Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[Forogil]

We could have been a little bit more fucking scientific and tested it before exposing it to large Japanese cities with high civilian population..

There was neither bomb material nor time for that. One bomb was tested in the US - and after the bombs were dropped the US had 0 nuclear bombs.

[Daymanmb]

There was neither bomb material nor time for that. One bomb was tested in the US - and after the bombs were dropped the US had 0 nuclear bombs.

Good answer. Nuke em! Fuck it, right?

[Dreknar20]

No you're making it out like it was okay to bomb civilians but I'm sure you were pissed when a hand full of Muslims did something similar but on a much smaller scale.

those things are not related

Unless you really believe that there are people who are like "daddy died in Iraq today, but I'm neither sad nor angry cause its a regular justified part of war yaaaay"

[Forogil]

Germany was also bombed to hell and back and was completely occupied by ground forces.

True, but the point was that nuclear weapons aren't necessary.

[Deleted]

But knowing the outcome isnt? Crazy... What else should we have done different there Nostradamus?

Nuking and killing all the civilians was wrong. There is NOTHING else to say about that. So fucking easy to wave it off when you are not suffering from the aftermath. Then let Japan drop 2 nukes in your homecountry and come back to me in 40-50 years

[wowaccounttom]

its okay.. we make Anime and Hentai..


and you dont

[Dreknar20]

Too harsh economically - and without an imminent threat that made it effective, since it was half a year after the fighting stopped. In contrast at the end of WWII the axis forces surrendered unconditionally when they surrendered.

ok unconditional surrender has nothing to do with that

The difference between the post-war eras was Germany's geopolitical strength.
After WW1 it was pissed off but still strong enough to do something about it once it got back on its feet.
After WW2 it was pissed off but just a giant black hole in the middle of Europe in capable of anything and completely occupied.

[Forogil]

Thank you for agreeing with my sarcasm? I was being 100% sarcastic in that post and you just proved my point. We didnt need nukes in any of the wars weve won since, why then?

I thought you were being sarcastic about the US losing all wars after WWII (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) due to lack of nuclear weapons.
People die in all wars - although considerably fewer nowadays, and everything indicates that more people would have died without the nuclear bombings of Japan.

- - - Updated - - -

Good answer. Nuke em! Fuck it, right?

A better solution is that if you are losing a war and called to unconditionally surrender or face imminent destruction is to actually do that, or at least after the first nuclear bomb.

[Easo]

Oh great, in this thread Japan is slowly, but surely being whitewashed and somehow cities during total war contained no military targets...
Hating on USA is hip these days xD

[Forogil]

After WW2 it was pissed off but just a giant black hole in the middle of Europe in capable of anything and completely occupied.

But unconditional surrender has something to do with this. Even the parts that weren't occupied yet at the time of the surrender became occupied after the unconditional surrender; similar to how Japan got controlled by the US after WWII. Whereas Germany was not occupied after Armistice after WWI.

[Daymanmb]

I thought you were being sarcastic about the US losing all wars after WWII (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan) due to lack of nuclear weapons.
People die in all wars - although considerably fewer nowadays, and everything indicates that more people would have died without the nuclear bombings of Japan.

- - - Updated - - -


A better solution is that if you are losing a war and called to unconditionally surrender or face imminent destruction is to actually do that, or at least after the first nuclear bomb.

No one knew how fucking catastrophic those bombs could be!
So, speculation on things not tried, might erroneously indicate that dropping the bomb is > not dropping the bomb. Well, eating is > not eating, but is eating literal shit > eating a healthy meal?
Where are the other options?
Why not test the bomb first, we had at least 2?
Why not demonstrate the bombs power first, we had at least 2?
The reason another one hasnt been dropped since is because of how bad it was, how bad it still is for people in those areas. The cancer and death rates among children was staggering, leukemia especially..
You cant justify killing kids, non-militarily active adults and forced labourers from occupied countries in this manner. This is not a "Just Act of War".

[Dreknar20]

Whereas Germany was not occupied after Armistice after WWI.

The Allies could have added that to the terms if they so choose.

Versailles was just too harsh to placate Germany or it was not harsh enough to neuter Germany.

[Bill Nye the Spy]

Do you even read what youa re typing?
You just confirmed that terrorism is fair. Murdering civilians is fine as long as they happen to live in the country you are at war with.
"Hearts and Minds", no wonder that doesn't work when it's left to people like you to execute it.

The difference is that terrorist aren't representatives of there nation. They're a small group of people that are radicals.

Anyway, Japan wasn't going to surrender at all. They were going to fight us to the death on their island and we would lose a hell of a lot more people if we invaded the main island of Japan. So to make them understand that they would all die without much US casualties, we bombed them. Notice how they surrendered quickly after. We essentially saved a ton of their lives. They should be thanking us.

But continue to say it was evil.

[Forogil]

Why not test the bomb first, we had at least 2?

One was tested, and it worked. I believe the main unforeseen problem was the long term effects, and they wouldn't detect that by a simple test - since there wasn't time for the long term. They did see the destructive power, though.

Why not demonstrate the bombs power first, we had at least 2?

Why would Japan have surrendered after a test when it didn't surrender after an actual bomb? They had several days to do that.

The reason another one hasnt been dropped since is because of how bad it was, how bad it still is for people in those areas. The cancer and death rates among children was staggering, leukemia especially..

Actually those deaths are less than some reports indicate. Not that a few thousand deaths are good, but the idea that dropping a nuke somewhere destroys a normal sized country simply isn't true.

[May90]

Oh great, in this thread Japan is slowly, but surely being whitewashed and somehow cities during total war contained no military targets...
Hating on USA is hip these days xD

Nobody disputes that. Not everyone agrees though that nuking the cities was justified and necessary.

Me, I am split on this. Nuking in itself is a pretty horrendous thing... But on the other hand, who knows how many casualties would there have been if the war proceeded "legitimately" for a few more months.

[nonameelf]

The Allies could have added that to the terms if they so choose.

Versailles was just too harsh to placate Germany or it was not harsh enough to neuter Germany.

I would say too harsh since Germany didn't start WW1. It was just used as an excuse by France to shit on a long time rival.

[Forogil]

The Allies could have added that to the terms if they so choose.

But Germany could have rejected the terms, and then the Allies would have been forced to conquer Germany.

Versailles was just too harsh to placate Germany or it was not harsh enough to neuter Germany.

Both.

[Daymanmb]

The difference is that terrorist aren't representatives of there nation. They're a small group of people that are radicals.

Are children?: The excess risk of leukemia, seen especially among those exposed as children, was highest during the first 10 years after exposure and has continued to decrease throughout the study period. However, the excess risk for cancers other than leukemia continues today, and it seems likely that this excess risk will persist throughout the lifetime of the survivors.

Are forced labourers?: and forced laborers were present in unknown numbers.

http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~dinov/cour...vivorsData.htm

[Dreknar20]

necessary.

Cant tell if something is necessary in the heat of the moment. Hell people still arguing that decades later.
But we do know it helped push Japan more towards surrender.

Then theres all this bullshit discussion about 'oooo it hurwting the poor Japanese people". Right cause Americans were throwing flower at Japanese people the few years before then lolz

[GrinnersGrin]

Should have nuked the USSR before stalingrad tbh