The truth is we can't know for sure. There's no way to look into an alternative timeline to see what the Cold War would have been like without nukes as deterrents.

@Zirconium said "probably" and you flat out called it a lie, so you're more wrong than they are.

[–] AlexisLuna@beehaw.org 22 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Japan was already seeking surrender even before the first bomb. They were ready for almost unconditional surrender, with their only condition being immunity for the emperor. The USA wanted full unconditional surrender and also to keep USSR from the negotiations, so they dropped the bomb. Then they dropped the second bomb, even though Japan tried to surrender again after the first one. I would say this counts as a lie when people say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in any way necessary to bomb. The war was won at that point.

[–] Peruvian_Skies@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (7 children)

The claim was that "the bomb probably saved more lives than it killed". Not that it was necessary to make the Japanese surrender. Mutually assured destruction via nuclear warheads is what kept the Cold War cold. Who knows how many people would have died all over the world if the USSR and the USA went into direct armed conflict?

Maybe it'd have been less than the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, though I doubt it. My point is that there's no way of knowing.

[–] Zirconium@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

This is what I mean

load more comments (6 replies)