Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[Rad1um]

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, this old topic came to mind again. Was nuking Japan necessary? I mean for how we demonize the act in one end, other Americans would remind you that Japan was ax-crazy during those times and we forced them into a surrender that saved more lives.

You're stupid.

[Eats Compost]

As someone who is not from the US; while it's a deeply unfortunate part of history, it ended a war quickly and decisively and clearly demonstrated what the US was now capable of. To me, it seems hard to fault the decision that they made.

[McFuu]

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 situation in Iraq was created by the Iraqi government. They wanted us to leave and explicitly told us they could maintain the security in their country. We didn't want to leave because it didn't fit our pull-out plan and we thought it left them weakened for security. They insisted so we did leave.

The situation in Afghanistan simply comes down to civilians not wanting to get involved. Their lives under the Taliban was far worse than what they have now. But the problem comes with aiding us and the Taliban finding out and getting their families murdered at night. The civilian of the country are in a very shitty position. But they know not helping us will most likely result in their survival.
Also worth mentioning that they are awful to each other, the ANA, and ANP act more like organized crime syndicates, taking advantage of the civilians. More so than actually doing their jobs and stopping the Taliban from reasserting control. Culturally Afghanistan will never really be a "country", it's more along the lines of religious/cultural city-states and a couple of nomadic people.

[Lupinemancer]

After witnessing Obama (whom I despise)

Yeah, I mean, the man only wanted to help his nation, making it easier tfor everyone to get things like healthcare and other hardly needed things like it. It was to give people equal rights which the country is so proud of.
But he forgot the fact that most americans cares little for others then themselves and the fact that he wanted them to, made people despise him. Makes sense to me.

And everything America does, is, according to them, a nessecary evil. I mean, they are AMerica, they own the entire world and can do as they please right?
Oh wait....

[Independent voter]

The uranium seized from the German submarine ended up in the American atom bombs, John Lansdale Jr., head of security for the Manhattan Project, said in a 1995 New York Times interview.


Chieko Takeuchi, widow of the atomic scientist, recalled her husband saying, "If we'd built the bomb first, of course we would have used it. I'm glad, in some ways, that our facilities were destroyed."

[Deleted]

The situation in Afghanistan simply comes down to civilians not wanting to get involved. Their lives under the Taliban was far worse than what they have now.

The Taleban may be brutal, repressive and misogynistic but I see little evidence of what you say. The major effects of replacing the Taleban has been a massive increase in the production of heroin, which the Taleban virtually eliminated by all accounts, the effective legalization of child rape, which the Taleban also effectively outlawed, plus increases in corruption and instability in general, again problems which the evidence does not support existed to the same extent under the Taleban. It should also be noted the Karzai regime is hardly progressive when it comes to women's rights and has hardline theocrat support.

I don't think the US can continue to install vile and ineffective regimes and wash its hand of all responsibility. If they, Britain and the other countries supporting the war had not removed the Taleban it wouldn't be opium capital of the world and tens of thousands of children wouldn't be getting systematically raped with no legal recourse. That's on us.

[McFuu]

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.

Please, stahp

Hiroshima was chosen as the first target due to its military and industrial values. As a military target, Hiroshima was a major army base that housed the headquarters of the Japanese 5th Division and the 2nd Army Headquarters. It was also an important port in southern Japan and a communications center. The mountains surrounding Hiroshima also contributed to Hiroshima being among one of the top choices among the short list of potential targets, for that the mountains might contain the destructive forces of an atomic blast in the target area, increasing the level of destruction.

The city of Nagasaki was one of the most important sea ports in southern Japan. Although it was not among the list of potential targets selected by Oppenheimer's committee, it was added later due to its significance as a major war production center for warships, munitions, and other equipment. This was the very reason why Sweeney hoped that Kokura would have clear weather for the attack, thus avoiding an attack on Nagasaki which housed a greater civilian population.

I already knew that both cities were strategic targets, but just to see how long it would have taken a person to find that information...

Took 2 seconds of Google to find.

[Independent voter]

Britain contributed to the Manhattan Project by helping initiate the effort to build the first atomic bombs in the United States during World War II, and helped carry it through to completion in August 1945 by supplying crucial expertise

[Deleted]

I already knew that both cities were strategic targets, but just to see how long it would have taken a person to find that information...

Took 2 seconds of Google to find.

To state the fucking obvious, Japan is extremely mountainous and an argument could be making for dropping a nuke anywhere on the basis of blast containment.

To also state the fucking obvious: a city is not a military target.

[Chrysia]

what analysis would that be? the analysis that stated the bombing would in fact SAVE lives as opposed to "fighting to the last man"? read some history on it bro. i dont mean the shit on Reddit either. read actual battle statistics about how fierce the japanese military was and how they wouldnt be taken prisoner. read about okinawa.

You're still acting like ground invasion versus nukes was the only option. This is a false dichotomy. The Japanese navy was decimated. A naval blockade would have carried virtually no risk.

[Lytrwths]

Obviously yes, it ultimately saved hundreds of thousands of lives by preventing a Japan mainland invasion from the US, it also stopped a Japan mainland invasion by the Soviet Union, which would've only made things worse as well.

It really makes me wonder if you have even developed your ability to critisize facts. Nuking Japan was a demonstration of force, nothing else. It was a war crime that nobody was held responsible for. People keep complaining that the Nazis did war crimes , which they did , but noone is talking about the 2 nukes that were thrown in Japan. The US , were dying to participate in the WWII so they made their excuse with the Pear Harbor disaster just like they did in WWI with the Lusitania sinking.
People should read some history first and not to accept the well organised propaganda that is being teached at schools , accepting lies as the truth. Also, you just don't throw nuclear bombs to an enemy when they are about to surrender.

[Deleted]

All this aside - I do feel remorse and regret for the outrageous loss of life lost in the war, and hope that no other conflict in the future comes close to the devastation wrought from nuclear conflict.

giving a yes to nuclear bombing, means you don't feel remorse, plus the whole Japanese military couldn't even leave its own borders, set aside being a threat.

[Independent voter]

To state the fucking obvious, Japan is extremely mountainous and an argument could be making for dropping a nuke anywhere on the basis of blast containment.

To also state the fucking obvious: a city is not a military target.

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."

Signed by Britain, US and USSR.

From the Potsdam Declaration. 10 days before the first bomb dropped this was leafleted all over Japan by air drops. It was broadcasts by radio too. Everyone in Japan knew.

"prompt and utter destruction" this is diplomatic speak for "we have the bomb".

[McFuu]

To state the fucking obvious, Japan is extremely mountainous and an argument could be making for dropping a nuke anywhere on the basis of blast containment.

To also state the fucking obvious: a city is not a military target.

This isn't a counter point, so clearly you have nothing constructive to add.

Also if a city is of strategic importance, it is a military target.

- - - Updated - - -

The Taleban may be brutal, repressive and misogynistic but I see little evidence of what you say. The major effects of replacing the Taleban has been a massive increase in the production of heroin, which the Taleban virtually eliminated by all accounts, the effective legalization of child rape, which the Taleban also effectively outlawed, plus increases in corruption and instability in general, again problems which the evidence does not support existed to the same extent under the Taleban. It should also be noted the Karzai regime is hardly progressive when it comes to women's rights and has hardline theocrat support.

I don't think the US can continue to install vile and ineffective regimes and wash its hand of all responsibility. If they, Britain and the other countries supporting the war had not removed the Taleban it wouldn't be opium capital of the world and tens of thousands of children wouldn't be getting systematically raped with no legal recourse. That's on us.

Taliban had "child sexuality" banned yes, it was rarely enforced. Also just an FYI, one of the Taliban's main sources of income is the Opium Trade.

[bewbew]

Seeing people as "Innocent Civilians" vs "Armed Soldiers" is silly.

When all your soldiers die, you get the Innocent Civilians to fight for you. Japan sure did that. Most kamikaze pilots were University Students, for instance.

Most wars kill more civilians than soldiers, in fact. It's just an urge for people to deem themselves as moral to say "Oh no, nothing justifies it, don't kill civilians!".

The reality of war is that civilians are a resource for the enemy. The Civilian population is the one still working jobs that are necessary for the whole War effort to continue - producing weapons, shaping bullets, sewing uniforms, planting food, raising animals, paying taxes. They are family, lovers, brothers of the people upholding weapons.

Assuming they're just people with no affiliation and whose destruction may bring nothing to your side of the dispute is not taking a proper step back to view the whole picture.

[Kellhound]

To state the fucking obvious, Japan is extremely mountainous and an argument could be making for dropping a nuke anywhere on the basis of blast containment.

To also state the fucking obvious: a city is not a military target.

During WWII all combatants considered cities valid military targets. You cannot use modern morals to judge historic actions fairly.

- - - Updated - - -

You're still acting like ground invasion versus nukes was the only option. This is a false dichotomy. The Japanese navy was decimated. A naval blockade would have carried virtually no risk.

And caused how many more civilian casualties? Blockades are not exactly "civil" in modern thinking either.

[Mornic]

Hell yeah. they surrendered.

[Logwyn]

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

Wrong not 1941 but June 5, 1942 on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania for a a formal

Unless you want to split tails and throw out the things like Korea and such.

[Chrysia]

And caused how many more civilian casualties? Blockades are not exactly "civil" in modern thinking either.

Estimates vary, depending on how long the Emperor would have taken to be swayed by the pro-surrender groups. I'm not saying it was a "cleaner" choice in terms of civilian deaths, I'm pointing out that there was more than one solution.

[Vyxn]

Thing is though, the thread isn't about jfk, it's about the nukes on Japan. Watch the vid then comment if you feel so inclined. Or don't watch the vid and continue to spew ignorance on the subject.

I'm not going to waste my time watching propaganda and lies from known crock pot conspiracy theorist the likes of Oliver Stone just like I wouldn't ask or expect you to read or watch anything from Alex Jones