Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[MasterOfNone]

You really should watch the 20min vid, it will help you get a better understanding of those involved and why events played the way they did.

no it wont. it will postulate more bias, senseless claims. until history re-writes itself, all of the above is nonsense. un-founded claims.

[McFuu]

Nuking Japan a necessary "Evil"? No, it wasn't an evil decision, even in hind-sight it still seems the quickest idea.

War is war and Japan brought it to us, our extent of support in WWII up to that point was minimal, minor escort duties or coming to the aid of ships in distress.

[Vyxn]

You really should watch the 20min vid, it will help you get a better understanding of those involved and why events played the way they did.

it is from a conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone it would be the same as me telling you to go read Alex Jones to learn something

[Grimbold21]

it is from a conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone it would be the same as me telling you to go read Alex Jones to learn something

Or denying human's impact on climate change...

[Vyxn]

Historical research clearly show us that it didn't "save hundreds of thousands lives" like it's always said. Japan would have surrender, the "blood bath" promised if they haven't nuked them would never have occurred.

The bombing was more a US statement to the world : "Don't ever fuck with us or that will happen to you"

But deliberately attacking civilan is as low as a country can go in a war.

source please and no Oliver Stone isn't a reliable source he is a conspiracy theorist

[Xeones]

Historical research clearly show us that it didn't "save hundreds of thousands lives" like it's always said. Japan would have surrender, the "blood bath" promised if they haven't nuked them would never have occurred.

The bombing was more a US statement to the world : "Don't ever fuck with us or that will happen to you"

But deliberately attacking civilan is as low as a country can go in a war.

So you think if Japan surrendered on their terms the time line would have gone just the same way? No extra wars from an expansionist Emperor who had a minor set back?

[Vyxn]

As I said its your call, continue to wallow in ignorance, you seem comfortable there.

your the ignorant one to believe the conspiracy theorist Oliver Stone the man that claims Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone he is that Alex Jones of the left

[Deleted]

Nuking Japan a necessary "Evil"? No, it wasn't an evil decision, even in hind-sight it still seems the quickest idea.

War is war and Japan brought it to us, our extent of support in WWII up to that point was minimal, minor escort duties or coming to the aid of ships in distress.

Which I'm sure is what al-quaeda, the Taleban and ISIS tell themselves to ease their consciences after they've butchered some kids or something.

[Erudean]

The idea that it would save lives was not rooted in reality. It was the opinion of a couple of people. Most prominent among whose who disagreed is obviously Eisenhower, who thought it was unnecessary. In reality, the wholesale destruction of a city was not new. The bomb was definitely scary due to it's mystique, but numerous cities had similar levels of destruction through just firebombing. Japan was more concerned about the threat of land invasion from Russia, which was looming as Russia had just broken it's non-aggression pact with them. It's very clear that the dropping of the bombs was rushed to get done before Japan surrendered anyway.

It went against everything the Japanese believe in to surrender, it was in their warrior culture for 1000 years. If that were the case they would have surrendered after the FIRST bomb was dropped, they did not, 6 days later they dropped a second bomb on Nagasaki. They would have fought until the bitter end if there were a land invasion.

[Independent voter]

All four countries involved had an atomic bomb program. Britain was actively helping the US build it. Russia was trying to steal secrets and nobody knew how far along the Japanese were.

The Potsdam Declaration said Japan must surrender immediately or else face "complete and utter destruction". That last bit was diplomatic speak for "we have the bomb". Ten days before the bomb dropped the declaration was leafleted all over Japan by air drops and broadcast by radio. Literally everyone in Japan new about the Declaration.

The Japanese administration choose to remain silent and not respond.

[Deleted]

All four countries involved had an atomic bomb program. Britain was actively helping the US build it. Russia was trying to steal secrets and nobody knew how far along the Japanese were.

The Potsdam Declaration said Japan must surrender immediately or else face "complete and utter destruction". That last bit was diplomatic speak for "we have the bomb". Ten days before the bomb dropped the declaration was leafleted all over Japan by air drops and broadcast by radio. Literally everyone in Japan new about the Declaration.

The Japanese administration choose to remain silent and not respond.

It was pointed out to you earlier this was bullshit. You are now repeating your bullshit.

[Ealyssa]

So you think if Japan surrendered on their terms the time line would have gone just the same way? No extra wars from an expansionist Emperor who had a minor set back?

I don't write science fiction sorry, nobody can know what would have happend. That's just a stupid question.

[Xeones]

I don't write science fiction sorry, nobody can know what would have happend. That's just a stupid question.

And yet you try to say "historical research" shows they were going to surrender anyways despite the military branch of the government still being set on battle after the second bomb.

[Erudean]

Historical research clearly show us that it didn't "save hundreds of thousands lives" like it's always said. Japan would have surrender, the "blood bath" promised if they haven't nuked them would never have occurred.

The bombing was more a US statement to the world : "Don't ever fuck with us or that will happen to you"

But deliberately attacking civilan is as low as a country can go in a war.

Historical research shows the exact opposite of your claim. Out of just about any country in the history of the world, Japan's warfare has always been "death or dishonor". They would have fought a land war invasion till the bitter end. In a total war situation, 15000 american troops, or 100k civilian casualties? I would have made the same choice. The US didn't start the war but it damn well finished it. The rape of Nanjing has a estimated 30k-300k civilian casualties, not to mention all the human experimentation at Unit 731, which makes most horror movies sound like bedtime stories in comparison. Don't make the Japanese out to be innocent victimized by standards, that is woefully ignorant.

[Deleted]

In a total war situation, 15000 american troops, or 100k civilian casualties?

This is why the US keeps losing wars. The civillian population knows they are expendable. It is almost impossible to win a war without support of the civillian population.

The situation you get in Iraq and Afghanistan is similar to that if China invaded the US or europe and the resistance was led by neo-nazis. Most people would support the neo-nazis out of sheer survival instincts even if they didn't support that ideology.

[Independent voter]

It was pointed out to you earlier this was bullshit. You are now repeating your bullshit.

No, it doesn't fit your narrative.

The Germans sent the Japanese something like 120kg of uranium oxide so they could build an atom bomb.

[McFuu]

Which I'm sure is what al-quaeda, the Taleban and ISIS tell themselves to ease their consciences after they've butchered some kids or something.

Only idiots equate terrorist organizations to strategies and tactics taken during a massive conflict with standing armies.
Even people that say that "XYZ's" military force is tantamount to a terrorist organization clearly have a very tenuous grasp on what occurs in these parts of the world. We aren't burning people at the stake, dipping them in acid, kidnapping wives to force husbands to carry out suicide bombings, burying people up to their necks in the middle of the desert, kidnapping people for ransom for funding, killing our people wholesale because they don't believe in Allah hard enough, yeah we are just like these people. Save that SJW, don't understand the world mindset for other SJWs who might agree with you.

[Ghostpanther]

This is why the US keeps losing wars. The civillian population knows they are expendable. It is almost impossible to win a war without support of the civillian population.

The situation you get in Iraq and Afghanistan is similar to that if China invaded the US or europe and the resistance was led by neo-nazis. Most people would support the neo-nazis out of sheer survival instincts even if they didn't support that ideology.

You mean conflicts. The last time the US declared war on anyone was 1941.

[Deleted]

Only idiots equate terrorist organizations to strategies and tactics taken during a massive conflict with standing armies.
Even people that say that "XYZ's" military force is tantamount to a terrorist organization clearly have a very tenuous grasp on what occurs in these parts of the world. We aren't burning people at the stake, dipping them in acid, kidnapping wives to force husbands to carry out suicide bombings, burying people up to their necks in the middle of the desert, kidnapping people for ransom for funding, killing our people wholesale because they don't believe in Allah hard enough, yeah we are just like these people.

You must be really clueless about the after-effects of an atomic strike, or just completely brainwashed to an extent that the Kremlin would be envious of, if you think these things are any worse.

Also, to state the obvious, the nukes were not directed as standing armies. They have disproportionate effects on non-combatants.

[Erudean]

This is why the US keeps losing wars. The civillian population knows they are expendable. It is almost impossible to win a war without support of the civillian population.

The situation you get in Iraq and Afghanistan is similar to that if China invaded the US or europe and the resistance was led by neo-nazis. Most people would support the neo-nazis out of sheer survival instincts even if they didn't support that ideology.

the US does not win wars because it often does not care to. They call it a war.... but in reality everything in the middle east since since the invasion of Baghdad has just been about maintaining its sphere of influence under the guise of "not abandoning the civilians", which they have killed 300,000 of in the last 10 years. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was that last thing that resembled a war. The last 13 years have just been occupation with a heavy emphasis on insurgency control, to protect its interests in the middle east.