What is the worst disaster?

[Jazzy]

The bombing of Hiroshima, Chernobyl, or 9/11? (And Why)

 

[Albion]

With respect to the numbers of the dead, it's of course the first of those you mentioned, but there could be other considerations, such as deciding what it is that counts as a "disaster."

 

[tango]

With respect to the numbers of the dead, it's of course the first of those you mentioned, but there could be other considerations, such as deciding what it is that counts as a "disaster."

True, Hiroshima and 9/11 were deliberate acts while presumably Chernobyl was not. That alone would suggest Chernobyl was more of a "disaster" from any perspective.

Hiroshima and 9/11 were obviously disasters from the perspectives of those on the receiving end of the attacks even if much less so from the perspectives of those behind them.

 

[Albion]

True, Hiroshima and 9/11 were deliberate acts while presumably Chernobyl was not. That alone would suggest Chernobyl was more of a "disaster" from any perspective.

Hiroshima and 9/11 were obviously disasters from the perspectives of those on the receiving end of the attacks even if much less so from the perspectives of those behind them.

In addition, and with respect to Hiroshima, it's the sudden nature of the event that sticks in our minds, plus the fact of it being unknown in warfare previous to August, 1945.

The allies had already destroyed 16 square miles of Tokyo using conventional bombs, and no one talks about that anymore. Then too, because the dropping of the Atomic Bombs at last caused the Japanese Empire to decide on surrender, it is estimated that many more lives were saved by that decision than had been lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Josiah]

I've read 3 books on the topic of the Manhattan Project and the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan....

Here's some points I learned....

+ The entire (enormous!) effort was driven by the solid, unchallenged, universal belief that the Germans were developing "the bomb" and likely were way ahead of us. The effort was to "trump" the Germans.... if we had them too, they wouldn't use them. Otherwise..... The Project was to prevent the use of such weapons. BTW, until very recently, it was believed this "intelligence" was wrong (that the Nazi's gave up very early) but recently, we've discovered the Germans continued the effort right up to the end of the war but were never very close to actually having one. We' e also learned that the Japanese were kept up-to-date on this development by the Germans.

+ When WE today think of atomic bombs, we're not thinking the three that were made during the war, they were tiny in comparison. What we think of was unimaginable at that time. The leaders of the Manhattan Project considered the whole effort a failure... the bombs were FAR too expensive and FAR too limited in effect to be practical; certain the whole thing would be abandoned as just not practical. Later, new approaches were developed and then the Hydrogen Bombs invented - and we had a whole other enchilada. A terrible one!

+ It's true that both bombs dropped did great damage... perhaps 50-75K killed in each city. But far more people were killed and far more destruction resulted from fire bombing of Japanese cities than by these atomic bombs. Indeed, both cities would have been more damaged if we had fire bombed them than happened as a result of the bombs. But there was a PSYCHOLOGICAL effect; in some ways, they were "WMD's" intended to cause more fear than actual damage. BTW, while the physical damage was largely as expected, no one anticipated the biological damage from radiation.

+ Many involved in the Manhattan Project were opposed to using the bomb (remember: the whole project was to prevent such bombs being used). But the American military was CERTAIN that Japan would carry on the war requiring a MASSAGE land invasion (many, many times greater than D-Day), at least a quarter of a million Americans would die and perhaps two million Japanese and require at least a year. Final plans for this were in process. The thought was: How could they justify all those deaths to the people of America (and Japan for that matter) when the war might be ended by using the two bombs we had? Isn't 100-150K deaths better than 2 million (not to mention injured and property damage?).

+ Historians debate the effect of the two bombs on the surrender of Japan. Japanese historians tend to give more importance to the sudden involvement of the Soviet Union and their army VERY rapidly approaching from the east. The Japanese leadership HATED the Soviets and feared a take-over by them, any surrender and peace tready involving them. If the war ended, they wanted this to be SOLELY to the USA (which they got); Japanese historicans down play the bombs noting that the leadership actually had little knowledge of such and that information down played the damage. American historians give more credit to the bombs noting the light from which was seen by millions and caused great fear. I suspect BOTH played a role; it was a double punch (and a willingness of the US to allow their Emperor to remain - we DID accept a condition contrary to what the American public was told) that lead to the surrender.



.

 

[Albion]

I've read 3 books on the topic of the Manhattan Project and the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan....

Here's some points I learned....

...............................

+ Historians debate the effect of the two bombs on the surrender of Japan. Japanese historians tend to give more importance to the sudden involvement of the Soviet Union and their army VERY rapidly approaching from the east. The Japanese leadership HATED the Soviets and feared a take-over by them, any surrender and peace tready involving them.

The Japanese certainly were apprehensive about the advance of the Soviets, BUT the idea that this was a major factor in the Emperor's decision about surrender in the summer of 1945 is dubious.

He had preached to the Japanese people for some time that each person would defend every inch of the home islands, using whatever was at their disposal, and this was what the populace was preparing to do.

The expected advance of the Soviets, therefore, had already been accounted for...but not the dropping of an unknown number of atomic bombs on Japan which, at that stage of the war, was defenseless so far as the air was concerned.

Some in the war cabinet still were willing to continue on after Nagasaki, but the Emperor changed his mind and opted for surrender.

 

[tango]

The Japanese certainly were apprehensive about the advance of the Soviets, BUT the idea that this was a major factor in the Emperor's decision about surrender in the summer of 1945 is dubious.

He had preached to the Japanese people for some time that each person would defend every inch of the home islands, using whatever was at their disposal, and this was what the populace was preparing to do.

The expected advance of the Soviets, therefore, had already been accounted for...but not the dropping of an unknown number of atomic bombs on Japan which, at that stage of the war, was defenseless so far as the air was concerned.

Some in the war cabinet still were willing to continue on after Nagasaki, but the Emperor changed his mind and opted for surrender.

I read something a while ago (don't know if it's accurate, but sounds plausible) that suggested the second bomb on Nagasake was intended to show that the first bomb wasn't a fluke. It changed the narrative from "check out this prototype bomb and the damage it can do" to something more like "we've made more than one of these, do you really want to find out how many more?"

If you're defending an island nation against a ground army you've got a huge advantage. When nukes start landing on you that advantage goes away very fast.

 

[Albion]

I read something a while ago (don't know if it's accurate, but sounds plausible) that suggested the second bomb on Nagasake was intended to show that the first bomb wasn't a fluke. It changed the narrative from "check out this prototype bomb and the damage it can do" to something more like "we've made more than one of these, do you really want to find out how many more?"

I think that's right. We didn't have any more, but dropping the second one left the Japanese to think that we probably did.

If you're defending an island nation against a ground army you've got a huge advantage.

...which, presumably, was what a Soviet invasion would have created. As noted before, the Japanese government had already adopted a strategy for coping with that eventuality, and it was thought capable of prolonging the war enough that the Japanese could avoid agreeing to an unconditional surrender. But Hiroshima and Nagasaki changed all that.

 

[Josiah]

Some notes:

+ By August 1945, the Japanese KNEW they could not win the war. The issue was getting the very best surrender agreement. They COULD make the Americans busy and dying (which they STILL believed would mean the American public would push for peace), while about all they had left was the civilian population willing to die (a population only partly armed), this would not win the war but could make the Americans more willing to talk. Now that the war in Europe was over, the Japanese believed Americans wanted peace in the Pacific, too. Potsdam demanded no conditions... they needed to change that (and in a way, they did).

+ Japan and the Soviet Union had an agreement, that neither would attack the other. The Japanese really hung on that. But on the day the second bomb was dropped, the Soviets declared war on Japan and came running across China heading for Japan as fast as tanks could go. THIS (Japanese historians stress) terrorized the Japanese leadership! The Japanese HATED the Russians. With the Americans, they might get a reasonable resolution to the war and reasonable occupation, but the Russians would take over Japan with Stalinist dictatorship (or at best, Japan would be divided by the Americans and Russians). Japanese historians THIS is what caused the Japanese leadership to decide they had to surrender NOW, accepting whatever they could from the Americans. A lot depended on the Emperor. His chances with the Americans was good, his chances with the Russians was zero.

+ And Japanese historians point out: this was very wise. They got a condition (their Emperor remained), the American occupation was amazingly good and short. Americans totally ignored the Russians and kept them entirely out of everything. "War crimes" were not widely pursued by the Americans. Indeed, Japan got off a lot better than Germany and Eastern Europe did.

+ American historians put more emphasis on the two bombs. And there does seem to be something to that; the bombs DID had a big psychological impact on those who at least saw it. And certainly underlined the point that Japan could not prevail here. IMO, both American and Japanese historians are right, both played a role. IMO, it's likely the sudden involvement of Russia was probably the bigger factor but both were important. A "double punch."


A side note, just my own thought: The Russians knew we had the bomb (spies in the Manhattan Project). And while they had massive troupes on the Chinese boarder ready to go, the "go" was the same day as the dropping of that second bomb. I doubt this was a coincident. It seems very plausible to me the Russians felt those bombs would bring an end to the war - and they wanted to be a part of this just as they had in Europe, thus the declaration and very quick and massive move on that very day. I think the two events are related. While sitting at the border,the Russians had no intention of getting involved in a bloody year-long invasion (let the Americans die) BUT now that America chose to use the Bomb, the war would end FAST so they needed to move now, and fast to get into the occupation. While the Japanese MAY not have been moved significantly by the Bomb, the Russians were!




.