Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[SirPiken]

Yes
/10char

[Dreknar20]

I would say too harsh since Germany didn't start WW1

what does starting a war have to do with anything.....

[Daymanmb]

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.

And we also know hundreds of thousands of innocents died and suffered unimaginable deaths because of it.. If we didnt know its power, we were reckless and stupid to use it..

[nonameelf]

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

Yes, countries can reject demands for unconditional surrenders. Which is what the treaty of Versailles was.

[Project 501D13R]

Ultimately nuking japan was a necessary evil, while the nuking killed over a hundred thousand people, a mainland invasion would have killed millions, so by nuking Japan, it was the only way to end WWII with a minimal loss of life.

[nonameelf]

Ultimately nuking japan was a necessary evil, while the nuking killed over a hundred thousand people, a mainland invasion would have killed millions, so by nuking Japan, it was the only way to end WWII with a minimal loss of life.

But why was a mainland invasion necessary. They're an island and their air force and navy were pretty much crushed by that point. It's not like they were going to march their army across the pacific or anything.

[Xargoth6634]

After witnessing Obama (whom I despise) set foot into Hiroshima presumably to simply to assert his American might seeing how he made no apology or feel any real remorse, coupled with the responses of other Americans

Well this intelligent and unbiased lead-in will result in a great thread.

[May90]

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

I do find it a bit hypocritical as well that people talk about the victims of the nukes so much, while the total number of killed Japanese civilians during the war is many times higher than that. But then, this thread is specifically about the nukes, so...

[zorothusian]

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".

The Answer is we had 3 bombs 2 were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Daymanmb]

Ultimately nuking japan was a necessary evil, while the nuking killed over a hundred thousand people, a mainland invasion would have killed millions, so by nuking Japan, it was the only way to end WWII with a minimal loss of life.

You could have learned some facts that contradict your point if only you read a page or 2. A quick google search would tell you closer to 200k people died with thousands more suffering from cancer, and birth defects attributed to the fallout..

[zorothusian]

But why was a mainland invasion necessary. They're an island and their air force and navy were pretty much crushed by that point. It's not like they were going to march their army across the pacific or anything.

Okay so what your saying we should have continued to bomb them in the air and put a naval blockade in place. That way millions more civilians died of starvation.

[Daymanmb]

The Answer is we had 3 bombs 2 were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thats not the answer to my real question but does further beg the question, why the fuck didnt we try to intimidate or test with any one of the three available, considering we had 3 and only used 2?

[cuafpr]

yes, it saved US lives and likely enemy lives as well in the long run. The army was not going to surrender this is a military that considered it owner to kamikaze our ships... grounded battle ships to act as artillery platforms, charged tanks with swords vs surrender.

Did it also server as a shot of force to USSR and others yes, was it also a real world test of a new weapons yes.. does that change the fact it was the right call no. Hell the didn't surrender after the first one and almost didn't after the 2nd.

[Dreknar20]

And we also know hundreds of thousands of innocents died and suffered unimaginable deaths because of it..

1. No one is innocent, this is war not an episode of Law and Order
2. People died *gasp......its almost like.......that's the point of war......

[Daymanmb]

Okay so what your saying we should have continued to bomb them in the air and put a naval blockade in place. That way millions more civilians died of starvation.

Thats not the only other option. Take off your blinders. This isnt a 2 party political race, there are more than only 2 shitty options...

[zorothusian]

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

That's what people do best

- - - Updated - - -

Thats not the only other option. Take off your blinders. This isnt a 2 party political race, there are more than only 2 shitty options...

lol you need to take the blinders off. Stop being a hate basher

[Daymanmb]

1. No one is innocent, this is war not an episode of Law and Order

Includes children? Forced labourers from other conquered nations? How culpable are they, Dreknar20?

[Dreknar20]

why the fuck didnt we try to intimidate or test

We did test them. Those tests showed they can explode properly.

- - - Updated - - -

Includes children? Forced labourers from other conquered nations? How culpable are they, Dreknar20?

Do explain Mr. Eugenik

What CRIME are they innocent of?
War is not divded between the innocent and guilty.

[Daymanmb]

Stop being a hate basher

What is that? Not buying into it being "the only way"? Presenting facts in the face of feelings? Im confused, do you not like knowing how many children died from cancer, long after the bombs went off?

- - - Updated - - -

We did test them. Those tests showed they can explode properly.

- - - Updated - - -


Do explain Mr. Eugenik

What CRIME are they innocent of?
War is not divded between the innocent and guilty.

You cant claim that no one is innocent and then say, "Well, they might be innocent but theyre accepted casualties of war"... you cant flip flop like that and expect to have anyone consider what youre saying to have any merit..

[zorothusian]

What is that? Not buying into it being "the only way"? Presenting facts in the face of feelings? Im confused, do you not like knowing how many children died from cancer, long after the bombs went off?

Oh yeah I guess you don't like the idea of the rape and murder and child experiment's they did, Oh that's okay right?