Liberals should stop claiming dropping Atomic weapons on Nagasaki &Hiroshima were immoral &unnecessary here's why!

[Britantic]

Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been left untouched on purpose to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the Atom bomb and to convince them to surrender.
Without them more Japanese would have died in the invasion. So it saved Japanese and American lives.Tokyo had already been flattened by B29s and firebombing, with 120,000+ civilian deaths and 1,000,000 displaced which is comparable to each atomic bomb as the two atomic bombs combined killed 210,000.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima had been left untouched on purpose to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the Atom bomb and to convince them to surrender.
The Japanese were willing to lose tens of thousands for tiny worthless islands in the Pacific, allied bombing of Japan alone had cost them 900,000 before Hiroshima&Nagasaki. The Japanese sacrificed 100,000 military personel in Okinawa and as much as 150,000 civilians out 300,000. 19 000 dead Japanese soldiers out 20,000 on iwa jima, 19,000 soldiers on Guadalcanal out of 35,000, 130,000 out of 350,000 in New Guinea campaign, 21,000 soldiers Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, 69,000 out 71,000 for the Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, Battle of Saipan out of 32,000 soldiers they lost 24,000 KIA and 5,000 suicides, Battle of Guam 18,000 out of 18,500 soldiers were kia, Battle of Peleliu out 10,900 10,675 were kia, Battle of Leyte out of 65,000 they lost 49,000. In the Burma Campaign they lost 200,000 out 350,000, they lost 85,000 against the Soviets.

The japanese personal were relentlessly willing to die for their emperor even if it meant certain death. Japanese civilians often killed themselves.
The Japanese killed 35 million Chinese and forced 200,000 chinese and korean women to be prostitutes for Japanese soldiers, thst doesn't include all the rapes of the people's they occupied.

bombings caused the Japanese surrender, thereby preventing casualties that an invasion of Japan would have involved. It saved millions of casualties in exchange of 120,000 lives. A naval blockade might have starved the Japanese into submission without an invasion, but this would also have resulted in many more millions Japanese deaths.

For those liberals who say Japan tried to surrender to the United States before the Atomic bombs were dropped yes this may be true but the United States was part of the allies who had already agreed by all the allies in the 1942 Declaration by United Nations that only unconditional surrender would be accepted by all Axis countries.

[cth96190]

I will speak from the perspective of a former army officer, who knows a bit more about such things than a university indocrinated Marxist fuckwit who is looking for another way to vilify white people.
Plan B was an invasion, which would have had an unacceptable casualty figure.
Plan C was to maintain the naval blockade; continue bombing everything that resembled a building; use biological weapons to destroy all crops; spread the plague, anthrax, typhus, rabies and smallpox.
Maintain the form of attack until there was no evidence of human life, then wait long enough for the biological agents to run their course, then land the invasion force.
As a student of history, who knows rather a lot about the nature of Japanese war crimes, I would have picked Plan C rather than two atomic bombs.

[zagor]

If you knew more about biological weapons you would know that they have the potential for vastly unintended consequences.

[cth96190]

@zagor
Known diseases contained on an island are fairly predictable.
Certainly the fleet that was blockading Japan would not have been at risk and that would have been all that mattered.

[ThisDudeHere]

Plan C could not have been maintained indefinitely.

[markscott]

I'm a liberal, and have always believe that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan was moral, as it saved many times the number of lives that it cost. Had the war continued into 1946, there would have been terrific bloodshed, as the Japanese were very fanatical. Great numbers of military personnel on both sides would have died, but worse, massive numbers of Japanese civilians would also have died. Many times more than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It's just some liberals who believe the atom bombs were immoral. if you want to look at is from a completely moral sense, the whole war was immoral, but it was the Japanese who started the conquests in the Far East around 1931.

[madhatters4]

" but the United States was part of the allies who had already agreed by all the allies in the 1942 Declaration by United Nations that only unconditional surrender would be accepted by all Axis countries."

so if this is true. then why did the japanese still get away with a conditional surrender? why were the conditions of surrender after the A-Bombs the EXACT same terms of surrender the japanese sent with the USSR to the potsdam meetings?

[Britantic]

The Japan surrendered unconditionally, they were hoping to keep their military and Manchuria as well as not be occupied. Unconditional surrender was mentioned at Potsdam meeting.
The Potsdam conference was held on the On July 26, 1945, the first atom bomb was dropped on August 6, the Soviets didn't declare war on Japan and invade Manchuria breaking their pact with the Japanese until 9 August, later on the 9th of August the 2nd atom bomb was dropped, August 15 the emperor agrees to surrender unconditionally, 28th of August the occupation of Japan begins. So fanatical were the japanes that many of their military fought on in the Pacific for days, months, years and decades after the Japanese surrender.

[madhatters4]

keeping their military and their emperial leader is not an unconditional surrender.
the allies (america and britain) called for an unconditional surrender at potsdam but the ultimate surrender was not unconditional. it's not an unconditional surrender if there are conditions allowed

[Britantic]

An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees are given to the surrendering party.
Japan was completely at the mercy of the US occupation army and the entire country was under control of the supreme commander MacArthur. The US had the power to depose the emperor as well as try and execute him as a war criminal but chose not to. The Japanese had no guarantees the US wouldn't do that and no guarantees of anything.

[madhatters4]

you are very misinformed. they were allowed to keep their imperial government. that is the definition of a condition to surrender. the unconditional surrender you are talking about is no further hostilities or acts of aggression of any sort

[Britantic]

"they were allowed" after they surrendered unconditionally. The US had the power to do what they wanted.

[madhatters4]

"The US had the power to do what they wanted." this statement is entirely unrelated to anything pertinent

as a term of the unconditional surrender (this being unconditional cessation of all military hostility) they required that their government remained in tact

THIS is the SAME requests for surrender they sent in a missive with the Soviets to Potsdam prior to the dropping of the bombs. So literally NOTHING changed about the terms of surrender before or after the dropping of the bombs

[Britantic]

They surrendered unconditionally which means they had no conditions for surrender and the occupier could do whatever they wanted, install whatever government they wanted. Before Japan surrendered unconditionally the Japanese government was a military dictatorship, the entire political system changed.
For six years the US governed Japan not the Japanese government and installed a western style democracy.

[madhatters4]

the occupation was an effort towards two things. to insure no war hostilities and convert the government towrads a democratic style government. the japanese were still able to keep their emperor and other aspects of the imperial government. (so effectively a changed to a English style with a monarch and a parliamentary system)

the terms of surrender prior to potsdam by the allies was that the emperor be removed. the emperor remained as a Condition of the surrender

[Britantic]

The Japanese were able to keep their emperor because the United States decided to let them after Japan surrendered unconditionally.

[madhatters4]

a condition of their surrender.

[Britantic]

The surrender of which was unconditional. Also when you surrender unconditionally the victor may impose whatever terms he likes breaking any previously offered terms.

[madhatters4]

"Also when you surrender unconditionally the victor may impose whatever terms he likes breaking any previously offered terms"
uh no. a surrender is a written and agreed upon agreement. so when the terms of surrender offer them the ability to keep their emperor any renege on that agreement renders the agreement null and void.

it's very simple. japan wanted to keep their emperor. prior to potsdam and at potsdam the allies said they would not accept that condition to surrender. the ultimate surrender included the agreement that the emperor remain in tact

[Britantic]

Keeping the emperor was after the Japanese surrendered unconditionally. The Japanese had no say on whatever conditions the Americans choose to impose.

[madhatters4]

keeping the emperor was a term of the unconditional surrender. the unconditional surrender being the end of all military hostility... one wouldn't happen without the other. otherwise why on earth voluntarily keep the emperor in place after a surrender had occurred when when only a month earlier it was a non-starter

[Britantic]

When you surrender unconditionally it's means you expect no terms or conditions.
The Americans and allies before were going to try and execute the emperor but after Japan surrendered unconditionally the Americans decided to let the Japanese keep him and learning from ww1 with Germany supported and rebuilt Japan. It was the right move.

[madhatters4]

so the agreed to the terms of surrender the japanese had offered prior to dropping the a-bombs. making the dropping of those bombs unecessary

seriously the same conditions of surrender offered before potsdam were the ultimate terms post the nukes. the US allowed with surrender the emperor to remain in place.

[Britantic]

Japan surrendered unconditionally, whatever came after was an American decision after the fact.
The surrender terms you speak of never included surrendering unconditionally. I dont think it included dismantling the japanese military, the occupation of Japan, the trial& execution of war criminals, the removal from power of the emperor, the trial of emperor, the American governance of japan or the loss of long held hard won Japanese terrritories and that Japan would keep a portion of his conquered Pacific processions. The US coupd not accept any surrender but unconditional as had been agreed with the other allies and had to ask Canada and Britain as previously agreed before they dropped the atom bombs.
Keeping the emperor was a bone the Americans threw the Japanese as was rebuilding& feeding Japan. They had learnt from ww1 not to be too hard on or try too humiliate a defeated enemy.

[madhatters4]

it's a splitting of hairs. was it explicitly stated that hirohito would remain in the surrender terms? no but obviously it was known that the US would allow it was the emperor's complicitness in surrender and order to japanese to surrender was the only thing that would give true surrender credence. had he not been allowed to remain a symbolic monarch there would've have been a larger segment of the population who would continue hostilities and aggression. without hirohito's acceptance of American occupation, new consitution and reorg of the government it is safe to say the many japanese people wouldn't have tolerated it

the overriding fact is the same terms of surrender offered by japan at potsdam are what ultimately were the terms surrender carried out. so you can say it is an "unconditional" surrender on paper but clearly the conditions the japanese offered at potsdam were carried out

[Britantic]

It's not splitting hairs at all unconditional surrender is unconditional surrender no matter what the Japanese were granted after they still surrendered unconditionally.

[madhatters4]

then we'll hve to disagree

to me it's a paper unconditional surrender with tacit conditions understood

[Britantic]

Nope its an unconditional surrender with no tacit conditions.
The decision was taken after the unconditional surrender by Douglas MacArthur who insisted that Emperor Hirohito retain the throne. MacArthur saw the Emperor as a symbol of the continuity and cohesion of the Japanese people. MacArthur saved the emperor and even allowed his crimes to be covered up.

[madhatters4]

again agree to disagree. or disagree to disagree if you like

[Britantic]

Well there's nothing to disagree about, they surrendered unconditionally.

[madhatters4]

on paper yes they did
but under the table hand shakes and agreements occur in political maneuverings no?

[Britantic]

There were no agreements or handshakes. When you are forced to surrender unconditionally you can't expect anything but fair treatment under the Geneva convention provided you signed up to it.

[madhatters4]

"There were no agreements or handshakes" you can't possibly know this. you are speaking on concrete terms about something you wouldn't know about geneva convention doesn't prohibit tacit agreements or understandings

[Britantic]

I know it because it was being pushed for the emperor to stand trial for war crimes after Japan surrendered unconditionally, even the Japanese government were pressuring the emperor to abdicate and take responsibility for the war.

[madhatters4]

that doesn't mean that there wasn't an understanding between the US and Hirohito that if he pushed the nation to surrender that he would allowed to remain the symbolic monarch

[Britantic]

Yes it does because hirihito was lucky he wasn't hung for his war crimes

[markscott]

madhat: The unconditional surrender surrender in world war two was not a planned, thought our process by the allies and their military people. It was something Roosevelt interjected during one of the allied conferences. Wanting unconditional surrender was actually a bad idea, as it makes the enemy more fanatical, and fight harder, killing more Americans and allied personnel. Japan was allowed to keep their emperor, because it was something that made it easier for the Japanese to surrender, and likely saved a lot of lives. None the less, Hirohito, the emperor, was a war criminal, and history should label him such.

[Britantic]

@markscott The 1943 Casablanca conference produced a unified statement of purpose, Declaration. It announced to the world that the Allies would accept nothing less than the "unconditional surrender" of the Axis powers.
Japan was allowed to keep their emperor after their unconditional surrender and was a decision taken by MacArthur as Supreme Alled commander South East Asia and governor of Japan. Keeping the emperor was not part of Japan's surrender.

[markscott]

Britanic: Yes, I am aware that the Casablanca Conference was were the allies agreed on unconditional surrender. However, if you look at the more exactly genesis of the idea at the conference, it came from Roosevelt. And as said, it was suggested without any particular prior discussion prior to the conference. Such an important idea and issuance, should have been discussed at least days prior to the conference, as it had many political and military ramifications. And that the Emperor, being a war criminal, stayed in place, was proof positive that the Japanese surrender was not unconditional. it was unconditional in name only.

[Britantic]

@markscott it was an agreement. All sides agreed that only unconditional surrender would be accepted from axis members. Roosevelt wasn't in charge of the Soviet union.
Unconditional surrender was the only option otherwise you'd still have a Nazi Germany, a facist Italy and an imperial Japan and end up fighting the same war ten years later.

[markscott]

Brit: That doesn't make sense to me. If you don't have unconditional surrender terms, then it makes it easier for a country to surrender and stop the war. If the terms had been conditional, it might have helped inspire Germans to undermine Hitler, and stop the war sooner. And it might have given Germans soldiers reason to fight to the end, and surrender easier. As was, German soldiers knew their country would be entirely at the mercy of other countries, including Russia. German soldiers fought harder and longer, to keep their wives, mothers and daughters from being serial raped at will by Russians. Had there been terms available for a surrender, they would not have needed to fight so fanatically.

[ladsin]

I wrote something quite similar not long ago but couldn’t find it. Essentially I can understand both arguments but find myself in greater agreement with the utilitarian argument that it was justifiable.

[CoffeeWC]

Bad things happen during war. However, war remains a necessary option to resolve conflicts between countries.

[NineBreaker]

I think that dropping the nukes was ordinarily too send a brave because Japan's military philosophy was at sharp odds with that odd the Western factions (e. g. Germany, USA, Britain... etc.). To the best of my understanding, capturing POW's and keeping them alive was not unheard of. In part, it's in the hopes that if their POW's are treated well, they'll treat ours likewise.

This leads me to a question about the surrender's dilemma in the European front:
Option 1: Fight to the death -> almost no chance of survival.
Option 2: Surrender, and possibly survive.

Captured POW's have also been an excellent source of intel on an adversary.

However, in the Pacific front, Japanese soldiers were far less likely to surrender or take captives. I think the nukes were merely a deterrent: Surrender collectively, or get nuked many times over.

Even if you argue for the morality of doing the first nuke, the 2nd was dropped almost immediately afterwards. Did it catalyze surrender? Sure.

While many have died, is it possible that far many more would have died, and that by killing many, you prevented the killing if far many more.

This leads to the moral dilemma similar to "If you could travel back in time and kill cute little baby Hitler?"
Or the unstoppable train dilemma:
"Should you flip the switch to save many, knowing that it will firmly m definitely kill one person?"

The easier answer is that of utilitarianism: The decision that benefits the most in spite of harming the few is the most ethical.

I agree it's a good choice most if the time, but sometimes I agree that utility isn't always the right answer, due to unintended consequences.

For example:
1. What if by killing baby Hitler, a far, far worse monster rises to occupy that vacancy?
2. What if the one person the train ran over was to discover a very potent and inexpensive cure for AIDS, an is instead obliterated by the train?

In any case, it's not much of an issue of liberals being stupid for questioning the morality of doing the nukes, or the implied morality of conservatives for presumptively considering it to be ethical.

My broken is with people who only see things as up/down black/white without considering that some things are far more complicated to give a completely satisfactory position.

My main issue with the use of nukes is the lasting effects of the lasting effects of radiation on living organisms, especially the people affected for countless generations to come. They are innocent, and we shouldn't be OK with that.

If the US government knew about the health effects of ionizing radiation and still did nothing, it would be due to one of two reasons, or combination thereof:
1. They didn't care. They knew and didn't care.
2. Desperation: they don't want to lose the war due to the ruthlessness exhibited by Japanese troops in areas like China.

Anyway... these are these are my thoughts.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

Also, the A bomb made them the Pacifists they are today, and reparations also helped them become the most technologically advanced nations on earth. It's called "utilizing resources". We wanted to win. We had atom bombs, so we used them. That THEY didn't have any is THEIR problem. The Japanese were amongst the most brutal people on earth. Of course it's always sad when civilians die, but that's war. We gave them the taste of their own medicine they needed to change their violent ways.

Good Take. I wasn't aware of the numbers of soldiers and civilians lost, so thanks for posting that.

by the way, how do you feel about the US government putting Japanese-Americans into internment camps?

[Britantic]

Seems like a natural precaution. We did the same with Germans, Austrians and Italians in Britain during ww2.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

You DID?
Yet no one complains.

And I read about the camps, they weren't so bad. They just had lack of privacy and crappy food. But everyone was given paid jobs, and they were able to play sports and grow gardens.

[Britantic]

During ww2 rationing was in full swing so the food was pretty crappy anyway, everyone in the country was put to work, even the queen was a mechanic.
Interned enemy foreign nationals were litterally sent to a holiday camp on the isle of man.

[tartaarsaus]

"And I read about the camps, they weren't so bad. They just had lack of privacy and crappy food. But everyone was given paid jobs, and they were able to play sports and grow gardens."

This is retarded

[Britantic]

@tartaarsaus Seems to make good sense during war time. Less spies that way.

[tartaarsaus]

I was hinting more at the notion that they weren't so bad.

So yeah, you have concentration camps where people are locked up with basically forced labour against very low wages, simply because they happen to have a certain specific. But it's all basically okay because they can grow a garden 🤷

[Britantic]

@tartaarsaus war time changes things espicially when your fighting for the sake of the free world.

[tartaarsaus]

That doesn't morally justify it. Oh, and war times definitely do not justify collective punishment, which is basically what it was

[tartaarsaus]

As for war times do not justify collective punishment, that's what the Geneva Conventions exist for

[Britantic]

@tartaarsaus morality doesn't win wars.
I'm sure the Geneva convention allows for the internment of enemy aliens during war and doesn't cover the internment of a nations citizens.
For instance members of the British facist party were jailed.

[tartaarsaus]

Yet morality plays such an enormous role in warfare, and armies of major countries have very strict rules of engagement, to prevent immoral behaviour.

And yeah, the Geneva convention allows for the imprisonment of those deemed guilty of those e. g. spying, not collective punishment of all with a certain ethnicity; that is collective punishment

[Britantic]

@tartaarsaus do you not think it's immoral to prolong a war rather than end it quickly with the minimum loss of life?
The Geneva convention never bans the internment of enemy nationals in your own country or the internment of your own citizens you seen to be a threat to national security. The only thing it mentions is the care of prisoners.

[tartaarsaus]

@Britantic It's simple collective punishment based on the very premise that anyone of the other ethnicity is a danger to national security, which is a preposterous proposition at the very least.

You're going truly far to justify concentration camps

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@tartaarsaus Did you have ancestors who were killed in the Holocaust? Because I don't understand why this bothers you so much.
I'm not saying life in these camps was "good", but it was better than people think. Jews didn't get paid and were being killed in numbers. Not to say abuse and deaths didn't occur, and they DID, which is bad, but they were getting paid and fed. And I read that in '44, Manzanar even had hog and chicken farms, so they were finally able to eat meat. The entire population of the country was effected by meat rations, so they had to eat rice, but it's not like they were being starved or tortured. The camp functioned like a small city. They even had schools and beauty salons. Only think they lacked was privacy. So you certainly can't compare it to the Nazi Concentration camps. We weren't trying to ethnically cleanse them, we were just making sure they wouldn't collude with the enemy. Was it right? NO! But you can't say they had it as bad as the Jews. By POW standards, the internment camps weren't as bad as people taught.

We didn't learn ANY of that in history class.

[tartaarsaus]

@ZeussLightningBolt

No.

How many chicken farms, beauty salons or whatever there were do not in any way justify or detract upon how vile it is to basically have concentration camps with forced labour based on solely ethnicity and existing racism.

[Britantic]

@tartaarsaus well our internment camps were litterally holiday camps. It was perfectly legal and necessary.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@tartaarsaus You're missing my point! I'm not saying it was justified. I'm just saying it wasn't as bad as people think.

by the way, how would you feel if Japanese interned white Americans in Japan? Just hypothetically?

[tartaarsaus]

@ZeussLightningBolt the exact same.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

I know it was a fucked up thing to do. My parents and I visited one of these camps, and we both agree it was a fucked up thing to do, and should never happened again, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

[tartaarsaus]

@Britantic

Whether camps have chicken farms or any of that nonsense does not detract from how vile concentration camps like those are.

They are a fundamental violation of any basic human right that people have, simply based on racial discrimination

[tartaarsaus]

@ZeussLightningBolt Okay. Understood

[Britantic]

@tartaarsaus was it racial discrimination or discrimination based on being a citizen of an enemy country?

[ZeussLightningBolt]

Well actually 2/3 of them were U. S. citizens, but I know what you mean. I'm certain they would have done it to white people too

Kind of like they arrested "suspected" Communists during the Cold War. So you're right, it wasn't because of their race. They just had the misfortune that their countrymen chose to attack American soil.
I read there was similar treatment of Muslims after 9/11. They didn't put them in camps, but there was a brief travel ban, and FBI and police were going into homes of random Muslims and interrogating them without warrants. It was a matter of national security. These Japanese-Americans just had the misfortune of being the same ethnicity as the enemy, and we had no way of knowing where their allegiance lied.

[tartaarsaus]

@Britantic Since we know as a historical fact that one of the major people in the decision to imprison them wrote a letter that Japanese Americans cannot be trusted because of their race, it's pretty safe to say that it's just racism.

[tartaarsaus]

Edit: some of the most important people leading up to the decision that they should be imprisonment decided they should be imprisoned, because they cannot be trusted because of their race.

[ZeussLightningBolt]

@tartaarsaus Because their race happened to be that of the enemy. I also think it's funny that this was done by a DEMOCRAT president.

[Britantic]

It was the right move, the same as we did with the Germans, Austrians and Italians.
Probably saved lives too.

[ChocolateBrowny]

Its a shame that this ever happened in world history. USA are power hungry war mongerers who wanted the world to know they have got the most powerful bomb ever made and so they killed 100s of thousands of innocent people. It is no surprise since then that they have been vastly involved in wars with countries who too want a claim of superiority in the arms race. Why should the USA hold such power and have other countries at it's mercy. They should drop their own threat before demanding others drop there's.

[MarkRet]

Liberals can be so clueless. Yes, the nuclear bombs were hideous, but the alternative, invading Japan with conventional forces, would have caused even higher casualties. Also, many American troops (possible grandfathers of these liberals?) would have been killed as well.

Japan at that time was absolutely crazy with their samurai mentality. They had NEVER been defeated in a war, and were prepared to die for their emperor. They simply NEEDED to be taken down brutally, as they had victimized their surrounding neighbors, and killed MILLIONS, which they deny to this day. The liberals never seem to notice things like that.

[Leeman-C]

Yes, I agree.

Due to the insistent of Japan Nazi Government, The war in Asia didn't stop after Germany and Spanish surrendered. If the US hadn't dropped atomic weapons, whether the US and China or Japan might have lost more soldiers and citizens (especially China that had spent over 10 years fighting against Japan)

Also the atomic bombs caused a huge negative effect in Nagasaki &Hiroshima, but we had to do this to cease the war for most countries who had suffered a lot from World War II and decrease the unnecessary cost of each country.

[Anonymous]

My brother and his wife went to Japan last year, and the thing that they said, above all, is the Japanese people are so nice, and so respectful!!
My brother told me about one day when he bought something at a little window vendor, and when the guy handed the change back, the wind took the paper receipt and blew it away. My brother said he didn't care, but some Japanese lady chased it, and caught it, and brought it back, smiling, thinking he needed it.
Their guide said to thank her, and bow.
Later, they went to a museum in Hiroshima. The one thing he said that shocked me, was that there are a number of Japanese that apologize, for forcing the US to drop the bombs! Like WTF? They 'apologize' for 'making' us bomb them? I still am not sure I believe it!!

[AlphaGhost]

I am not saying the use of Atomic bomb was positive move cuz due to US testing we have multiple countries with Atomic weapons and the entire planet is Nuclear minefield waiting for someone to push the button and end life as we know it.
BUT Japanese were responsible for very very very serious war crimes in China with Rape and Murder being treated as nothing. They use to force some Chinese civilians to run like scary puppies and then Chase them with rifle Bayonets and whoever impale someone first and return with trophy wins the game.
They were extreme assholes in Manturia China.

[ronaldo75]

The left today still acts as if the Japanese where alter boys during WWII. They were going to fight to the last man. It's very common for WWII vets to say that the Japanese were tougher soldiers than the Germans and were quite clear in communicating the fact that the allies were going to have to kill everyone in the military and on the island of Japan before they would quit. Asians are no joke during war. I don't care, I'll say it. Look at Vietnam, Korea and China during their revolution. The nukes had to be dropped to get them to stop or WWII would've ended in Europe but lasted into the 1950s in the Pacific.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Okay, so what Liberals say this? Like, who?

Anybody with even an ounce of knowledge of 20th Century history knows what options Truman had and why he made the choice that he did. That doesn't make it moral. In fact, that's the whole problem: all of his options were immoral. That's the price of being a leader (in political philosophy, this is called the Dirty Hands Paradox). Saying that dropping the bomb is moral because the other options were worse is just stupid.

[hahahmm]

I think the real reason two bombs were dropped was to test them on live people. The research data on treating the victims & monitoring them for decades was worth a lot if you wanted to plan future nuclear wars. Of course that does not sound very moral so a cover story was needed.

In the context of a war where all sides bombed civilians on purpose it doesn’t really matter tho

[EpicDweeb]

I tend to agree. The nature of the Japanese would have been to fight to the last man... Woman and child. If not for those bombs millions more Americans and Japanese would have died in that war. As terrible as it was it saved far more lives than it took.

[Exterminatore]

Agreed. Also to those who state japan tried to surrender. Who cares? Vengeance was deserved and required so far as I’m concerned.

There were guys that took a roughly a month to die as they were trapped in ships in Pearl Harbor. Some drowned to death. Some burned to death. Sorry, a price had to be paid for that and the price is paid when WE say it is.

Some will mention the civilians. Those who work in factories to support the Japanese war effort, DESPITE what the Geneva Convention agreement states, is immaterial. They were actively in support and furnishing aid to the enemy and can die right along side them. Also that applies to anyone who applauded and provided moral support and agreed with what Japan did. The only innocents to parish were infants and children and those that didn’t fall into the above descriptions.

[SpiderManFan2002]

I disagree. I think this was immoral.

Dropping the atomic bomb on those cities not only killed many innocent people, but it is still affecting people today. Innocent babies are being born with deformities all because one person decided to press that button.

[Britantic]

So would wiping out millions by invading Japan have been more moral?

[SpiderManFan2002]

No! Nothing would have been moral it was war, so how could have anything been moral?

Go tell a mother or father in Japan, who have children with deformities that attack was a moral thing to do!

[Britantic]

Would it have been more moral to allow the Japanese to continue killing million of chinese people? Should the Nazis have been allowed to wipe out all of Europe's Jews & Slavs?
I would happily go tell a mother or father in Japan, who have children with deformities that it was brought on my their ancestors actions.

[SpiderManFan2002]

It was immoral for for the Japanese to kill the Chinese and the Nazis were also immoral. But surely there would have been a better way of dealing with it than nuking civilians!

You'd happily tell a mother and father in Japan that their children's deformities are brought on by their ancestors? Therefore, do you think it's okay for you to be expected to carry "white guilt" because of what your ancestors did to the black people and enslaved them?

[Britantic]

What better way was there to stop the Japanese from bayoneting chinese babies and the Nazis from gasing Jews & slavs? The better way you talk of was called appeasement and it was tried, all it did was encourage the Japanese and Nazis that they could do whatever they wanted and no one was willing to stop. them.

If my ancestors were so terrible that an atom bomb had to be dropped to stop them if understand. Even the Germans recognise that flattening German cities to the ground with hundreds of thousands of casualties, millions of homeless.
My ancestors didn't enslave anyone but I wouldn't expect Africans to have "African" guilt for their enslaving of white people.

[SpiderManFan2002]

Nothing could have been moral. It was war. War is immoral.

You asked me, "would wiping out millions by an invasion been more moral?" As said before, nothing could have been moral at war. But if a country had to choose between nuking and invading an invasion would be the lesser of the two evils. Because at least children today would be healthy and could live in their own land.

So what do you call stripping the rights away of blacks, taking their names away, beating pregnant women and then just after they've given birth they'd be expected to work on the fields again? What do you call that if it isn't slavery?

[Britantic]

So should my people have sat out ww2 and let the Axis do whatever they wanted, would that have been moral?
An invasion of Japan would have wiped out a huge portion of the Japanese people and the red be fewer alive today.

"So what do you call stripping the rights away of blacks, taking their names away, beating pregnant women and then just after they've given birth they'd be expected to work on the fields again? What do you call that if it isn't slavery?"
My people never did any of that but Africans did the same in Spain and also abducted people from my country and enslaved them, they never returned home.

[SpiderManFan2002]

So you deny everything taught in the history classes? Nelson Mandela was locked up for no reason was he? MLK made the 'I have a dream' speech for fun did he?

I personally believe a Nuke would have done far more damage than an invasion and as I said previously, in war you cannot describe anything as moral because people die, people with families and lives, regardless who's side they are on, die.

I'm not saying people should have sat down and let anything happen. Of course, they had to fight in defense. But that doesn't make it moral.

"An invasion of Japan would have wiped out a huge portion of the Japanese people" - Firstly, civilians should not have been brought into this. The nuke did wipe out a huge proportion of Japanese people and is still affecting innocent babies today- babies who didn't do what their ancestors did, why does a baby deserve to pay the price for a horrific act in which their ancestors committed years ago?

[Britantic]

My people didn't enslave anyone, maybe yours did. MLK is an American, Nelson Mandela was a nationalist jailed for treason in South Africa.
So what your saying is that self defence is moral but the defence of others is immoral.
Civilians were among military targets that produced arms, bullets and bombs. Military bases, naval bases an air bases were in the cities.
210,000 died from atomic bombs vs 800,000+ that died from firebombing of Japan, 250,000 Japanse dead in Okinawa, 200,000 soldiers in Burma and all the other island campaigns close or above one million all before the bombs were dropped.
So you would choose the death of millions of Japanese people over the lose of 200,000. That's very immoral.
Why did a Chinese baby deserve to bayoneted in their mother's womb.

[SpiderManFan2002]

I don't even know what to say to you... Japan struck Pearl Harbor yes, that was immoral but they didn't go for US civilians who had no part in the war, did they? So why was it the US decided to drop a nuke where the civilians stayed if the US were going to defend themselves why not attack a Japanese Military base?

I don't know how many times I have to say that to you when it comes to war nothing is moral, moreover, everything is the two evils. One is lesser than the other. Invading Japan would not be the right thing to do if in defense the US should have attacked a Japanese Military base, not the innocent people.

At this point, I find no use in arguing pointlessly with you. Nelson Mandela was jailed because he was a black man fighting for his rights. No other reason.

And you're from the UK. Like me. And slaves were sold here too. And then all the racism which occurred after that? Need I delve into that?

[VIVANT]

It was not freeze of anyone the United States wanted to show off their power to Russia bc they were vying to dominate the World

All the things you talk about beung excuses to drop bombs on Japan, is what happens in war and in the very same the United States was And is involved in ongoing and leading us to potential third war. The war never stopped. Only people who have the privilege of sitting on the side lines or lust for power, boast about bombs.

All using atomic bombs did was normalize something that was and should still be a crime against humanity and force innocent people to suffer for generations.

It is an immoral atrocity and there is no way to justify the harm done in the name of peace it’s such tremendous propaganda

While the United States was dropping bombs to so call bring leave to Japanese citizens they were supposedly trying to save- the sane they were radiating to death- there were Lynchings people being being tortured decapitated burned alive under the law , in the United States.

As for bayonets and rape... you can’t possibly believe the United States is free if that sin in war. Look up Vietnam for starters- there are whole books dedicated to the rapes and torture of innocent village girls- . Children. Accounts by the soldiers themselves as well as victims. Of course rape and murdering babies muttering Anyone, is an atrocity along with everything else in war. Point being the United States was not dropping bombs due to any moral high ground. Especially not while selling war arms to Nazi Germany.

Bombs are meant for domination , not for peace.

[VIVANT]

#SpidermanFan2000

That was obviously not in response to you I support your position.

in my opinion war is immoral and bombs to tenth of immorality of regular war. There is no argument made that can justify it. There was a united front against Fascism that was used as an excuse to dive in for more power... it was meant to end all wars ostensibly , instead there are more bombs than ever non stop wars with the threat of nuclear genocide hanging over us all.

I don't know what freeze was meant to be - probably free.

Dropping bombs was Not meat to free anyone*

[VIVANT]

Boys with toys was all it was.. massive dangerous toys. It weighed heavily on the conscience of the scientists brought in to build them ( maybe not the Nazis maybe they felt ok 🤷‍♀️) and the consequences linger on.

Nelson Mandela was not a terrorist lol wtf

[SpiderManFan2002]

@VIVANT Thank you :)

[Britantic]

Pearl harbour has nothing to do with it, the atomic bombs save millions of lives. Cities were military bases and where arms were produced. Attacking Japanese cities hampered the japanrs war effort.
The most moral thing to do in war is end as quickly as possible with minimum loss of life which is what the atomic bombs did.
Nelson Mandela was jailed for treason and yes he was fighting for black rights in South Africa, but that was South Africa.

Slaves were not sold in Britain, at best they were still left on ships in port but there was never a need for slaves in Britain.
Britain was the first nation to abolish slavery.
White people don't enslave Africans, it was other Africans who did that in exchange for trade. Slavery was a practice in Africa going back thousands of years, the african-Arab slave trade was massive.
Between the 16th-19th century African pirates enslaved millions of white Europeans.
From at least 1500, the Africans also conducted raids along seaside towns of Italy, Spain, France, England, the Netherlands and as far away as Iceland, capturing men, women and children. On some occasions, settlements such as Baltimore, Ireland were abandoned following the raid, only being resettled many years later. Between 1609 and 1616, England alone had 466 merchant ships lost to African pirates with their crew enslaved.
Delve away into all the racism after that.

[Britantic]

@VIVANT last I checked the US did not kill 35 million ever, nobody in history has killed that many but that's the kind of loses the Japanese would have taken if the US had invaded, also millions of more Japanese would have died anyway as the Japanese were starving. Starvation is a hard death.

[ENTP_EMO]

I don't know. The project started in 1941 and probably originally intended for the Nazis. Berlin looked like it was going to fall by the time it was completed. What's done is done. The allies killed almost a million Japanese civilians prior to that point (Japanese total casualties in ww2 is 3.2m, with 1m civilians). The bombs killed what? 150k combine? It feels more like a demonstration to the Soviets after the iron Curtin split Europe. Meh, it's already done lol.

[GuidoThePizzaMaker]

The fire bombings of Tokyo, show that woth or without the nuke the USA was adamant about making Japan surrender and ending the war.

Not to mention, people forget that in Manchurria the full assault of the Soviets was taking place.

Japan had no choice to surrender. The Atomic bomb just made them surrender sooner.

In war times commanders need to make tough decisions. That was one of them. Its not good or bad. It is what it is

[Massageman]

You're right, of course. War sucks: we know that! A longer war sucks more, by extrapolation. The two A-bombs used on Japan were (relatively) low-power by today's standards. Looking at the big picture, the result was a quick resolution to the war and a net saving of thousands- if not millions more lives- that would have been lost had the war droned on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on any longer than it had.

[Guanfei]

In fact, it's wrong. Half wrong I should say. Of course, Japan did nasty shit. Of course the US wanted a quick victory as the americans were getting tired of the war.
But above all, the bomb was a display of power, to the world, and mostly to the russians. The US wanted to show they had the bomb, they wouldn't hesitate to use it, and that USSR should calm its ass as it was now the US who had the upper hand.
That's all there is to it. The US showing their shiny toy to impress the russians.