about it (Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the 116 Days that Changed the World) and it got me thinking about the debate around it.

Using it vs an invasion? How many people would have died in that case? Is it possible to be morally correct in war? Here's a quote from the book

“I hope for some sort of peace - but i fear that machines are ahead of morals by some centuries and when morals catch up there’ll be no reason for any of it” - Harry Truman

Anyways, here's the trailer.

This book is a bit of a classic, OTPT. Add it to your list.

https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/michael-walzer/just-and-unjust-wars/9780465052714/

Turtleneck wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Okay so I'm a big Christopher Nolan fan..here's the trailer for the movie coming out next summer.

Also - any thoughts on the conversation around using the atomic bomb? I've also recently read a book about it (Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the 116 Days that Changed the World) and it got me thinking about the debate around it.

Using it vs an invasion? How many people would have died in that case? Is it possible to be morally correct in war? Here's a quote from the book

“I hope for some sort of peace - but i fear that machines are ahead of morals by some centuries and when morals catch up there’ll be no reason for any of it” - Harry Truman

Anyways, here's the trailer.

This book is a bit of a classic, OTPT. Add it to your list.

https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/michael-walzer/just-and-unjust-wars/9780465052714/

Thanks, added. What are your thoughts on this specific situation?

You will never convince me ever that the second bomb was needed.  Scientists can't help themselves.  They crave data and measurements.  They're as addicted to those numbers as the alcohoic is to alcohol and the gambler is to gambling.  The First bomb, can be debated, that perhaps it was necessary.  Again, I have issues with that too, but I somewhat hear and listen to arguments that favor using it.  

But scientists and Math junkies crave data and charts and proofs.  

When they were first getting into this, there was a theory that the chain reaction could lead to the evaporation of the earth........ yet they kept on.  That alone should show how crazy these fuckers were.  They had the best physics/math/scientists working on the theory of massive evaporation while they were in the lab creating something that could do it.  It's why I have no doubt, somewhere in some lab there is a virus that can and maybe will kill all human beings eventually.  I believe it exists in a lab already (my tinfoil hat theory)

with a large release of energy, as they do on the sun. To set off such a reaction would require a very high temperature, but might not the enormously high temperature of the atomic bomb be just what was needed to explode hydrogen?

"And if hydrogen, what about hydrogen in sea water? Might not the explosion of the atomic bomb set off an explosion of the ocean itself? Nor was this all that Oppenheimer feared. The nitrogen in the air is also unstable, though in less degree. Might not it, too, be set off by an atomic explosion in the atmosphere?"

"The earth would be vaporized," I said.

"Exactly," Compton said, and with that gravity! "It would be the ultimate catastrophe. Better to accept the slavery of the Nazis than to run the chance of drawing the final curtain on mankind!"

The fear of setting the planet on fire with a nuclear explosion...... Yet they kept on working on it.  

They had to prove it wasn’t a one off.

DWags wrote:You will never convince me ever that the second bomb was needed.  Scientists can't help themselves.  They crave data and measurements.  They're as addicted to those numbers as the alcohoic is to alcohol and the gambler is to gambling.  The First bomb, can be debated, that perhaps it was necessary.  Again, I have issues with that too, but I somewhat hear and listen to arguments that favor using it.  

But scientists and Math junkies crave data and charts and proofs.  

When they were first getting into this, there was a theory that the chain reaction could lead to the evaporation of the earth........ yet they kept on.  That alone should show how crazy these fuckers were.  They had the best physics/math/scientists working on the theory of massive evaporation while they were in the lab creating something that could do it.  It's why I have no doubt, somewhere in some lab there is a virus that can and maybe will kill all human beings eventually.  I believe it exists in a lab already (my tinfoil hat theory)

with a large release of energy, as they do on the sun. To set off such a reaction would require a very high temperature, but might not the enormously high temperature of the atomic bomb be just what was needed to explode hydrogen?

"And if hydrogen, what about hydrogen in sea water? Might not the explosion of the atomic bomb set off an explosion of the ocean itself? Nor was this all that Oppenheimer feared. The nitrogen in the air is also unstable, though in less degree. Might not it, too, be set off by an atomic explosion in the atmosphere?"

"The earth would be vaporized," I said.

"Exactly," Compton said, and with that gravity! "It would be the ultimate catastrophe. Better to accept the slavery of the Nazis than to run the chance of drawing the final curtain on mankind!"

The fear of setting the planet on fire with a nuclear explosion...... Yet they kept on working on it.  

It wasn’t the scientists call.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:You will never convince me ever that the second bomb was needed.  Scientists can't help themselves.  They crave data and measurements.  They're as addicted to those numbers as the alcohoic is to alcohol and the gambler is to gambling.  The First bomb, can be debated, that perhaps it was necessary.  Again, I have issues with that too, but I somewhat hear and listen to arguments that favor using it.  

But scientists and Math junkies crave data and charts and proofs.  

When they were first getting into this, there was a theory that the chain reaction could lead to the evaporation of the earth........ yet they kept on.  That alone should show how crazy these fuckers were.  They had the best physics/math/scientists working on the theory of massive evaporation while they were in the lab creating something that could do it.  It's why I have no doubt, somewhere in some lab there is a virus that can and maybe will kill all human beings eventually.  I believe it exists in a lab already (my tinfoil hat theory)



The fear of setting the planet on fire with a nuclear explosion...... Yet they kept on working on it.  

It wasn’t the scientists call.

Now we have to have a leap of faith for my belief to exist. Do you not believe that any meeting anywhere in the white house oval office the the top generals and political wonks ever took place with scientists telling the generals they need to see what kind of damage the second type of bomb does vs the first one?

Also, and again, it comes from my skepticism about our government, If you think Stimson put together the interim committee for any other reason than to absolve him, Truman, the generals and the scientists of the horror of this, I have a bridge to sell you.

DWags wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

It wasn’t the scientists call.

Now we have to  have a leap of faith for my belief to exist.  Do you not believe that any meeting anywhere in the white house oval office the the top generals and political wonks ever took place with scientists telling the generals they need to see what kind of damage the second type of bomb does vs the first one?  

Also, and again, it comes from my skepticism about our government, If you think Stimson put together the interim committee for any other reason than to absolve him, Truman, the generals and the scientists of the horror of this, I have a bridge to sell you.  

I don’t think such a meeting took place, no. But thats because it was about ending the way without Russia’s help. Everything else was secondary.

This is the first I’m hearing of anything about an ego trip re: Russia. Not doubting it, just saying.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

DWags wrote:

Now we have to  have a leap of faith for my belief to exist.  Do you not believe that any meeting anywhere in the white house oval office the the top generals and political wonks ever took place with scientists telling the generals they need to see what kind of damage the second type of bomb does vs the first one?  

Also, and again, it comes from my skepticism about our government, If you think Stimson put together the interim committee for any other reason than to absolve him, Truman, the generals and the scientists of the horror of this, I have a bridge to sell you.  

I don’t think such a meeting took place, no. But thats because it was about ending the way without Russia’s help. Everything else was secondary.

And yes, Stinson wanted to shake Russia up. But if it was really about ending the war without Russian help, by default aren't you agreeing that the interim committee was bullshit?

OTPT, after the German surrender, it was always about Russia vs. The US for world dominance. Both sides knew that. Actually before the surrender when the war turned in 1942 it was about World domination between the two countries.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:This is the first I’m hearing of anything about an ego trip re: Russia. Not doubting it, just saying.

Well the whole point is that we wouldn’t exactly broadcast that as the message, like, ever. And I don’t think that there would ever be a document saying yeah that’s why we did it. But the timing is too coincidental, then given what happened after what with the Cold War and all, it makes a lot of sense that that’s what happened.

I agree with most of what DWags and Travis have said. I'm firmly in the camp that neither was actually necessary to end hostilities, and I think it is fairly indisputable that reducing the Soviet Union's influence in Asia was at least a consideration, if not one of the driving factors behind the decision.

It's worth noting that one of the hang ups in a negotiated surrender was the fate of the emperor. The allies were demanding unconditional surrender, but perhaps could have reached an agreement that would have ended things sooner if we had given assurances that the emperor would not be personally tried for war crimes or otherwise prosecuted (and he wasn't, so it would have been a concession that cost us nothing).

Frankly, I always find it a bit rich when we do a bunch of handwringing about this or that country we don't like getting nukes, as though we've forgotten that we're the only ones to have ever used a nuclear weapon against another nation. Not to say that I want Iran or whoever else to have nukes, but we really don't have a leg to stand on.

The first one was 100% necessary. The second one was 95% necessary. They didn't think we had more than one. The hard liners were still calling the shots. Some of them even attempted a coup after the second bomb when the tide turned against them. Remember, it was ELEVEN DAYS after Hiroshima, and 8 days after Nagasaki, before they announced surrender.

There are are stories of Japan's intent to surrender before the first bomb. But two problems with that. 1) It was a conditional surrender. 2) It wasn't the faction in power. Some random minister or two didn't represent the voice of the government of Japan. And again, if they were ready surrender before Hiroshima, and/or before Nagasaki, it wouldn't take so long after those for the Empereor to make his speech.

And while a show of force to the Soviet Union was part of the thought process for #2, it was not THE driving factor. Just one of several reasons.

But as we think about the morality of dropping the bomb, let's not forget that we had been firebombing the shit out of Japan for months prior, and that continued for several days after both bombs until they surrendered. We killed more people in a single night of that than with either atomic bomb. There hadn't been morality in the war (to whatever extent it can exist in a war) for an awful long time.

It is never, and I repeat, never ever ever ever, 100% necessary to drop a nuclear bomb on hundreds of thousands of civilians

Ever

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:If you want to watch something on the same topic, check out 1989's "Fat Man and Little Boy".

Thanks, Floyd. Would also love any and all suggestions for more watching/reading.

That one's the best dramatized version.

There's a drama series from the mid 2010s (I think), called Manhattan about scientists working in Los Alamos on the bomb.  2 or 3 seasons, IIRC.  I really like this subject, so I enjoyed the series.  I believe the main characters were fictional, but there were some real life characters and some of the things that happened were real.

Dan Carlin has a Hardcore History podcast episode on this and the broader idea of strategic bombing, and I think a Hardcore History Addendum episode (different feed) more about the decision making in the US and Japan around this (I think...it's been a long time since that came out).

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:It is never, and I repeat, never ever ever ever, 100% necessary to drop a nuclear bomb on hundreds of thousands of civilians

Ever

True, we could have just killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese with more fire bombing, and hundreds of thousands more, if not millions, in an invasion.  That's without counting our own casualties.

It's all about the trade off, as with anything. War isn't 100% necessary either, even if you're invaded.

Of course, I was talking about in the context of the situation.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:It is never, and I repeat, never ever ever ever, 100% necessary to drop a nuclear bomb on hundreds of thousands of civilians

Ever

True, we could have just killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese with more fire bombing, and hundreds of thousands more, if not millions, in an invasion.  That's without counting our own casualties.

It's all about the trade off, as with anything. War isn't 100% necessary either, even if you're invaded.

Of course, I was talking about in the context of the situation.

All hypothetical. We don’t know if any of that is true but conveniently for your argument we’ll just have to take the US government’s word for it (famously reliable source for truth on its own affairs) because they murdered all of those people to avoid having to find out if that really would have been the case when Japan was being squeezed on all sides

The two things I can say incontrovertibly that the us government didn’t give a fuck about are 1) Japanese lives (I mean, duh) and 2) American troop lives (these are, afterall, the same people that sent troops to Korea and Vietnam shortly thereafter for less than existential reasons)

MiamiSpartan wrote:The first one was 100% necessary. The second one was 95% necessary.  They didn't think we had more than one.  The hard liners were still calling the shots.  Some of them even attempted a coup after the second bomb when the tide turned against them.  Remember, it was ELEVEN DAYS after Hiroshima, and 8 days after Nagasaki, before they announced surrender.  

There are are stories of Japan's intent to surrender before the first bomb.  But two problems with that.  1) It was a conditional surrender.  2) It wasn't the faction in power.  Some random minister or two didn't represent the voice of the government of Japan.  And again, if they were ready surrender before Hiroshima, and/or before Nagasaki, it wouldn't take so long after those for the Empereor to make his speech.

And while a show of force to the Soviet Union was part of the thought process for #2, it was not THE driving factor.  Just one of several reasons.

But as we think about the morality of dropping the bomb, let's not forget that we had been firebombing the shit out of Japan for months prior, and that continued for several days after both bombs until they surrendered.  We killed more people in a single night of that than with either atomic bomb.  There hadn't been morality in the war (to whatever extent it can exist in a war) for an awful long time.

"They didn't think we had more than one"

Are we sure that they were even aware what it was? I don't imagine the goals of the Manhattan Project were widely publicized to our enemies, but I could be mistaken on that point.

Regardless, it was a scant 3 days between the first and second, and it's not like they could just fire off an email saying "we got nuked, call it." I think it's pretty safe to assume that the capacity to communicate a status report out of Hiroshima was pretty severely diminished in the immediate aftermath.

To your point about the effectiveness of traditional firebombing, I think it is worth noting the reason Tokyo and Kyoto were spared the nukes: they were already pretty much levelled. We deliberately chose cities that had been mostly left intact to make the most effective display (again, at least in part for geopolitical posturing with the Soviets).

To my mind, the biggest shame is the aftermath of having used a nuclear weapon. Sure, hundreds of thousands perished in an instant, but how many thousands more continued to suffer and die from radiation long after Japan had surrendered? I don't feel any better about their suffering because they were Japanese civilians instead of American civilians. I don't really wanna get into a long discussion or argument about it (in my experience, no minds are ever changed), but I do want to officially register my vehement disagreement with your assessment.

I’m glad it was the good ole USA that did the dropping and not the receiving.

Motown Spartan wrote:I’m glad it was the good ole USA that did the dropping and not the receiving.

Like my Dad often says, better to bear the shame than to bear the pain. He's usually talking about farting in public, but I think it still applies.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

True, we could have just killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese with more fire bombing, and hundreds of thousands more, if not millions, in an invasion.  That's without counting our own casualties.

It's all about the trade off, as with anything. War isn't 100% necessary either, even if you're invaded.

Of course, I was talking about in the context of the situation.

All hypothetical. We don’t know if any of that is true but conveniently for your argument we’ll just have to take the US government’s word for it (famously reliable source for truth on its own affairs) because they murdered all of those people to avoid having to find out if that really would have been the case when Japan was being squeezed on all sides

I didn't say it was a reason that was given, I'm saying it would have been a consequence. And I'm not aware of any government statement on that.

What I am aware of is that it is a fact that hundreds of thousands of civilians perished in the firebombing, including around 100,000 in a single raid (estimates range from 75k-200k....Japanese historian estimates, not US government estimates.

I also know how many civilians died in the only fighting on Japanese soil (Okinawa), so yes that can be used to estimate what an invasion of the hone islands could have looked like.

Yes, anything that didn't happen is hypothetical, as is with every argument. But I'm not using US government numbers, I'm using real world numbers for what did occur and am applying that to potential future events.

I feel dirty reading this thread without any contributions from Death Roe. It’s as if we’re stepping out on him. I kinda like it, but then, I always live life on the edge.

MiamiSpartan wrote:The first one was 100% necessary. The second one was 95% necessary. They didn't think we had more than one. The hard liners were still calling the shots. Some of them even attempted a coup after the second bomb when the tide turned against them. Remember, it was ELEVEN DAYS after Hiroshima, and 8 days after Nagasaki, before they announced surrender.

There are are stories of Japan's intent to surrender before the first bomb. But two problems with that. 1) It was a conditional surrender. 2) It wasn't the faction in power. Some random minister or two didn't represent the voice of the government of Japan. And again, if they were ready surrender before Hiroshima, and/or before Nagasaki, it wouldn't take so long after those for the Empereor to make his speech.

And while a show of force to the Soviet Union was part of the thought process for #2, it was not THE driving factor. Just one of several reasons.

But as we think about the morality of dropping the bomb, let's not forget that we had been firebombing the shit out of Japan for months prior, and that continued for several days after both bombs until they surrendered. We killed more people in a single night of that than with either atomic bomb. There hadn't been morality in the war (to whatever extent it can exist in a war) for an awful long time.

If the second bomb had an historical date of 8/16/45, or even 8/13/45 I could get closer to wrapping my mind around it. Bu 8/9/45, is and always will be bullshit to me. And for those like me, who believe data ( not provable) and showing the soviets who was boss, if that’s the reason, we can never claim the moral high ground ever.

Cameron wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:The first one was 100% necessary. The second one was 95% necessary.  They didn't think we had more than one.  The hard liners were still calling the shots.  Some of them even attempted a coup after the second bomb when the tide turned against them.  Remember, it was ELEVEN DAYS after Hiroshima, and 8 days after Nagasaki, before they announced surrender.  

There are are stories of Japan's intent to surrender before the first bomb.  But two problems with that.  1) It was a conditional surrender.  2) It wasn't the faction in power.  Some random minister or two didn't represent the voice of the government of Japan.  And again, if they were ready surrender before Hiroshima, and/or before Nagasaki, it wouldn't take so long after those for the Empereor to make his speech.

And while a show of force to the Soviet Union was part of the thought process for #2, it was not THE driving factor.  Just one of several reasons.

But as we think about the morality of dropping the bomb, let's not forget that we had been firebombing the shit out of Japan for months prior, and that continued for several days after both bombs until they surrendered.  We killed more people in a single night of that than with either atomic bomb.  There hadn't been morality in the war (to whatever extent it can exist in a war) for an awful long time.

"They didn't think we had more than one"

Are we sure that they were even aware what it was? I don't imagine the goals of the Manhattan Project were widely publicized to our enemies, but I could be mistaken on that point.

Regardless, it was a scant 3 days between the first and second, and it's not like they could just fire off an email saying "we got nuked, call it." I think it's pretty safe to assume that the capacity to communicate a status report out of Hiroshima was pretty severely diminished in the immediate aftermath.

To your point about the effectiveness of traditional firebombing, I think it is worth noting the reason Tokyo and Kyoto were spared the nukes: they were already pretty much levelled. We deliberately chose cities that had been mostly left intact to make the most effective display (again, at least in part for geopolitical posturing with the Soviets).

To my mind, the biggest shame is the aftermath of having used a nuclear weapon. Sure, hundreds of thousands perished in an instant, but how many thousands more continued to suffer and die from radiation long after Japan had surrendered? I don't feel any better about their suffering because they were Japanese civilians instead of American civilians. I don't really wanna get into a long discussion or argument about it (in my experience, no minds are ever changed), but I do want to officially register my vehement disagreement with your assessment.

I agree we won't change anyone's mind, and I also vehemently disagree with your assessment, which is fine. Rational, differing opinions is a positive thing, IMO.

DWags wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:The first one was 100% necessary. The second one was 95% necessary.  They didn't think we had more than one.  The hard liners were still calling the shots.  Some of them even attempted a coup after the second bomb when the tide turned against them.  Remember, it was ELEVEN DAYS after Hiroshima, and 8 days after Nagasaki, before they announced surrender.  

There are are stories of Japan's intent to surrender before the first bomb.  But two problems with that.  1) It was a conditional surrender.  2) It wasn't the faction in power.  Some random minister or two didn't represent the voice of the government of Japan.  And again, if they were ready surrender before Hiroshima, and/or before Nagasaki, it wouldn't take so long after those for the Empereor to make his speech.

And while a show of force to the Soviet Union was part of the thought process for #2, it was not THE driving factor.  Just one of several reasons.

But as we think about the morality of dropping the bomb, let's not forget that we had been firebombing the shit out of Japan for months prior, and that continued for several days after both bombs until they surrendered.  We killed more people in a single night of that than with either atomic bomb.  There hadn't been morality in the war (to whatever extent it can exist in a war) for an awful long time.

If the second bomb had an historical date of 8/16/45, or even 8/13/45 I could get closer to wrapping my mind around it.  Bu 8/9/45,  is and always will be bullshit to me. And for those like me, who believe data ( not provable) and showing the soviets who was boss, if that’s the reason, we can never claim the moral high ground ever.  

I agree that we can't claim moral high ground, but by August 1945, the ship had long since sailed on any claims of moral high ground.  I don't see the nukes as us losing the moral high ground.  There's something absurd about any attempt to claim moral high ground about how you kill every hundred thousand people versus how someone else kills every hundred thousand people.

tGreenWay wrote:I feel dirty reading this thread without any contributions from Death Roe. It’s as if we’re stepping out on him. I kinda like it, but then, I always live life on the edge.

He does love himself some Nolan.

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Okay so I'm a big Christopher Nolan fan..here's the trailer for the movie coming out next summer.

Also - any thoughts on the conversation around using the atomic bomb? I've also recently read a book about it (Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the 116 Days that Changed the World) and it got me thinking about the debate around it.

Using it vs an invasion? How many people would have died in that case? Is it possible to be morally correct in war? Here's a quote from the book

“I hope for some sort of peace - but i fear that machines are ahead of morals by some centuries and when morals catch up there’ll be no reason for any of it” - Harry Truman

Anyways, here's the trailer.

As people have pointed out, the US was bombing the shit out of Japanese cities, and it wasn't making a difference.

The US was planning to invade, and the Japanese were planning to defend to the last person.

Conservative estimates of dead US troops were one million and many more than that in Japanese deaths of all ages and genders.  Those were the numbers that Truman was looking at.  He didn't know for sure that the A bombs would end the war, but he hoped.  It worked and it saved millions of lives.

It’s projected to do well in the US but bomb in Japan.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:Okay so I'm a big Christopher Nolan fan..here's the trailer for the movie coming out next summer.

Also - any thoughts on the conversation around using the atomic bomb? I've also recently read a book about it (Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the 116 Days that Changed the World) and it got me thinking about the debate around it.

Using it vs an invasion? How many people would have died in that case? Is it possible to be morally correct in war? Here's a quote from the book

“I hope for some sort of peace - but i fear that machines are ahead of morals by some centuries and when morals catch up there’ll be no reason for any of it” - Harry Truman

Anyways, here's the trailer.

As people have pointed out, the US was bombing the shit out of Japanese cities, and it wasn't making a difference.

The US was planning to invade, and the Japanese were planning to defend to the last person.

Conservative estimates of dead US troops were one million and many more than that in Japanese deaths of all ages and genders.  Those were the numbers that Truman was looking at.  He didn't know for sure that the A bombs would end the war, but he hoped.  It worked and it saved millions of lives.

That all sounds like the US propaganda machine at its finest

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

As people have pointed out, the US was bombing the shit out of Japanese cities, and it wasn't making a difference.

The US was planning to invade, and the Japanese were planning to defend to the last person.

Conservative estimates of dead US troops were one million and many more than that in Japanese deaths of all ages and genders.  Those were the numbers that Truman was looking at.  He didn't know for sure that the A bombs would end the war, but he hoped.  It worked and it saved millions of lives.

That all sounds like the US propaganda machine at its finest

Really?

Show me where the Japanese were crying to the US to surrender...

Cameron wrote:
To my mind, the biggest shame is the aftermath of having used a nuclear weapon. Sure, hundreds of thousands perished in an instant, but how many thousands more continued to suffer and die from radiation long after Japan had surrendered? I don't feel any better about their suffering because they were Japanese civilians instead of American civilians. I don't really wanna get into a long discussion or argument about it (in my experience, no minds are ever changed), but I do want to officially register my vehement disagreement with your assessment.

Another part of the aftermath was the bigotry against the survivors. They're called the Hibakusha, and they've been the victims of discrimination ever since. Their children try to hide their family histories to avoid the same discrimination. I'm not posting this as a retort or a point of argument, just as a lesser-known part of that legacy.

The trailer looks good. I think it's almost pointless to stamp a moral judgment on the bombings, or to even debate whether they were necessary, because it was inevitable. It seems like the movie will take that point of view, from what the trailer shows.

Just saw this. Published in 2022, and might be of interest to you OTPT.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/black-snow-curtis-lemay-firebombing-tokyo-and-road-atomic-bomb