There was no good reason for dropping Nukes on Japan during WW II

Originally posted by Danbones
most of the brass in the US would likely have had relatives, and or investments, or some connection to that area in Europe

Any source for that silly claim....

You apparently did not even know Germany's unconditional surrender took place on 7/5/45 and the trinity test took place on 16/7/45 more than 2 months after Germany surrendered....

Also, regarding bombing the Japanese sites because they were supposedly nuclear sites makes sense in that hindsight is 20/20.. we seem to be certain they weren't far along developing the bomb now but at the time we could have been easily confused about that.

Why is dropping and atomic bomb on a city and killing 100 thousand immoral?
But firebombing a city and killing a greater amount A-OK?

Why is killing 100K people with an atomic weapon in the span of seconds immoral?
But, killing millions over the course of the war with convential weapons, tanks, and hardships A-OK?

Why is the immoral stigma stuck to the nuclear weapon and not the other means?

Everyone is just as dead.

reply to post by elitelogic


I've wondered that more than once...

War is all about horrific choices. Seldom are they "good" choices, only less bad.

Fat Boy, and Little Boy, were all other considerations aside, seen as the less evil choice. I doubt any of the decision makers rejoiced over using them.

Remember, they're the ones who saw the numbers of dead estimated in a land invasion of Japan. Estimates that I've seen read hundreds of thousands, possibly approaching millions, of dead on both sides.

Good reason to drop the bombs? No. Less evil? I'd have to say yes. It ended a horrific span of time from the late thirties to the middle of the forties that saw millions of people dead, the actual numbers of dead will almost certainly never be known...

I'm sorry but wasn't Japan threatening us?


I guess I don't really know...


Like, weren't they allies or something with Nazi Germany?


I don't really know, I don't know much about history.

reply to post by seagull


sure, they didn't need the bomb in europe.....i'm thinkin they didn't need it in Japan either

reply to post by Danbones


"need it"? No, they didn't need it. They could have beaten Japan in two other ways... Blockade. Invasion.

How many starve to death, or die from related illnesses before Japan surrenders? More than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be my guess... That's what the blockade brings...assuming it even works in the first place...

Invasion? Everytime I think about this I thank God it didn't happen. The most conservative estimates I've seen the death toll would have been in the millions... Both sides would have been bled white...Japan moreso obviously, civilian causulties beyond count...

So...

Three horrible choices: Use the atomic weapons in the hopes that the shock of it will force the Japanese to surrender... Several hundred thousand die. Horrible choice, and a genie is out of the bottle.

Blockade. How many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands die of starvation? How many others of diseases that always follow along with famine? Even more horrific.

Invasion. How many hundreds of thousands would have died in this scenario? Or would it have been millions? What did invasion do to Europe, where cousins were fighting each other... How much worse when there was a very real racial bias attached? There was genuine hatred going both ways in this portion of WWII... The end result of this scenario is just as horrific as any atomic bomb, more so infact in my opinion.

So...

Three horrible scenarios... In which hundreds of thousands die, or more. Hobson's choice. The PTB picked the least horrific of the three available solutions... You are, of course, welcome to disagree.

Originally posted by daaskapital
Too bad that the dropping of the bombs is what led to the Cold War

In my opinion, the dropping of the bombs should be considered as a war crime. But, when was the last time the USA got done on War Crimes

What is interesting though, is that Japan could have had the last laugh. They had their "super weapon" deployed at the time of the bomb dropping. They had kick arse submarines which could launch planes which were equipped with biological weapons. They were going to his the US with them, but didn't in the end. They instead destroyed their submarines, so the US would not find out.

Dropping the bombs prevented Japan from falling to the Soviets. So in many respects, and Japanese citizens who whine about the bombing ought to be deported to North Korea. As that is what Japan would of become.

Strong Japanese army is a threat to peace in the region and the USA!

Self-Defense forces of Japan will be transformed into full-fledged army. New Japanese prime-minister confirme in public his intention to reach this goal. This definitely amounts to provocation of tensions with China. I'd even call it a step to war.
I see it as most probable that D.C. pols had prompted Japanese prime-minister act so. They need a strong ally in the region to rely upon. And they see Japan in this role.
Wella, aren't Yankees scared Japan may well start as their ally, financially and militarily fed up by them..... and then it may use its mighty army against American dominance in the region? I am sure Japs hate that big American muscle in the region which they see exactly as their own domain!
Furthermore, you should know the mentality of Japanese people. In this exactly case Americans might keep in mind Japanese still remember that America is wholly responsible for those merciless nuclear bombardments of the Japanese cities in the aftermath of WW II. I'm sure absolutely Japanese will wait till the suitable enough moment for a retaliation strike on the USA. Ironically, it could be some American weapon they'll use.

reply to post by BrunoPiani


No, they won't.

Japan, and the United States are far too intertwined economically for them to ever go to war, again. Not to mention that neighbor across the Sea of Japan... There is far more likelihood that China and Japan would go to war, than the U.S., and Japan.

I find it very unlikely that Japan will go to war with anyone, unless they're attacked first. They remember only too well what happened the last time they waged a war of aggression... They lost.

For something as ephemeral as vengeance? I doubt it.

Originally posted by BrunoPiani
This definitely amounts to provocation of tensions with China.

So China claims everything they can, including islands that have belonged to Japan for over a hundred years, and Japan doesn't have the right to build their forces up just in case? Like I said in another thread, it's Japan's fault China is laying claim to everything that has resources under it, and that China is pushing everyone else out of the way right?

Considering that even if the Japanese build their army up, they're going to rely on the US for protection with the US carrier, and the Air Force wing that is stationed there, as well as for training (not to even touch on the economic ties), you will never see a "retaliatory strike" on the US.

Originally posted by BrunoPiani
keep in mind Japanese still remember that America is wholly responsible for those merciless nuclear bombardments of the Japanese cities in the aftermath of WW II.

Check the time line.

Japan was nuked twice then afterwards WW-II for them ended. I'll keep it real simple, There was even a bunch of people from around the world on a ship in one of their bays and a bunch of scribbling that went on a piece paper to prove it.

Things like facts and historical accuracy are lost on some I suppose.

Meh.

I've posted this before on here.

A major reason why we nuked Japan twice was to show off our new weapon to the Russians. Also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were POW camps. We wanted to send the message to Russia that not only did we have this new devastating bomb but we also have no problem sacrificing our own people and to prove we were serious(and a bit MAD) we did it twice.

Guess Japan shouldn't attacked the Us then, but knowing ATS they would say that was just a 'false flag'.

The bombs were dropped to END a bloody war after the island hopping campaign, and banzai charges, the kamazi runs on naval ships.

A mainland invasion of Japan would have cost millions Japanese,American and other allied lives,. a war of attrition and disease, and yes starvation.

Think it is a disservice of people second guessing what happened decades ago the war needed to end it took a military, and financial toll on US.

And they did what they did the war ended and the rest is history America recovered, Japan became an economic powerhouse, and the countries are friends.

Originally posted by BrunoPiani
Strong Japanese army is a threat to peace in the region and the USA!

Only if you are China or North Korea..... or a slappy of them...hint, hint.

Japan has been a very good World Citizen since WWII, I see no evidence of them returning to their Militaristic / Expansionist days. We need to have a real strong Military Ally in the region and they will fulfill that bill well.

reply to post by rickymouse


if we had killed their emperor with a nuke we MIGHT still be fighting them to this day,he was a LIVING god to them that they could interact with and touch,kind of like what north koreas leader did we explicity forbid bombing of the imperial pallace for exactly this reason in ww2.now if we found out all their generals but not the emperor were some where that would have been quite a sweet target