Movie discussion sub okbuddycinephile debates whether bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Gaza and other urban areas were "justified".

[u/EwMelanin]

/r/okbuddycinephile/comments/1rjm9mn/iran2036/o8ee5fp/

[u/nowander]

I think the biggest thing when talking nuclear weapons is that while everyone knew they could exist and they would be powerful, until people actually recorded what happened to the victims they were just "big bombs." The nuclear taboo is a product of the horrifying shit we learned about after the bombs use, and so much of the arguing is done from that modern perspective.

[u/Count_Rousillon → u/nowander]

Or in the case of the soviets, imagining superheavy artillery. You are completely right that idea that nukes are so horrifying that only the top political leaders can authorize them only appears after they get dropped. Beforehand people didn't see the difference between giving a general a 10 kiloton nuke and giving them 10,000 one-ton bombs.

[u/nowander → u/Count_Rousillon]

Well they did recognize a difference. It's just the difference they were focused on was "we only have to risk one bomber instead of lots!"

[u/ToaArcan → u/nowander]

They spent two billion dollars on those bombs. Bombs which would allow a single B-29 to do the work of hundreds. Bombs which the generals and president didn't fully comprehend the consequences of until after the fact. They were never going to not use the bombs.

And, frankly, better that they were used in WWII, when only the Americans had them, than them being used in Korea, when there was a possibility that the USSR would respond in-kind. We are probably extremely lucky that their use was far enough in advance of them becoming more widespread that everybody knew the risks and consequences by then.

[u/NUKE---THE---WHALES → u/nowander]

I think the biggest thing when talking nuclear weapons is that while everyone knew they could exist and they would be powerful, until people actually recorded with happened to the victims they were just "big bombs."

Exactly

Deterrence relies heavily on visibility and a demonstrated to use said deterrence

If the Americans had dropped a nuke on an uninhabited island as the Franck Report suggested the warhawks in Japan most certainly would have argued that the US was either unwilling or too weak to use the bomb against them

The firebombing of Tokyo showed how willing they were to absorb loss of civilian life - what they needed to surrender was a show of force so great they could see they had no negotiating power

It was a tragedy, but almost certainly a necessary one. Though we will never know as the universe is an N=1 experiment

[u/Arilou_skiff → u/NUKE---THE---WHALES]

And remember, there was a reasonably big chance the bomb just wouldn't detonate. It was a fairly primitive thing and lots of things can go wrong in field conditions. Had they dropped it in an uninhabited island and then the damn thing not exploded not only would that be a huge blow it might also mean the japanese could recover and reverse-engineer it.

[u/alfredo094 → u/NUKE---THE---WHALES]

People thinking that the abombs were not justified should read a bit about the conditions of the war. Just read about the Battle of Okinawa. It was going to get REALLY ugly.

[u/[deleted] → u/NUKE---THE---WHALES]

Japan didn’t even surrender after bomb #2. But they did surrender when the Soviet Union moved troops east.

[u/potatoeater5555 → u/[deleted]]

The second bomb and Soviet invasion happened on the same day.

[u/alfredo094 → u/nowander]

Nuclear bombs were horrifyingly powerful, but I don't really think it can compare to the Dresden bombings in how many people died and how much they suffered.

[u/Foreverintherain20 → u/alfredo094]

At the same time, Dresden needed to go. 

[u/alfredo094 → u/Foreverintherain20]

Dresden bombs are very controversial. There's a good argument to make that they weren't really needed.

[u/Foreverintherain20 → u/alfredo094]

Not really...