News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Hiroshima (1946) by cryptonector on Monday August 04, 2025 @11:34PM (#44794072)
Not really. The war was practically over, and we could just have blockaded Japan until it surrendered without invading. And the Soviets' entrance in the war did as much, if not more to push the surrender as the atomic bombs.
Re:Hiroshima (1946) by refurb on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @01:34AM (#44794629)
You say “blockade” without thinking about the consequences.

The US blockades Japan causing food shortages. The military prioritizes what little food is available for themselves. The know the population will starve, but it’s necessary to defend Japan against the foreign Invaders. As long as there is enough food for the military, the war can continue.

Now you have a mass famine where millions of women and children slowly starve to death. Japan uses it for propaganda showing how cruel the West is and how if the West would just sign an armistice leaving the military junta in charge, all these people could be saved.

Is that better?

Re:Hiroshima (1946) by arkey on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @06:05AM (#44796231)
Sadly we've all seen this unfold in current times.
Re:Hiroshima (1946) by cryptonector on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @12:24PM (#44800135)
I was responding to:

> It's worth remembering that if it weren't for them doing what they did, you might not have the life you do now.

My response was not wrong as to that. The Allies did care a great deal about the Japanese people, and you can see that in the Potsdam declaration, but they also cared about their own soldiers' lives. If we hadn't had, or did not want to use, the nukes, then maybe we might have tried blockading for a while, who knows -- it's what the then leadership surely would have considered, and you can't blame someone today for mentioning it.