Sam_Wilson1405
I feel like everybody accepts that the USA dropped 2 atomic bombs and that it is the right idea. Maybe because they were the "good guys" or maybe because I live in the UK. It just seems like a massive war crime that is heavily overlooked.
我觉得大家都承认美国扔了两颗原子弹，这是正确的想法。 也许是因为他们是“好人” ，也许是因为我住在英国。 这似乎是一个被严重忽视的大规模战争罪行。
您的位置：首页 > 时事时事
为什么美国没有因为投下两颗原子弹而受到更多的指责呢?
Why don''t America get more abuse for dropping 2 atomic bombs?
2022-04-09
互联网
703
收藏
举报
译文简介
我觉得大家都承认美国扔了两颗原子弹，这是正确的想法。 也许是因为他们是“好人” ，也许是因为我住在英国。 这似乎是一个被严重忽视的大规模战争罪行。
正文翻译
评论翻译
AnthropologicalArson
If the US neither dropped the bombs, nor invaded Japan, then the islands would quite soon (within months, if not quicker) be conquered by the USSR. This could easily be more devastating to both the populace of the Soviet unx, the populace of Japan in the short term, the populace of Japan in the long-term, and the political situation in the world in the long term.
如果美国既没有投下原子弹，也没有入侵日本，那么这些岛屿很快就会被苏联征服(也许在几个月内)。 对于苏联民众、短期日本民众、长期日本民众，以及世界长期政治局势来说，这都很容易造成更大的破坏。
Komischer_Vogel123
Without the looming USSR the US could''ve also just sieged Japan, because the food supplies didnt suffice for the populace.
Dropping the bombs wasnt even the worst option that was considered by the military.
Instead of invading or bombing it, they could''ve just starved millions or tens of millions to death over a rather short period of time.
如果没有迫在眉睫的苏联，美国可能也只是包围了日本，因为民众的食品供应不足。
在军方看来，投下原子弹并不是最糟糕的选择。
他们本可以在相当短的时间内饿死数百万甚至数千万人，而不是入侵或轰炸它。
AnthropologicalArson
Without the USSR looming, the local landscape would look totally different. Japan would likely still control a lot of Manchuria, so they might have a decent food supply (starving the locals wouldn''t be a severe issue for them).
Another noteworthy thing is that traditional bombing have been far more devastating than the atomic bombs due to large quantity and duration. In other words, the atomic bombings were not only not the worst option that was considered by the military, but not even the worst action committed by the military.
如果没有苏联的逼近，当地的情况将会完全不同。 日本很可能仍然控制着满洲的大部分地区，所以他们可能有足够的食物供应(让当地人挨饿对他们来说不是一个严重的问题)。
另一个值得注意的事情是，传统的轰炸由于数量大、持续时间长，其破坏性远远超过原子弹。 换句话说，原子弹爆炸不仅不是军方认为最糟糕的选择，甚至也不是军方采取的最糟糕的行动。
LinuxPariah
It is a weird how killing 100,000+ people with one, single nuke shocks people''s sensibilities while killing 100,000+ people with thousands of bombs dropped over the course of a day or two seems like a morally superior practice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not worse than what we did to Tokyo and Dresden.
奇怪的是，用一颗核弹杀死10万多人，会让人们的感情受到冲击，而在一两天内投下数千颗炸弹杀死10万多人，似乎是一种道德高尚的做法。广岛和长崎并不比我们对东京和德累斯顿所做的更糟糕。
Petal-Dance
people die via radiation.
The fact that we still have people sick from those bombs today is fucking spooky, man, not to mention the lasting damage to the regions where high radiation exposure happens.
人们死于辐射。
现在仍然有人因为原子弹而生病，这真他妈的吓人，更不用说那些发生在高辐射的地区所遭受的持久损害了。
Mahi69420
And either way, the firebombing of Japanese cities in the months beforehand killed way more people, and so to call the deployment of the atomic bombs a war crime is a bit close-minded in my opinion when it could have been way worse, for japan and the U.S.
不管是哪种情况，这之前几个月对日本城市的燃烧弹爆炸杀死了更多的人，所以把部署原子弹称为战争罪行在我看来有点过于狭隘，对日本和美国来说，情况可能更糟糕。
zkool20
Also I heard it was basically, us saying to Japan either we stop the war or we will drop a bomb on you guys. Obviously Japan thought they were bluffing
我听说的基本上是，我们对日本说“要么我们停止战争，不然我们向你们投下一颗原子弹”。显然日本认为他们是在虚张声势
jamesgelliott
In addition to what darkedgefan said here''s more info.
The 2 bombings shortened the war by a year and a half. The military had estimated the war would not have ended until late 1946.
While it gets little attention, the US sub campaign had nearly completely stopped food from getting into Japan. Parts of Japan was already losing people to famine. Had the war gone on until the end of 1946, it''s been estimated one million additional Japanese would have died from famine.
The estimated death toll in allied casualties for an invasion was huge. The military minted so many purple hearts in anticipation of the invasion that it didn''t have to have more printed until around the time of the Iraq war.
The Japanese had used about 2800 kamikaze attacks by the end of the war. They had 5000 planes in reserve to fight an invasion. Additionally, they had trained kamikaze scuba divers. They would have been outfitted with an explosive Lance. When a landing craft passed over them they would strike the craft with the lance killing themselves and destroying the boat. There were also orders that if an invasion started, all POWs were to be killed to free up all resources to fight the invaders.
A lot of the atomic bomb critics will ignorantly say there was no need to drop the second bomb because Japan was about to surrender. Here''s something most people don''t know. After the first bomb there was an attempted coup against the emperor by the heads of the army because they were afraid he might allow a surrender. It was only the second bombing that convinced their military leaders to give up the fight. Before the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese did reach out to the USSR to be a broker in peace negotiations. The Soviets never communicated the overture to the allies. The Soviets had no intention of working as a broker for peace because they were looking to start a war against Japan in the summer of 1945, just a few months after the German surrender. The Soviets were looking for pay back after the Japanese beat them in Russo-Japanese war from about 30 years earlier.
The Soviets had plans to invade the northern island of Hokkaido and the Kuril islands. Had the war not ended when it did the cold war would have also included a divided Japan in addition to a divided Germany and Korea.
除了darkedgefan所说的，这里还有更多的信息。
两次轰炸使战争缩短了一年半。军方预计这场战争要到1946年底才会结束。
虽然没有引起多少注意，但美国的潜艇行动几乎完全阻止了日本的食品供应。日本的部分地区已经因饥荒而失去了人民。 如果战争持续到1946年底，估计还会有100万日本人死于饥荒。
预估入侵日本将会造成巨大的盟军伤亡。所以军队在入侵前铸造了很多紫心勋章，以至于直到伊拉克战争前后才印制出更多的紫心勋章。
到战争结束时，日本人已经进行了大约2800次神风特攻队式的攻击。他们预备了5000架飞机以对抗入侵。此外，他们还训练了自杀式潜水员。他们配备一个爆炸性的长矛。当一艘登陆艇经过他们时，他们会用长矛击中这艘船，自杀并摧毁这艘船。 还有一个命令，如果入侵开始，将杀死所有的战俘，腾出所有的资源，以打击侵略者。
许多原子弹批评家会无知地说，没有必要投下第二颗原子弹，因为日本即将投降。这是一些大多数人不知道的事情。 第一颗原子弹爆炸后，日本军队首领企图发动政变推翻天皇，因为他们担心天皇可能会投降。而第二次轰炸，说服他们的军事领导人放弃了战斗。在第二颗原子弹投下之前，日本确实与苏联联系，希望苏联在和平谈判中充当中间人。 苏联从未向盟国传达过这一提议。 苏联无意充当和平的中间人，因为他们希望在1945年夏天，也就是德国投降几个月后，对日本发动战争。 大约30年前，日本在20世纪90年代日俄战争击败苏联后，苏联人一直在寻求报复。
苏联曾计划入侵北海道北部岛屿和千岛群岛。 如果战争没有在冷战结束时结束，除了分裂的德国和朝鲜外，还会有分裂的日本。
jedify
Why was a land invasion necessary? I''m not saying a blockade and continued traditional bombing wouldn''t have killed more civilians through starvation, but this made no sense to me. The navy already demonstrated they didn''t need to invade all the islands to beat them. Why put so many of our people at risk for no gain?
为什么需要入侵陆地？ 我不是说封锁和持续的传统轰炸不会导致更多的平民死亡，但这对我来说毫无意义。 海军已经证明他们不需要入侵所有的岛屿就能打败他们。 为什么要让这么多人冒险却毫无收获？
SpitefulShrimp
Because letting their noncombatants starve to death to keep their soldiers healthy was a very real possibility that the Allies wanted to avoid.
因为日本有可能会让他们的平民饿死，来保证他们的士兵健康。这是盟军想要避免的一种非常真实的可能性。
SoUdontKnowWhoIam
The Marine Corps invaded a majority of the islands on the Navy’s back. The Japanese were incredibly resourceful and resilient. They lived with a deep pride to die before surrender. A Japanese soldier could live off muddy water and a maggot filled bag of rice for weeks. Like someone else said too, the Japanese would have certainly staved their population to keep a strong fighting force.
海军陆战队入侵了海军背后的大部分岛屿。 日本人难以置信的老谋深算和适应性强。他们带着极大的骄傲活着，宁死不屈。 一个日本士兵靠泥水和一袋装满蛆虫的大米就可以生存几个星期。正如其他人所说，日本人当然会牺牲他们的人民来保持强大的战斗力。
rbiqane
America pleaded with them to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. They refused.
They were also planning to infect American citizens through the use of bio terrorism weapons dropped from the sky into our cities.
And they''re guilty of a whole bunch of other horrible ideas as well that were planned
第一颗原子弹投下后，美国恳求他们投降，但他们拒绝了。
他们还计划通过使用空投生物武器来感染美国公民。
他们还有一大堆计划好的可怕想法
paleoprivett
Have you heard of Camp 731?
你听说过731营吗？
VetOfThePsychicWars
Never mind the horrible ideas that were planned, there were all the horrible ideas they had already been practicing. The war crimes of the Japanese were arguably even worse than those of Germany and it amazes me how little people seem to know about them.
不要管那些计划好的可怕想法，而是要去关注那些他们已经在实践的可怕想法。日本人的战争罪行甚至可以说比德国人的还要严重，令我惊讶的是，人们似乎对这些罪行知之甚少。
tedbradly
Don''t forget to add that prior to bombing the cities, American forces flew down a bunch of flyers to citizens that said some of these cities will soon be bombed. Leave if you can.
不要忘记补充一点，在轰炸这些城市之前，美国军队向市民发放了大量传单，上面说这些城市中的一些很快就会被轰炸。 如果可以的话，请离开。
Epicsnailman
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never in the lists of cities in those pamphlets. That only covered strategic bombings.
这些小册子里，广岛和长崎从来没有在名单中，这只包括了战略轰炸。
It_is_I_Satan
answer is that it actually saved lives over not dropping the bombs.
答案是，投下原子弹实际上拯救了生命，而不是没有投下炸弹。
ArcadiusTyler
The Japanese Empire had spent a hundred years glorifying a fictionalized version of the Samurai and convincing it''s citizens that they should all hold themselves to that standard. So yes, it was a corrupted and twisted version of samurai ideals that lead to the radicalization of Japan.
日本帝国花了一百年的时间来美化一个虚构的武士形象，并说服日本公民相信他们都应该坚持这个标准。 所以，是的，这是一个堕落和扭曲版本的武士理想，导致了日本的激进化。
Petricorde1
Every part of the dropping of the bombs is so debatable which is why the discussion is still so fascinating 70 years afterward. A strong argument could be made that the Soviets had a significantly stronger impact on the surrender of the Japanese, and some recounts of the discussion of surrender from Japanese leaders present at the time said that the second nuclear bomb wasn''t even taken into consideration when they decided to surrender.
The argument that the nuclear bombs saved lives is reliant on the fact that Japan would not have surrendered if the bombs, and that is very arguable. For example, generals at the time were convinced that Japan would have surrendered without the bombs and a land invasion, and a post-war report done by the US government in 1946 came up with the same conclusion.
投下原子弹的每一个部分都有争议，这就是为什么70年后，还是很多人在讨论。可以提出一个强有力的论点，即苏联对日本投降的影响明显更大，一些在场的日本领导人关于投降的叙述，称他们决定投降时甚至没有考虑到第二枚投下的原子弹。
认为原子弹拯救了生命的论点依赖于这样一个事实，即如果原子弹爆炸，日本不投降，这非常有争议。例如，当时有一些将军相信，如果没有投下原子弹和陆地入侵，日本早就投降了。美国政府在1946年的一份战后报告也得出了同样的结论。
novolip
The story about saving lives has a little bit of truth to it but the war was already won.
The war was in practice already won but the Japanese were not going to surrender and were ready to fight to the death to stop the Americans, army and civilians alike. An invasion of Japan would most probably have been more deadly than the dropping of the two bombs.
这个关于拯救生命的故事有一点点真实性，但是战争已经胜利了。
这场战争实际上已经取得了胜利，但日本人不打算投降，他们准备战斗到死，以阻止美国人，军队和平民。 入侵日本很可能比投下两颗原子弹更致命。
Comrade-Thanos
Just because the war was already won, does not mean that end would’ve been at all easy to come to. Japan still had to be toppled, and that had to happen either by invasion, prolonged blockade and starvation, or by using the bombs.
Invasion would’ve been incredibly costly, as both soldiers and civilians were prepared to fight to the death to protect their homeland. There’s videos from Pacific islands of Japanese civilians jumping off of cliffs because they’ve been taught to fear an American occupation. Imagine that, but over their entire country. Invasion would’ve resulted in countless US and Japanese troops, and Japanese civilians, losing their lives, almost certainly far more than dropping the two bombs resulted in.
Prolonged blockade and starvation simply wouldn’t have happened, because the Soviets were primed to invade Japan from the north. Iirc they had already made plans to invade that big upper island of Japan, and no doubt they would’ve moved in quickly on the rest if we didn’t. That leads to countless Soviet and Japanese soldiers, as well as Japanese civilians, dying, just like in the US invasion, and an establishment of a Soviet satellite government in the country, most definitely a repressive one that would’ve resulted in years or even decades of suffering for the population. Even if blockade and starvation would’ve been options for us to use, that would’ve resulted in prolonged suffering across the entire nation of Japan, primarily for civilians, so that’s not exactly a moral option either.
Dropping the bombs really was the best option to save as many lives as possible, despite how horrific it still is. Even though the war was already won as you said, that doesn’t mean ending it would’ve happened quickly, easily, or without a lot of bloodshed. Dropping the bombs was almost certainly in part a show of force to the Soviets, but it was in large part also the best option to save as many lives as possible. Saving lives was a massive part of the equation, don’t undersell it.
仅仅因为这场战争已经胜利了，并不意味着很快就能结束。仍然需要推翻日本，而这点必须通过入侵、长期的封锁和饥饿，或者使用原子弹来实现。
由于士兵和平民都准备为保卫自己的国家而战斗到死，因此入侵的代价高得让人难以置信。有来自太平洋岛屿的日本平民从悬崖上跳下的视频，因为他们被教导要害怕美国的占领。想象一下，如果在他们整个国家。入侵将导致无数的美国和日本军队，以及日本平民丧生，几乎可以肯定，这远远超过投下两枚炸弹所造成的损失。
长期的封锁和饥饿根本就不会发生，因为苏联已经做好了从北方入侵日本的准备。 他们已经制定了入侵日本北部大岛的计划，毫无疑问，如果我们不这么做，他们会很快进攻剩下的岛屿。 这会导致无数的苏联和日本士兵，以及日本平民死亡，就像美国的入侵，以及苏联在该国建立的卫星政府，绝对是一个专制的政府，会给人民带来数年甚至数十年的痛苦。 即使我们可以选择封锁和饥饿，那也会导致整个日本国家长期遭受苦难，主要是对平民，所以这也不是一个道德选择。
投下原子弹确实是拯救尽可能多的生命的最佳选择，尽管这仍然很可怕。尽管如你所说，战争已经赢得了胜利，但这并不意味着战争会很快、很容易地结束，也不意味着没有大量的流血。 几乎可以肯定，投下原子弹在某种程度上是向苏联展示武力，但在很大程度上，这也是尽可能多地拯救生命的最佳选择。 拯救生命是这个等式的重要组成部分，不要低估它。
DoctorBlackBear
Unless I am mistaken, we only had 2 readily available. It would have been a few months to continue dropping nukes
如果我没弄错的话，我们只有两个现成的原子弹。继续投放原子弹可能需要几个月的时间。
edwin_4
No one knew we only had two however. So japan assumed that this could probably continue if they didn’t surrender.
然而，没有人知道我们只有两个，所以日本认为如果他们不投降，这种情况可能会继续下去。
Bill_Ender_Belichick
Yeah it was a pretty big bluff on the USA’s part, because had Japan thought we couldn’t continue they wouldn’t have surrendered.
是的，对美国来说，这是一个相当大的虚张声势，因为如果日本认为我们不能继续，他们就不会投降。
Spry_Fly
The rape of nanking, Japan was pure evil to the countries around them during WWII. Japan is how it is today because of forced pacifism after WWII. I think western culture thinks Hitler is bad, but forget Japan was tearing through China and surrounding countries committing human rights atrocoties.
南京大屠杀事件，日本在第二次世界大战期间对他们周围的国家展现了纯粹的邪恶。 由于二战后被迫实行和平主义，日本现在才是这个样子。 我认为西方文化认为希特勒是坏的，但忘记了日本撕裂中国和周边国家的人权暴行。
DianiTheOtter
It doesn''t really help that Japan doesn''t like acknowledging the terrible shit it''s done during WW2.
日本不愿意承认它在二战期间所做的可怕的事情，这真的没什么帮助。
Spry_Fly
To be fair, Germany is the only country to just face their atrocities head on that I can think of. A lot of countries act that way to extent, like America and slavery or Turkey and genocide. Countries like to ignore the bad parts of their history.
公平地说，德国是我能想到的唯一一个直面他们暴行的国家。 很多国家都没有这么做，比如美国、奴隶制、土耳其和种族灭绝。 一些国家喜欢忽略他们历史上的不好的部分。
GrannyLow
I don''t know how you can say that the US doesn''t face slavery head on. It is a major part of our education.
Now one thing we don''t talk about as much as we probably should is how we fucked over the natives.
我不知道你怎么能说美国没有直面奴隶制。 这是我们教育的一个主要部分。
现在有一件事我们没有谈论多少，那就是我们是如何欺负当地土著人的。
Toston97
American definitely does not ignore it’s past with slavery.
美国人绝对不会忽视奴隶制的历史。
Spry_Fly
I think they could have just said, "Yep, bad. Won''t happen again."
我觉得他们可以直接说，“是的，很糟糕，我们不会再这样做了。”
gritwoodser
Atomic bombs, at the time, were a secret weapon and didn''t have the same stigma they do today. No one really knew how destructive they would be. It''s also worth noting that, prior to dropping the bombs, the US dropped leaflets warning everyone to evacuate those cities.
Edit: On further review, the bit about the leaflets wasn''t correct. Other cities got leaflets prior to conventional bombings, and leaflets were dropped after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, warning of additional atomic bombings if Japan didn''t surrender.
在当时，原子弹是一种秘密武器，没有像今天这样的污名。 没有人真正知道它们会有多大的破坏力。 值得注意的是，在投下炸弹之前，美国散发了传单，警告所有人撤离这些城市。
编辑: 进一步审查后，关于传单的那部分是不正确的。其他城市在常规轰炸之前就得到了传单，广岛和长崎原子弹爆炸之后也投放了传单，警告如果日本不投降就会有更多的原子弹爆炸。
Sam_Wilson1405
I didn''t know that, would that not tip the Japanese off that the US were planning something though?
我不知道，这难道不会让日本人觉得美国在计划什么吗？
panzerkampfwagen
There were no rules of war governing aerial warfare. In fact, there still isn''t.
空战没有战争的规则，事实上，现在仍然没有。
Farfignugen42
Two points:
The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in more direct casualties than (I think) either nuclear bombs.
There was a lot of cottage industry in the Japanese war effort. Low tech stuff like uniforms and parachutes could be sewn at home snd brought to central collecting points. So, while civilian casualties were to be avoided somewhat, they were not the taboo they are yreated as today by the media.
两点:
对东京的燃烧弹轰炸造成的直接伤亡比(我认为)两个原子弹都要多。
在日本的战争中有许多家庭手工业。 像制服和降落伞这样的低技术含量的东西可以在家里缝制，然后带到中央收集点。 因此，虽然平民伤亡是可以避免的，但是他们并不像今天媒体所说的那样忌讳。
-ratking-
At that point, the worst you could expect was a bombing raid or fire bombing, which isn''t as devastating as you''d imagine from ground level. It''s still bad, obviously, but the Japanese mentality was that surrender was worse than death. The atomic bomb was something so new and otherworldly destructive that when people who survived the first bomb tried to explain what happened, no one believed that one bomb could do that much damage. It took a second bombing to really push the point that this was something we could continue doing.
As well, at that time, three nations had figured out the potential power of atomic energy, and undoubtedly whoever got to it first would have used it. If it had been the Nazis, they''d have probably used it on the US or England, maybe the Soviets. If it was the Soviets, they would have undoubtedly used it on the US, or may have strong-armed China into their growing territory. Both of these regimes would likely have used the atomic bomb as a constant means of pushing their power in other nations, and we''d have seen more bombings as a result. I''m not saying the US didn''t use our atomic research to scare a few nations, but that we didn''t use it to annex any other countries is something I don''t think we''d have seen from either the Nazi or Soviet regimes.
In the end, the bombs actually spared more lives than they took. The Japanese were such vicious fighters that even the Nazis were uncomfortable being allied with them; they thought they were taking their Asian conquest business a little too far, if you can believe that. Essentially, the A-bombs were the punch to the face that prevented the ensuing gun-fight.
在那个时候，你所能期待的最坏情况就是轰炸或者火力轰炸，从地面上看，这并不像你想象的那么具有破坏性。显然，这仍然很糟糕，但日本人的心态是投降比死亡更糟糕。原子弹太新奇也具有太强的破坏力了，以至于当第一颗原子弹的幸存者试图解释发生了什么时，没有人相信一颗原子弹能造成那么大的破坏。第二次爆炸才真正展现这一点：即我们可以继续这样做。
同时，在那个时候，三个国家已经发现了原子能的潜在力量，而且毫无疑问，无论是谁第一个发现了原子能，都会使用它。 如果是纳粹，他们很可能会用在美国或英国使用，也许苏联。如果是苏联首先发现，他们无疑会对美国使用这种武器，或者可能已经将强大的中国并入他们不断增长的领土上。这两个政权都可能会把原子弹作为一种不断向其他国家施加压力的手段，结果我们就会看到更多的爆炸。我并不是说美国没有用我们的原子能研究来恐吓一些国家，但是我们并没有用它来吞并任何其他国家，我认为我们从来没有从纳粹或苏联政权那里看到过这种情况。
最后，这些原子弹实际上拯救了更多的生命。 日本人是非常凶残的战士，以至于连纳粹都不愿意与他们结盟，他们认为他们在亚洲征服事业上做得有点过火了，如果你能相信这一点的话。从本质上讲，原子弹是打在脸上的一记重拳，阻止了随后的枪战。
madeofpockets
I would argue that a firebombing campaign, while slower, is no less horrifying. Look at what we did to Dresden. The difference is not so much I think in the destructive force but in the shock factor, the instantaneous nature of it.
我认为，一场燃烧弹轰炸的行动虽然缓慢，但也同样令人恐惧。看看我们对德累斯顿做了什么。 我认为区别不在于破坏力，而在于冲击因素，它的瞬时的特点。
Rampant16
Absolutely, one firebombing raid on Tokyo killed more people than either atomic bomb.
Also Dresden and other German cities were firebombed by the RAF, not the US.
毫无疑问，一次对东京的燃烧弹袭击造成的死亡人数，超过了两颗原子弹中的任何一颗。
德累斯顿和其他德国城市也遭到了英国皇家空军的燃烧弹袭击，而不是美国。
fleshcoloredbanana
Just to add, the fire bombing of Tokyo claimed nearly 100,000 lives, nearly as many as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It is just that the casualties in Tokyo happened over a much longer period of time.
另外，东京大轰炸造成近10万人死亡，几乎相当于在广岛投下的原子弹的数量。 只是东京的伤亡发生的时间要长得多。
Zuzuchic
I’ve never understood the phenomenon where people complain about something while asking why nobody ever complains about that thing.
我从来理解不了这样的现象：人们在抱怨某件事的同时，却问为什么从来没有人抱怨过那件事。
原文地址：
If the US neither dropped the bombs, nor invaded Japan, then the islands would quite soon (within months, if not quicker) be conquered by the USSR. This could easily be more devastating to both the populace of the Soviet unx, the populace of Japan in the short term, the populace of Japan in the long-term, and the political situation in the world in the long term.
如果美国既没有投下原子弹，也没有入侵日本，那么这些岛屿很快就会被苏联征服(也许在几个月内)。 对于苏联民众、短期日本民众、长期日本民众，以及世界长期政治局势来说，这都很容易造成更大的破坏。
Komischer_Vogel123
Without the looming USSR the US could''ve also just sieged Japan, because the food supplies didnt suffice for the populace.
Dropping the bombs wasnt even the worst option that was considered by the military.
Instead of invading or bombing it, they could''ve just starved millions or tens of millions to death over a rather short period of time.
如果没有迫在眉睫的苏联，美国可能也只是包围了日本，因为民众的食品供应不足。
在军方看来，投下原子弹并不是最糟糕的选择。
他们本可以在相当短的时间内饿死数百万甚至数千万人，而不是入侵或轰炸它。
AnthropologicalArson
Without the USSR looming, the local landscape would look totally different. Japan would likely still control a lot of Manchuria, so they might have a decent food supply (starving the locals wouldn''t be a severe issue for them).
Another noteworthy thing is that traditional bombing have been far more devastating than the atomic bombs due to large quantity and duration. In other words, the atomic bombings were not only not the worst option that was considered by the military, but not even the worst action committed by the military.
如果没有苏联的逼近，当地的情况将会完全不同。 日本很可能仍然控制着满洲的大部分地区，所以他们可能有足够的食物供应(让当地人挨饿对他们来说不是一个严重的问题)。
另一个值得注意的事情是，传统的轰炸由于数量大、持续时间长，其破坏性远远超过原子弹。 换句话说，原子弹爆炸不仅不是军方认为最糟糕的选择，甚至也不是军方采取的最糟糕的行动。
LinuxPariah
It is a weird how killing 100,000+ people with one, single nuke shocks people''s sensibilities while killing 100,000+ people with thousands of bombs dropped over the course of a day or two seems like a morally superior practice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not worse than what we did to Tokyo and Dresden.
奇怪的是，用一颗核弹杀死10万多人，会让人们的感情受到冲击，而在一两天内投下数千颗炸弹杀死10万多人，似乎是一种道德高尚的做法。广岛和长崎并不比我们对东京和德累斯顿所做的更糟糕。
Petal-Dance
people die via radiation.
The fact that we still have people sick from those bombs today is fucking spooky, man, not to mention the lasting damage to the regions where high radiation exposure happens.
人们死于辐射。
现在仍然有人因为原子弹而生病，这真他妈的吓人，更不用说那些发生在高辐射的地区所遭受的持久损害了。
Mahi69420
And either way, the firebombing of Japanese cities in the months beforehand killed way more people, and so to call the deployment of the atomic bombs a war crime is a bit close-minded in my opinion when it could have been way worse, for japan and the U.S.
不管是哪种情况，这之前几个月对日本城市的燃烧弹爆炸杀死了更多的人，所以把部署原子弹称为战争罪行在我看来有点过于狭隘，对日本和美国来说，情况可能更糟糕。
zkool20
Also I heard it was basically, us saying to Japan either we stop the war or we will drop a bomb on you guys. Obviously Japan thought they were bluffing
我听说的基本上是，我们对日本说“要么我们停止战争，不然我们向你们投下一颗原子弹”。显然日本认为他们是在虚张声势
jamesgelliott
In addition to what darkedgefan said here''s more info.
The 2 bombings shortened the war by a year and a half. The military had estimated the war would not have ended until late 1946.
While it gets little attention, the US sub campaign had nearly completely stopped food from getting into Japan. Parts of Japan was already losing people to famine. Had the war gone on until the end of 1946, it''s been estimated one million additional Japanese would have died from famine.
The estimated death toll in allied casualties for an invasion was huge. The military minted so many purple hearts in anticipation of the invasion that it didn''t have to have more printed until around the time of the Iraq war.
The Japanese had used about 2800 kamikaze attacks by the end of the war. They had 5000 planes in reserve to fight an invasion. Additionally, they had trained kamikaze scuba divers. They would have been outfitted with an explosive Lance. When a landing craft passed over them they would strike the craft with the lance killing themselves and destroying the boat. There were also orders that if an invasion started, all POWs were to be killed to free up all resources to fight the invaders.
A lot of the atomic bomb critics will ignorantly say there was no need to drop the second bomb because Japan was about to surrender. Here''s something most people don''t know. After the first bomb there was an attempted coup against the emperor by the heads of the army because they were afraid he might allow a surrender. It was only the second bombing that convinced their military leaders to give up the fight. Before the second bomb was dropped, the Japanese did reach out to the USSR to be a broker in peace negotiations. The Soviets never communicated the overture to the allies. The Soviets had no intention of working as a broker for peace because they were looking to start a war against Japan in the summer of 1945, just a few months after the German surrender. The Soviets were looking for pay back after the Japanese beat them in Russo-Japanese war from about 30 years earlier.
The Soviets had plans to invade the northern island of Hokkaido and the Kuril islands. Had the war not ended when it did the cold war would have also included a divided Japan in addition to a divided Germany and Korea.
除了darkedgefan所说的，这里还有更多的信息。
两次轰炸使战争缩短了一年半。军方预计这场战争要到1946年底才会结束。
虽然没有引起多少注意，但美国的潜艇行动几乎完全阻止了日本的食品供应。日本的部分地区已经因饥荒而失去了人民。 如果战争持续到1946年底，估计还会有100万日本人死于饥荒。
预估入侵日本将会造成巨大的盟军伤亡。所以军队在入侵前铸造了很多紫心勋章，以至于直到伊拉克战争前后才印制出更多的紫心勋章。
到战争结束时，日本人已经进行了大约2800次神风特攻队式的攻击。他们预备了5000架飞机以对抗入侵。此外，他们还训练了自杀式潜水员。他们配备一个爆炸性的长矛。当一艘登陆艇经过他们时，他们会用长矛击中这艘船，自杀并摧毁这艘船。 还有一个命令，如果入侵开始，将杀死所有的战俘，腾出所有的资源，以打击侵略者。
许多原子弹批评家会无知地说，没有必要投下第二颗原子弹，因为日本即将投降。这是一些大多数人不知道的事情。 第一颗原子弹爆炸后，日本军队首领企图发动政变推翻天皇，因为他们担心天皇可能会投降。而第二次轰炸，说服他们的军事领导人放弃了战斗。在第二颗原子弹投下之前，日本确实与苏联联系，希望苏联在和平谈判中充当中间人。 苏联从未向盟国传达过这一提议。 苏联无意充当和平的中间人，因为他们希望在1945年夏天，也就是德国投降几个月后，对日本发动战争。 大约30年前，日本在20世纪90年代日俄战争击败苏联后，苏联人一直在寻求报复。
苏联曾计划入侵北海道北部岛屿和千岛群岛。 如果战争没有在冷战结束时结束，除了分裂的德国和朝鲜外，还会有分裂的日本。
jedify
Why was a land invasion necessary? I''m not saying a blockade and continued traditional bombing wouldn''t have killed more civilians through starvation, but this made no sense to me. The navy already demonstrated they didn''t need to invade all the islands to beat them. Why put so many of our people at risk for no gain?
为什么需要入侵陆地？ 我不是说封锁和持续的传统轰炸不会导致更多的平民死亡，但这对我来说毫无意义。 海军已经证明他们不需要入侵所有的岛屿就能打败他们。 为什么要让这么多人冒险却毫无收获？
SpitefulShrimp
Because letting their noncombatants starve to death to keep their soldiers healthy was a very real possibility that the Allies wanted to avoid.
因为日本有可能会让他们的平民饿死，来保证他们的士兵健康。这是盟军想要避免的一种非常真实的可能性。
SoUdontKnowWhoIam
The Marine Corps invaded a majority of the islands on the Navy’s back. The Japanese were incredibly resourceful and resilient. They lived with a deep pride to die before surrender. A Japanese soldier could live off muddy water and a maggot filled bag of rice for weeks. Like someone else said too, the Japanese would have certainly staved their population to keep a strong fighting force.
海军陆战队入侵了海军背后的大部分岛屿。 日本人难以置信的老谋深算和适应性强。他们带着极大的骄傲活着，宁死不屈。 一个日本士兵靠泥水和一袋装满蛆虫的大米就可以生存几个星期。正如其他人所说，日本人当然会牺牲他们的人民来保持强大的战斗力。
rbiqane
America pleaded with them to surrender after the first bomb was dropped. They refused.
They were also planning to infect American citizens through the use of bio terrorism weapons dropped from the sky into our cities.
And they''re guilty of a whole bunch of other horrible ideas as well that were planned
第一颗原子弹投下后，美国恳求他们投降，但他们拒绝了。
他们还计划通过使用空投生物武器来感染美国公民。
他们还有一大堆计划好的可怕想法
paleoprivett
Have you heard of Camp 731?
你听说过731营吗？
VetOfThePsychicWars
Never mind the horrible ideas that were planned, there were all the horrible ideas they had already been practicing. The war crimes of the Japanese were arguably even worse than those of Germany and it amazes me how little people seem to know about them.
不要管那些计划好的可怕想法，而是要去关注那些他们已经在实践的可怕想法。日本人的战争罪行甚至可以说比德国人的还要严重，令我惊讶的是，人们似乎对这些罪行知之甚少。
tedbradly
Don''t forget to add that prior to bombing the cities, American forces flew down a bunch of flyers to citizens that said some of these cities will soon be bombed. Leave if you can.
不要忘记补充一点，在轰炸这些城市之前，美国军队向市民发放了大量传单，上面说这些城市中的一些很快就会被轰炸。 如果可以的话，请离开。
Epicsnailman
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never in the lists of cities in those pamphlets. That only covered strategic bombings.
这些小册子里，广岛和长崎从来没有在名单中，这只包括了战略轰炸。
It_is_I_Satan
answer is that it actually saved lives over not dropping the bombs.
答案是，投下原子弹实际上拯救了生命，而不是没有投下炸弹。
ArcadiusTyler
The Japanese Empire had spent a hundred years glorifying a fictionalized version of the Samurai and convincing it''s citizens that they should all hold themselves to that standard. So yes, it was a corrupted and twisted version of samurai ideals that lead to the radicalization of Japan.
日本帝国花了一百年的时间来美化一个虚构的武士形象，并说服日本公民相信他们都应该坚持这个标准。 所以，是的，这是一个堕落和扭曲版本的武士理想，导致了日本的激进化。
Petricorde1
Every part of the dropping of the bombs is so debatable which is why the discussion is still so fascinating 70 years afterward. A strong argument could be made that the Soviets had a significantly stronger impact on the surrender of the Japanese, and some recounts of the discussion of surrender from Japanese leaders present at the time said that the second nuclear bomb wasn''t even taken into consideration when they decided to surrender.
The argument that the nuclear bombs saved lives is reliant on the fact that Japan would not have surrendered if the bombs, and that is very arguable. For example, generals at the time were convinced that Japan would have surrendered without the bombs and a land invasion, and a post-war report done by the US government in 1946 came up with the same conclusion.
投下原子弹的每一个部分都有争议，这就是为什么70年后，还是很多人在讨论。可以提出一个强有力的论点，即苏联对日本投降的影响明显更大，一些在场的日本领导人关于投降的叙述，称他们决定投降时甚至没有考虑到第二枚投下的原子弹。
认为原子弹拯救了生命的论点依赖于这样一个事实，即如果原子弹爆炸，日本不投降，这非常有争议。例如，当时有一些将军相信，如果没有投下原子弹和陆地入侵，日本早就投降了。美国政府在1946年的一份战后报告也得出了同样的结论。
novolip
The story about saving lives has a little bit of truth to it but the war was already won.
The war was in practice already won but the Japanese were not going to surrender and were ready to fight to the death to stop the Americans, army and civilians alike. An invasion of Japan would most probably have been more deadly than the dropping of the two bombs.
这个关于拯救生命的故事有一点点真实性，但是战争已经胜利了。
这场战争实际上已经取得了胜利，但日本人不打算投降，他们准备战斗到死，以阻止美国人，军队和平民。 入侵日本很可能比投下两颗原子弹更致命。
Comrade-Thanos
Just because the war was already won, does not mean that end would’ve been at all easy to come to. Japan still had to be toppled, and that had to happen either by invasion, prolonged blockade and starvation, or by using the bombs.
Invasion would’ve been incredibly costly, as both soldiers and civilians were prepared to fight to the death to protect their homeland. There’s videos from Pacific islands of Japanese civilians jumping off of cliffs because they’ve been taught to fear an American occupation. Imagine that, but over their entire country. Invasion would’ve resulted in countless US and Japanese troops, and Japanese civilians, losing their lives, almost certainly far more than dropping the two bombs resulted in.
Prolonged blockade and starvation simply wouldn’t have happened, because the Soviets were primed to invade Japan from the north. Iirc they had already made plans to invade that big upper island of Japan, and no doubt they would’ve moved in quickly on the rest if we didn’t. That leads to countless Soviet and Japanese soldiers, as well as Japanese civilians, dying, just like in the US invasion, and an establishment of a Soviet satellite government in the country, most definitely a repressive one that would’ve resulted in years or even decades of suffering for the population. Even if blockade and starvation would’ve been options for us to use, that would’ve resulted in prolonged suffering across the entire nation of Japan, primarily for civilians, so that’s not exactly a moral option either.
Dropping the bombs really was the best option to save as many lives as possible, despite how horrific it still is. Even though the war was already won as you said, that doesn’t mean ending it would’ve happened quickly, easily, or without a lot of bloodshed. Dropping the bombs was almost certainly in part a show of force to the Soviets, but it was in large part also the best option to save as many lives as possible. Saving lives was a massive part of the equation, don’t undersell it.
仅仅因为这场战争已经胜利了，并不意味着很快就能结束。仍然需要推翻日本，而这点必须通过入侵、长期的封锁和饥饿，或者使用原子弹来实现。
由于士兵和平民都准备为保卫自己的国家而战斗到死，因此入侵的代价高得让人难以置信。有来自太平洋岛屿的日本平民从悬崖上跳下的视频，因为他们被教导要害怕美国的占领。想象一下，如果在他们整个国家。入侵将导致无数的美国和日本军队，以及日本平民丧生，几乎可以肯定，这远远超过投下两枚炸弹所造成的损失。
长期的封锁和饥饿根本就不会发生，因为苏联已经做好了从北方入侵日本的准备。 他们已经制定了入侵日本北部大岛的计划，毫无疑问，如果我们不这么做，他们会很快进攻剩下的岛屿。 这会导致无数的苏联和日本士兵，以及日本平民死亡，就像美国的入侵，以及苏联在该国建立的卫星政府，绝对是一个专制的政府，会给人民带来数年甚至数十年的痛苦。 即使我们可以选择封锁和饥饿，那也会导致整个日本国家长期遭受苦难，主要是对平民，所以这也不是一个道德选择。
投下原子弹确实是拯救尽可能多的生命的最佳选择，尽管这仍然很可怕。尽管如你所说，战争已经赢得了胜利，但这并不意味着战争会很快、很容易地结束，也不意味着没有大量的流血。 几乎可以肯定，投下原子弹在某种程度上是向苏联展示武力，但在很大程度上，这也是尽可能多地拯救生命的最佳选择。 拯救生命是这个等式的重要组成部分，不要低估它。
DoctorBlackBear
Unless I am mistaken, we only had 2 readily available. It would have been a few months to continue dropping nukes
如果我没弄错的话，我们只有两个现成的原子弹。继续投放原子弹可能需要几个月的时间。
edwin_4
No one knew we only had two however. So japan assumed that this could probably continue if they didn’t surrender.
然而，没有人知道我们只有两个，所以日本认为如果他们不投降，这种情况可能会继续下去。
Bill_Ender_Belichick
Yeah it was a pretty big bluff on the USA’s part, because had Japan thought we couldn’t continue they wouldn’t have surrendered.
是的，对美国来说，这是一个相当大的虚张声势，因为如果日本认为我们不能继续，他们就不会投降。
Spry_Fly
The rape of nanking, Japan was pure evil to the countries around them during WWII. Japan is how it is today because of forced pacifism after WWII. I think western culture thinks Hitler is bad, but forget Japan was tearing through China and surrounding countries committing human rights atrocoties.
南京大屠杀事件，日本在第二次世界大战期间对他们周围的国家展现了纯粹的邪恶。 由于二战后被迫实行和平主义，日本现在才是这个样子。 我认为西方文化认为希特勒是坏的，但忘记了日本撕裂中国和周边国家的人权暴行。
DianiTheOtter
It doesn''t really help that Japan doesn''t like acknowledging the terrible shit it''s done during WW2.
日本不愿意承认它在二战期间所做的可怕的事情，这真的没什么帮助。
Spry_Fly
To be fair, Germany is the only country to just face their atrocities head on that I can think of. A lot of countries act that way to extent, like America and slavery or Turkey and genocide. Countries like to ignore the bad parts of their history.
公平地说，德国是我能想到的唯一一个直面他们暴行的国家。 很多国家都没有这么做，比如美国、奴隶制、土耳其和种族灭绝。 一些国家喜欢忽略他们历史上的不好的部分。
GrannyLow
I don''t know how you can say that the US doesn''t face slavery head on. It is a major part of our education.
Now one thing we don''t talk about as much as we probably should is how we fucked over the natives.
我不知道你怎么能说美国没有直面奴隶制。 这是我们教育的一个主要部分。
现在有一件事我们没有谈论多少，那就是我们是如何欺负当地土著人的。
Toston97
American definitely does not ignore it’s past with slavery.
美国人绝对不会忽视奴隶制的历史。
Spry_Fly
I think they could have just said, "Yep, bad. Won''t happen again."
我觉得他们可以直接说，“是的，很糟糕，我们不会再这样做了。”
gritwoodser
Atomic bombs, at the time, were a secret weapon and didn''t have the same stigma they do today. No one really knew how destructive they would be. It''s also worth noting that, prior to dropping the bombs, the US dropped leaflets warning everyone to evacuate those cities.
Edit: On further review, the bit about the leaflets wasn''t correct. Other cities got leaflets prior to conventional bombings, and leaflets were dropped after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, warning of additional atomic bombings if Japan didn''t surrender.
在当时，原子弹是一种秘密武器，没有像今天这样的污名。 没有人真正知道它们会有多大的破坏力。 值得注意的是，在投下炸弹之前，美国散发了传单，警告所有人撤离这些城市。
编辑: 进一步审查后，关于传单的那部分是不正确的。其他城市在常规轰炸之前就得到了传单，广岛和长崎原子弹爆炸之后也投放了传单，警告如果日本不投降就会有更多的原子弹爆炸。
Sam_Wilson1405
I didn''t know that, would that not tip the Japanese off that the US were planning something though?
我不知道，这难道不会让日本人觉得美国在计划什么吗？
panzerkampfwagen
There were no rules of war governing aerial warfare. In fact, there still isn''t.
空战没有战争的规则，事实上，现在仍然没有。
Farfignugen42
Two points:
The firebombing of Tokyo resulted in more direct casualties than (I think) either nuclear bombs.
There was a lot of cottage industry in the Japanese war effort. Low tech stuff like uniforms and parachutes could be sewn at home snd brought to central collecting points. So, while civilian casualties were to be avoided somewhat, they were not the taboo they are yreated as today by the media.
两点:
对东京的燃烧弹轰炸造成的直接伤亡比(我认为)两个原子弹都要多。
在日本的战争中有许多家庭手工业。 像制服和降落伞这样的低技术含量的东西可以在家里缝制，然后带到中央收集点。 因此，虽然平民伤亡是可以避免的，但是他们并不像今天媒体所说的那样忌讳。
-ratking-
At that point, the worst you could expect was a bombing raid or fire bombing, which isn''t as devastating as you''d imagine from ground level. It''s still bad, obviously, but the Japanese mentality was that surrender was worse than death. The atomic bomb was something so new and otherworldly destructive that when people who survived the first bomb tried to explain what happened, no one believed that one bomb could do that much damage. It took a second bombing to really push the point that this was something we could continue doing.
As well, at that time, three nations had figured out the potential power of atomic energy, and undoubtedly whoever got to it first would have used it. If it had been the Nazis, they''d have probably used it on the US or England, maybe the Soviets. If it was the Soviets, they would have undoubtedly used it on the US, or may have strong-armed China into their growing territory. Both of these regimes would likely have used the atomic bomb as a constant means of pushing their power in other nations, and we''d have seen more bombings as a result. I''m not saying the US didn''t use our atomic research to scare a few nations, but that we didn''t use it to annex any other countries is something I don''t think we''d have seen from either the Nazi or Soviet regimes.
In the end, the bombs actually spared more lives than they took. The Japanese were such vicious fighters that even the Nazis were uncomfortable being allied with them; they thought they were taking their Asian conquest business a little too far, if you can believe that. Essentially, the A-bombs were the punch to the face that prevented the ensuing gun-fight.
在那个时候，你所能期待的最坏情况就是轰炸或者火力轰炸，从地面上看，这并不像你想象的那么具有破坏性。显然，这仍然很糟糕，但日本人的心态是投降比死亡更糟糕。原子弹太新奇也具有太强的破坏力了，以至于当第一颗原子弹的幸存者试图解释发生了什么时，没有人相信一颗原子弹能造成那么大的破坏。第二次爆炸才真正展现这一点：即我们可以继续这样做。
同时，在那个时候，三个国家已经发现了原子能的潜在力量，而且毫无疑问，无论是谁第一个发现了原子能，都会使用它。 如果是纳粹，他们很可能会用在美国或英国使用，也许苏联。如果是苏联首先发现，他们无疑会对美国使用这种武器，或者可能已经将强大的中国并入他们不断增长的领土上。这两个政权都可能会把原子弹作为一种不断向其他国家施加压力的手段，结果我们就会看到更多的爆炸。我并不是说美国没有用我们的原子能研究来恐吓一些国家，但是我们并没有用它来吞并任何其他国家，我认为我们从来没有从纳粹或苏联政权那里看到过这种情况。
最后，这些原子弹实际上拯救了更多的生命。 日本人是非常凶残的战士，以至于连纳粹都不愿意与他们结盟，他们认为他们在亚洲征服事业上做得有点过火了，如果你能相信这一点的话。从本质上讲，原子弹是打在脸上的一记重拳，阻止了随后的枪战。
madeofpockets
I would argue that a firebombing campaign, while slower, is no less horrifying. Look at what we did to Dresden. The difference is not so much I think in the destructive force but in the shock factor, the instantaneous nature of it.
我认为，一场燃烧弹轰炸的行动虽然缓慢，但也同样令人恐惧。看看我们对德累斯顿做了什么。 我认为区别不在于破坏力，而在于冲击因素，它的瞬时的特点。
Rampant16
Absolutely, one firebombing raid on Tokyo killed more people than either atomic bomb.
Also Dresden and other German cities were firebombed by the RAF, not the US.
毫无疑问，一次对东京的燃烧弹袭击造成的死亡人数，超过了两颗原子弹中的任何一颗。
德累斯顿和其他德国城市也遭到了英国皇家空军的燃烧弹袭击，而不是美国。
fleshcoloredbanana
Just to add, the fire bombing of Tokyo claimed nearly 100,000 lives, nearly as many as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. It is just that the casualties in Tokyo happened over a much longer period of time.
另外，东京大轰炸造成近10万人死亡，几乎相当于在广岛投下的原子弹的数量。 只是东京的伤亡发生的时间要长得多。
Zuzuchic
I’ve never understood the phenomenon where people complain about something while asking why nobody ever complains about that thing.
我从来理解不了这样的现象：人们在抱怨某件事的同时，却问为什么从来没有人抱怨过那件事。
