Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[Dreknar20]

The rise of the Nazis is 100% contingent upon the humiliation and punishment of Germany after WWI.

which is ireelevant if Germany was geopolitical incapable of participating in another World War

[NineSpine]

which is ireelevant if Germany was geopolitical incapable of participating in another World War

They were supposed to be incapable of doing so. How'd that work out?

[Obelisk Kai]

I am not an expert but you should read the quote of Admiral William Leahy that you can also find here : http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rea...-lives/5308192

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Yet reams of official material shows that the Japanese were NOT ready to surrender.

Even the bomb didn't cause them to surrender...at least not in full. The real catalyst for surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, something which shocked the Japanese.

The Japanese had deluded themselves that the Soviet Union, with whom they had a non-aggression pact, could function as a middle man and peacebroker between them and the Allies.

Once the Soviets attacked, and once the bomb rendered Ketsu-Go futile, they convened a last meeting of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (eight people including the Emperor, the Lord of the Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Minister of War, the Minister of the Navy, the Foreign Minister and the two chiefs of staff of the Army and the Navy). At this meeting they STILL stalemated over a proposal to surrender. That's why the Emperor was invited, in an unheard of (but probably pre-planned) breach of protocol to break the deadlock and render his decision to surrender.

[Saucexorzski]

You think the categorization of the organization committing the act is what determines the validity of the act? Do I even need to point out how absurd that is? It's laughable on it's face.

Well you should since there were warnings before the bombs were dropped and there was no warnings before 9/11. the bombs were dropped to encourage surrender, 9/11 was done to strike at the US because they saw a weakness and exploited it. If the US had every really considered Al-Qaeda a serious threat before it may or may not have been able to but who would have thought a terrorist group would have such reach before 9/11?

[Berengil]

What is this nonsense and hand wringing?

In war, cities are legitimate targets. They are centers of commerce, communication, industry, resupply for front line troops, and ( in their populations) sources of reinforcements. If you destroy the cities of a modern industrial power, its will is broken and its ability to resist vanishes.

And the idea that a ground invasion wouldn't have been necessary? Maybe not. But the end would not have come so soon. Frankly, the Japanese were losing the war. Losers don't get to set the timetable.

The idea of international law as applied to war is laughable. You know who makes the rules? Whoever wins. So, either you win or you get to be the winner's plaything.

But ultimately, a lesson was taught at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A lesson not just for Japan, or the USSR, but for everyone alive then and everyone in years to come. That lesson is this:

Do NOT fck with the US or you will burn. Or as I've heard it said elsewhere: " Fck with the bald eagle, you get the claws."

You can all thank w/e god you believe in that its the US and not Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, or the USSR that got to nukes first.

[NineSpine]

Yet reams of official material shows that the Japanese were NOT ready to surrender.

Even the bomb didn't cause them to surrender...at least not in full. The real catalyst for surrender was the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, something which shocked the Japanese.

The Japanese had deluded themselves that the Soviet Union, with whom they had a non-aggression pact, could function as a middle man and peacebroker between them and the Allies.

Once the Soviets attacked, and once the bomb rendered Ketsu-Go futile, they convened a last meeting of the Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (eight people including the Emperor, the Lord of the Privy Seal, the Prime Minister, the Minister of War, the Minister of the Navy, the Foreign Minister and the two chiefs of staff of the Army and the Navy). At this meeting they STILL stalemated over a proposal to surrender. That's why the Emperor was invited, in an unheard of (but probably pre-planned) breach of protocol to break the deadlock and render his decision to surrender.

The mistake you are making is "Once the Soviets attacked, and once the bomb rendered Ketsu-Go futile..." You are assuming this required both, when it didn't. It may not have even required either. I've seen the evidence you are referring to, and what it can be summed up as is "Japan had a plan for a land invasion, therefore they wouldn't surrender." That's nonsense./

- - - Updated - - -

What is this nonsense and hand wringing?

In war, cities are legitimate targets. They are centers of commerce, communication, industry, resupply for front line troops, and ( in their populations) sources of reinforcements. If you destroy the cities of a modern industrial power, its will is broken and its ability to resist vanishes.

And the idea that a ground invasion wouldn't have been necessary? Maybe not. But the end would not have come so soon. Frankly, the Japanese were losing the war. Losers don't get to set the timetable.

The idea of international law as applied to war is laughable. You know who makes the rules? Whoever wins. So, either you win or you get to be the winner's plaything.

But ultimately, a lesson was taught at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A lesson not just for Japan, or the USSR, but for everyone alive then and everyone in years to come. That lesson is this:

Do NOT fck with the US or you will burn. Or as I've heard it said elsewhere: " Fck with the bald eagle, you get the claws."

You can all thank w/e god you believe in that its the US and not Nazi Germany, or imperial Japan, or the USSR that got to nukes first.

Was the world trade center a legitimate target?

- - - Updated - - -

Well you should since there were warnings before the bombs were dropped and there was no warnings before 9/11. the bombs were dropped to encourage surrender, 9/11 was done to strike at the US because they saw a weakness and exploited it. If the US had every really considered Al-Qaeda a serious threat before it may or may not have been able to but who would have thought a terrorist group would have such reach before 9/11?

Al Qaeda attacked numerous embassies and blew up a U.S. ship.

[bledgor]

So our rules of engagement are only for fun? To be disposed of when its to our benefit?

- - - Updated - - -



Pretty sure the allies claimed victory already, bud. Its right there in history, plain as day.

Did we learn the same history of WW2? There were no limits, no rules of engagement it was killed or be killed. The phony wars we have had since then (and the lack of a proper resolution/result) are not real wars because our generals haven't been allowed to wage it. War isn't pretty, it isn't nice, and it should be a last resort, but when you do engage in war you make sure you win at all costs (this is what both of my grandpas who served in WW2 have told me).

[Saucexorzski]

But the fact remains: They shouldn't have.
It was not necessary at all.

Humans have a tendency to ask forgiveness then permission, i see nothing diferant with here.

[Obelisk Kai]

The mistake you are making is "Once the Soviets attacked, and once the bomb rendered Ketsu-Go futile..." You are assuming this required both, when it didn't. It may not have even required either. I've seen the evidence you are referring to, and what it can be summed up as is "Japan had a plan for a land invasion, therefore they wouldn't surrender." That's nonsense./

They weren't planning to surrender until they had at least tried Ketsu-Go. And how long would that take? Operation Olympic was still months away.

How many Japanese would starve to death in the meantime?

How many would die in the bomb raids?

How many civilians would suffer and die under Japanese rule as the war dragged on because they refused to surrender?

[quras]

At the time. Yes, it was necessary.

[Dreknar20]

They were supposed to be incapable of doing so.

"supposed to be". Are you just going along with my point?

[Berengil]

The mistake you are making is "Once the Soviets attacked, and once the bomb rendered Ketsu-Go futile..." You are assuming this required both, when it didn't. It may not have even required either. I've seen the evidence you are referring to, and what it can be summed up as is "Japan had a plan for a land invasion, therefore they wouldn't surrender." That's nonsense./

- - - Updated - - -



Was the world trade center a legitimate target?

- - - Updated - - -



Al Qaeda attacked numerous embassies and blew up a U.S. ship.

False equivalency. The WTC was an unprovoked attack, much like Pearl Harbor. Just because the terrorists don't like how we live doesn't justify launching such an attack. But what was justified by the WTC attack was what happened to Afghanistan thereafter. Not to mention the high and mighty Mr Bin Laden getting shot by a navy seal and dumped in the ocean.

I repeat: F with the bald eagle, you get the claws.

[Saucexorzski]

Al Qaeda attacked numerous embassies and blew up a U.S. ship.

And had never reached the main land of the US before. Thus they were considered a minor threat at the time. so whats your point again? you trying to make the US out to be Al-Qaeda or something...its really starting to lose cohesiveness.

[Templar 331]

Was it necessary? Maybe.

It is impossible to say what will happen/would have happened. All we can say for sure is what did happen. The war with Japan ended and we are now allies with them. The world found out first hand what the horrors of nuclear war entails and we haven't had another nuke used for war since. It is the best scenario you can imagine.

[Erolian]

In the sense of stopping land invasions or not or trying to determine how many human lives would be lost regardless of nationality? Maybe. Its hard to say for certain what the best idea would have been. People will be opinionated with evidence backing both sides.

In the sense of fuck them we're not letting more of our own people die to this BS? Absolutely.

[nonameelf]

False equivalency. The WTC was an unprovoked attack, much like Pearl Harbor. Just because the terrorists don't like how we live doesn't justify launching such an attack. But what was justified by the WTC attack was what happened to Afghanistan thereafter. Not to mention the high and mighty Mr Bin Laden getting shot by a navy seal and dumped in the ocean.

I repeat: F with the bald eagle, you get the claws.

Um, I'm pretty sure they targeted the US because of the US' non-stop fucking around in the middle east, not just because they don't like how we live. So, yes, it was a provoked attack.

[Berengil]

Did we learn the same history of WW2? There were no limits, no rules of engagement it was killed or be killed. The phony wars we have had since then (and the lack of a proper resolution/result) are not real wars because our generals haven't been allowed to wage it. War isn't pretty, it isn't nice, and it should be a last resort, but when you do engage in war you make sure you win at all costs (this is what both of my grandpas who served in WW2 have told me).

Also this. " War is hell" said Gen Sherman. I agree. And we should make sure that is it so hellish, so costly, and so unutterably horrible for those who attack us that others take a lesson from that and f off from touching the US.

[Saucexorzski]

I have a feeling that those who are saying it was evil and unnecessary just think that because of the word "Nuclear" before the word bomb.

[Berengil]

In the sense of stopping land invasions or not or trying to determine how many human lives would be lost regardless of nationality? Maybe. Its hard to say for certain what the best idea would have been. People will be opinionated with evidence backing both sides.

In the sense of fuck them we're not letting more of our own people die to this BS? Absolutely.

This as well. They started it. We had a way to finish it without losing 1 more US soldier.

The very definition of a no-brainer decision.

[Saucexorzski]

Also this. " War is hell" said Gen Sherman. I agree. And we should make sure that is it so hellish, so costly, and so unutterably horrible for those who attack us that others take a lesson from that and f off from touching the US.

Yep, Sherman knew how to win wars. Guy was rather brilliant.