Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[NineSpine]

Which facts that are not up for dispute amongst reasonable, honest, and intelligent people are you struggling with? That the US made a new demand for Japan's surrender prior to both bombs? That an amphibious invasion of mainland Japan and ultimate march to Tokyo would have netted significantly more loss in human life -- American and Japanese -- than the two bombs did? Nearly twice as many Germans and Allies died on D-Day, on the day, than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let alone in the campaign through western Europe to actually defeat the Nazis. There are zero reputable military historians that would tell you that landing on Japan would have been a less bloody proposition than landing in France was. And then there would have been the proposition of actually finishing the war after accomplishing that landing.

The real evil was that the Japanese didn't surrender before Nagasaki.

As an historian, you are full of shit. No respectable military historian would engage in such counter-factual nonsense. If you want to look to a reputable person who believed the bombs were unnecessary, you can read Dwight D. Eisenhower's thoughts on the matter.

[Daymanmb]

In Europe, yeah. In the Pacific, the war was raging on. Learn some history bro.

But the war was over. There wasnt two wars was there?

[Rend Blackhand]

Tens of thousands died in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there was an allied invasion of Japan instead, thousands more would certainly have died.

It's a distasteful truth but the atomic bombs saved lives.

[Daymanmb]

No. because 9/11 initiated, or rather exacerbated, a war, whereas Hiroshima ended a war. Starting wars is not necessary for the world, but ending them is.

And nuclear weapons was the only way to stop the faltering Japanese who were fighting the Americans and Russians simultaneously?

[Saucexorzski]

But the war was over. There wasnt two wars was there?

Do you know what P.T.O and A.T.O. stand for?

[NineSpine]

So then please, enlighten us all on how you properly fight a war.

Let's here was your decade worth of reading and first-hand knowledge of war zones has to offer.

Completely depends on the war. In this situation, the question is how you win a war with a nation that mainly holds naval power and has a political divide over whether they should surrender. The answer is decimate their Navy and put them in a position where land invasion is imminent, then give the political divide enough time to crack. That's what we did, and it worked, but we just decided to also drop the bombs/

[Daymanmb]

Do you know what P.T.O and A.T.O. stand for?

Doesnt change a thing. So what if there were different "theatres" of war.. the war ended everywhere else. There was no way the Japanese could maintain any chance of victory against the Russians and Americans. Youre delusional if you think, they think, they could have won still.

[Al Gorefiend]

But the war was over. There wasnt two wars was there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...f_World_War_II

World War 2 is the global name given to multiple wars happening over the same time frame, bud. All of which built and fed off each other.

[Saucexorzski]

Doesnt change a thing. So what if there were different "theatres" of war.. the war ended everywhere else.

Really, you should go back in time and tell the Japanese that. Might have saved the US 2 bombs.

[Magemaer]

OP:
What a non-question. Evil is by its own nature always contingent, never necessary.

[NineSpine]

No. because 9/11 initiated, or rather exacerbated, a war, whereas Hiroshima ended a war. Starting wars is not necessary for the world, but ending them is.

9/11 came after years and years of attacks by Al Qaeda on US embassies and other targets, such as the U.S.S. Cole. These attacks were seen by those carrying them out as a response to what started the war: American aggression in the mideast, primarily in the form of support for the Saudi dictatorship.

[Al Gorefiend]

9/11 came after years and years of attacks by Al Qaeda on US embassies and other targets, such as the U.S.S. Cole. These attacks were seen by those carrying them out as a response to what started the war: American aggression in the mideast, primarily in the form of support for the Saudi dictatorship.

I used exacerbated for a reason.

[Daymanmb]

Really, you should go back in time and tell the Japanese that. Might have saved the US 2 bombs.

The same Japanese who were vying for Peace via Russian intermediates, pre-atomic bombs?

[redeyejedi]

seeing how he made no apology

What does he have to apologize for? Did he order the strike? Did he have any influence on what was done? Did he have anything to do with what happened? No! This is the same attitude that too many people have today, and why America is giving too much to accommodate the minority. He should not have to apologize for other peoples actions.

[Drekker17]

Yes. Japan did the unnecessary evil of starting war and killing tons of civilians.

[NineSpine]

I used exacerbated for a reason.

Any attack that harms your enemy, save the final attack, exacerbates the situation. That's the point of an attack.

[nihila]

OP:
What a non-question. Evil is by its own nature always contingent, never necessary.

I like your answer Sir.

[Kalis]

But the war was over. There wasnt two wars was there?

Effectively yes, there was two wars - a European theatre and a Pacific theatre, though both spilled over into other regions and were mixed in with each other to some extent.

Were the bombs necessary? Arguable. Did they do what they were intended to do? Very much so.

They also had the consequence of showing that if you start total war, then you will lose and lose badly.

[DeltrusDisc]

I have no idea if it was the right thing to do because I wasn't alive during that time nor do I think I will ever have all the information about what led up to it, only the big bits and what we're told. The victor is the one who writes history.

This is very well-put and why I am opting to not vote.

I can see both sides, though, and they both have good reasoning.

[Stormdash]

Tens of thousands died in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If there was an allied invasion of Japan instead, thousands more would certainly have died.

It's a distasteful truth but the atomic bombs saved lives.

Sadly years of brainwashing have convinced today's mouthbreathers that Japan and the US were just playing beanbag in the Pacific theater for months and months before the mean old Americans nuked Hiroshima with no warning and for no reason. Hell, interrupted the surrender signing ceremony to do it, I guess.