Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[I Push Buttons]

What makes you say that? If you think the nazis would have killed everybody that wasn't aryan you are gravely misinformed.

The other point is that the end doesn't justify the means. I mean we could wipe out ISIS by just nuking the middle east. No harm done right, they're evil people. Killing Civillians is one thing, deliberately dropping two nuclear bombs on a heavily populated city, not only devastating but also irridating it in the process is a cause to give someone shit

We asked them to surrender before that.

They respectfully declined and promised to fight to the last man, woman, and child for their emperor. At the cost of millions of their own people and hundreds of thousands of American soldiers.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

We didn't nuke some random happy go lucky peaceful country. We nuked a country that had for the previous decade waged a genocidal war of extermination against the rest of Asia and was prepared to fight a suicidal battle to the bitter end. The nukes showed them such a fight could not be won and they surrendered.

[kubuntu]

Because history is written by the victors and they decide who was "good guys" and who was "bad guys" , morality have very little to do here

[NineSpine]

Now why do you think the attack on Pearl Harbor happened?

Because the United States was providing material support to the Allied Powers.

[Kaleredar]

More Japanese civilians were killed in the fire bombing campaigns run by allied forces than by both the nuclear bombs combined. Hundreds of thousands more.

But you never hear about those, now do you?

What makes you say that? If you think the nazis would have killed everybody that wasn't aryan you are gravely misinformed.

No they'd just be satisfied with killing anyone that disagreed with them.

The other point is that the end doesn't justify the means. I mean we could wipe out ISIS by just nuking the middle east. No harm done right, they're evil people.

The United States wasn't at war with a small militant band hiding in and operating out of Japan, they were at war with Japan.

Killing Civillians is one thing, deliberately dropping two nuclear bombs on a heavily populated city, not only devastating but also irridating it in the process is a cause to give someone shit

The radiation effects of nuclear weapons were poorly understood at that point, and both cities were military manufacturing centers. Basically, the United States thought it just had a "bigger bomb" and were going to use it, just like they had been bombing Japan previously.

Because Japan was on the cusp of Surrender and America just wanted to flex its dick and killed 100000's of Civilians.

Were they? Because they rejected the US' terms of surrender given when the US threatened them with "prompt and utter destruction" prior to the nuclear bombs, didn't surrender after the first nuclear bomb was dropped, and THEN had to quash an attempted military coup that wanted to keep fighting even AFTER the second bomb was dropped.

Not the picture of "begging for mercy," is it?


It's hard to make a case that the nuclear weapons were any more or less "justified" than any other bombing campaigns ran against civilian centers and cities, of which there were numerous, from both sides, in World War 2.

[baskev]

Japan raped its way across China and was in league with a nation that wanted to commit genocide on those it deemed impure, alcoholics, addicts and so on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

They did horrible things that make the atomic bombs look like vacation. While the civilians were not directly guilty ( they still fed those soldiers, produced their weapons and ensured they had a place to retreat to ) of all those things, they were still what kept the army afloat.

So why exactly is it wrong, in a war against an axis of tyrants and psychopaths, to fight fire with fire? Had the Axis won we'd have seen hundreds of millions killed due to their race. Two atomic bombs are a small price to pay in order to quell that evil for good.


What kind of General could look the wives of his fallen soldiers in the eyes and say

'' We could've ended the war sooner. Your husband would still be alive, had I bombed their cities. But I put the lives of their civilians, the ones that feed the army, above that of my own men. "

Holy hell, I'd see that as treason. As the military leader your main goal is to kill the enemy and protect your own men/nation. And that's precisely what they did.

It was a necessary evil. It stopped the war. If the war had gone on more people in japan would have died.

And yes japan was extremely horrible. People forget that they forced women and girls into prostitution. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women)
THe numbers reign from 40.000 to about a 300.000+ .. these where women and girls that where sometimes raped 10 to 20 times a day by Japanese soldiers. IF you really want to have a bad day read that wiki....

But they did more. The forced father and sons, brothers to torture each other, kill each other and more. They mad the nazi's look like nice guys...and thats saying allot.

So yeah. i think america should not apologize or feel sorry until the japanses formally say sorry.

[Caifas]

When the war started the Tribunal of Nuremberg was created to prosecute war crimes. Before then there were no such crimes, at least not codified to that extent, and it was a sort of anomaly to judge people for acts that were not criminal when they were executed. It was agreed, however, that the situation called for it.

However, if Americans werw to be judged by the very same rules, they'd have to be found guilty. The A-bombs were an amalgamation of multiple war crimes. However, since the US had won the war, none of their leadera suffered any consequences for an act that had repercussions spanning for decades.

Also, one could argue that the second bomb was unnecessary and that Japan was already defeatex. Hell, even before Hiroshima the country was on its last leg. Many understand that the boms were less meant to end the war and more to display the US's power to the world, especially the USSR.

So it can be said that it was a brutal and fairly unnecessary act that would be seen as the ultimate evil had anyone else done the same.

[Wildtree]

Because history is written by the victors and they decide who was "good guys" and who was "bad guys" , morality have very little to do here

That's a stereotype, with validation in times where recording history was limited to historians/reporters writing on a piece of paper in haste.

As communication and recording of information improved the stereotype became ever more just a (false) stereotype.

[Fat Mac]

sure ended the war with Japan real quick

[Super Kami Dende]

More Japanese civilians were killed in the fire bombing campaigns run by allied forces than by both the nuclear bombs combined. Hundreds of thousands more.

But you never hear about those, now do you?

Did the fire bombings leave fallout that has mutated and affected people for 70 years afterwards?

[NineSpine]

We asked them to surrender before that.

They respectfully declined and promised to fight to the last man, woman, and child for their emperor. At the cost of millions of their own people and hundreds of thousands of American soldiers.

We didn't nuke some random happy go lucky peaceful country. We nuked a country that had for the previous decade waged a genocidal war of extermination against the rest of Asia and was prepared to fight a suicidal battle to the bitter end. The nukes showed them such a fight could not be won and they surrendered.

It's amazing how this insane, racist myth has lived on for so long. What you are talking about isn't rooted in actual statements or strategy, but an old meme that the Japanese are savage, brutal animals that have no free will and can only obey the commands of their fanatical God-king emperor.

The reality is more complicated. The Emperor wanted to surrender but was afraid that his military wouldn't go along and would stage a coup. Japan had a non-aggression pact with Russia, but Russia broke that and invaded Manchuria right before we dropped the bombs. The U.S. was aware that the Russians were going to do this, and it is now pretty much settled history that the U.S. rushed to drop the bombs because we knew that Russia's advance was going to be the final blow that caused Japan to surrender. We wanted to use those bombs to make a point, and if we waited for Japan to surrender then we would have had no way to demonstrate what the bomb could do.

[baskev]

What makes you say that? If you think the nazis would have killed everybody that wasn't aryan you are gravely misinformed.

The other point is that the end doesn't justify the means. I mean we could wipe out ISIS by just nuking the middle east. No harm done right, they're evil people. Killing Civillians is one thing, deliberately dropping two nuclear bombs on a heavily populated city, not only devastating but also irridating it in the process is a cause to give someone shit

Lol you are misinformed.

Nazi's killed everyone that was not desired, black, jews, gypsy's, political, gay, disabled people ( https://www.ushmm.org/learn/students...f-the-nazi-era ) . And still if the bombs did not drop the japanese would have kept fighting and more would have died. and read up on comfort women and what the japanese did to them...will think you will feel allot more sorry then.

[Hiricine]

Of course on these historical topics the hindsight is always 20/20, when you're the president and you believe you might save some American lives by dropping a nuke its different than when you're on the internet 80 years later and reading about the history with 20 different perspectives.

Of course, as stated at other points in the topic, there were many more civilian deaths caused by other bombings besides the nukes. When you're looking at any war, its easy to single out the stuff that happened in the last 5% of it as unnecessary.

fighting fire with fire is hypocritical if you want to claim the moral high ground.

This really is an over simplification. I don't think it addresses the point at hand, and its just grossly incorrect. If someone threatens me with a gun, then I pull out a gun and kill them with it, all other things being equal I'm morally superior to them, since they threatened me and I'm defending myself.

[Aleksej89]

In hindsight the nukes were honestly not needed, especially not ones of that power.
They could have opted for non-nuclear bombs or made the nukes a lot weaker.
The effect would have been very similar and morale breaking, but without the atrocious count of civilian deaths and radiation.
However the usa REALLY wanted to test the new weapons on a real target and show the world its might.

Also the USA is the "global police" that preaches human rights and higher morality, but in truth it is the least "human loving" 1st world country.
Not only is the USA known to needlessly kill a lot of civilians in other countries (starting from vietnam), but USA also has a horrid treatment towards its own citizens (worst health and education systems in the world, for starters).

[Shibito]

Because Japan was on the cusp of Surrender and America just wanted to flex its dick and killed 100000's of Civilians.

Go back and read up on it you silly person

[NineSpine]

It was a necessary evil. It stopped the war. If the war had gone on more people in japan would have died.

And yes japan was extremely horrible. People forget that they forced women and girls into prostitution. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_women)
THe numbers reign from 40.000 to about a 300.000+ .. these where women and girls that where sometimes raped 10 to 20 times a day by Japanese soldiers. IF you really want to have a bad day read that wiki....

But they did more. The forced father and sons, brothers to torture each other, kill each other and more. They mad the nazi's look like nice guys...and thats saying allot.

So yeah. i think america should not apologize or feel sorry until the japanses formally say sorry.

Japan has apologized to China numerous times, beginning in the early 70s. Sorry that you haven't kept up.

[Kaleredar]

Did the fire bombings leave fallout that has mutated and affected people for 70 years afterwards?

No, but they killed hundreds of thousands more people that then didn't live for those 70 more years.

As I said, they had next to no understanding of the effects of Nuclear radiation produced by the bombs at the time. Hell the only protective wear military personnel utilized in Nuclear tests were dark glasses to shield against the flash of light produced by the bomb.

[NineSpine]

Of course on these historical topics the hindsight is always 20/20, when you're the president and you believe you might save some American lives by dropping a nuke its different than when you're on the internet 80 years later and reading about the history with 20 different perspectives.

Of course, as stated at other points in the topic, there were many more civilian deaths caused by other bombings besides the nukes. When you're looking at any war, its easy to single out the stuff that happened in the last 5% of it as unnecessary.



This really is an over simplification. I don't think it addresses the point at hand, and its just grossly incorrect. If someone threatens me with a gun, then I pull out a gun and kill them with it, all other things being equal I'm morally superior to them, since they threatened me and I'm defending myself.

If you don't feel bad for a Japanese infant incinerated and/or melted because some other Japanese person did something bad, we have a word for that.

[primalmatter]

It is the largest terrorist attack in recorded history...

[Selastan]

had no clue usa was given "shit" for this. which country has the balls to say this out loud? or you mean random idiots on the internet.

Agreed. I never really hear anything other than support for what we did. It was necessary. At the time, an invasion of Japan would be bloody and brutal, and they would likely have not recovered from it even to this day.

[Elim Garak]

That's a stereotype, with validation in times where recording history was limited to historians/reporters writing on a piece of paper in haste.

As communication and recording of information improved the stereotype became ever more just a (false) stereotype.

And as computers and technology to edit information in all forms have advanced... it's now a 3dVRtype right?