Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[schwarzkopf]

because is funny watch muricans crying about terrorists when they did things of magnitudes worse XD

Well, in recent years yes - but WWII the US held very high moral ground on all their actions - including the two atomic bombings.

[Deleted]

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

Nonsense, the Japanese were ready to drag it on for years, maybe even decades.
And people in the Japanese occupied territory were living in death camps or dying in forced labour.

Plus, the US command realised it would take thousands of more American lives to fight for every little Island.

[Beazy]

Had to show Stalin what it looks like when you try to engage in war with the US in this new age of nuclear weapons.

Who cares really? At the time, the Japanese were fucking brutal sadistic murderers who made ISIS look like catholic school children. If you're looking to find tears here for old Japan, you're looking in the wrong place.

[caervek]

Again, this racist trope won't die. The Japanese were not mindless savage animals hellbent on defending their God-king emperor.

They were already neutralized as a threat, and already in the process of surrender.

Nope not even close, it took two nuclear bombs to finally make Japan surrender and that was via split decision after the emperor broke protocol and declared his support for surrender.

Japan knew that America would have no taste for a full scale invasion and millions of deaths so they refused until it became blatantly obvious their forces could be eradicated from afar and there was no other option.

[Lalabaer]

And fuck the establishment, even though we are the establishment.

That's not really what I meant. I mean I get that the US is the largest superpower in the world and has to play world police to maintain it's position but there are almost no armed conflicts where there are "good guys"

[Independent voter]

We haven't had a Hiroshima thread in like six months, this will go on for a couple dozen pages.

[schwarzkopf]

Again, this racist trope won't die. The Japanese were not mindless savage animals hellbent on defending their God-king emperor.

No idea where you got that from. I was just talking about them never surrendering because the people in charge had some outdated idea of honour - not because they were mindless, savages - or animals. It took their 'god' to command them otherwise.

[caervek]

Plus, the US command realised it would take thousands of more American lives to fight for every little Island.

Predicted death toll for operation downfall was half a million to one million US/allied soldiers and five to ten million Japanese.

[Machismo]

Radical Islamists are waging a war on many fronts against western civilizations, especially the United States. If we are going to justify and rationalize the murder of innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, then we have no cause to complain when AQ decides to fly some planes into a building, or when ISIS decides to exterminate a village. They are fundamentally no different than what we did, merely on a much smaller scale.

The oldest argument made, is that Japan was never going to surrender. That's not even close to true. Japan was outgunned, outmanned, surrounded, and they knew it. Their people wanted out, and it was only a matter of time.

[NineSpine]

Nope not even close, it took two nuclear bombs to finally make Japan surrender and that was via split decision after the emperor broke protocol and declared his support for surrender.

Japan knew that America would have no taste for a full scale invasion and millions of deaths so they refused until it became blatantly obvious their forces could be eradicated from afar and there was no other option.

Cities could already be obliterated through firebombing. This wasn't new. Japan had no anti-air power and could be slowly bombed to pieces without nuclear weapons.

- - - Updated - - -

Predicted death toll for operation downfall was half a million to one million US/allied soldiers and five to ten million Japanese.

No, it wasn't. That's a myth.

[Wikiy]

Or, you know, people who don't support the murder of innocent people. Do you support the murder of innocent people?

Had they not dropped the nukes, the war with Japan would have continued for far longer. Hundreds of thousands or millions would have died. Is it immoral to kill 150000 in order to stop the deaths of several more hundred thousands or millions? Of course, the usual moral system we all know tells us "yes". But guess what, that moral system is useless. Morality doesn't work by rules such as "killing is wrong". Morality is just the word used for the analysis (and the resulting conclusions) of situations where the amount of wellbeing is attempted to be maximized. The amount of wellbeing, both present and in the future relative to that time, was maximized by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Was there a better alternative? Of course there was. There almost always is. But these alternatives are usually hard to find. Not nuking the cities and continuing conventional war against Japan certainly would not have been a better alternative.

[Machismo]

We don't live in a black and white world, and you asked a black and white question.

Japan as a country was anything but innocent - barbaric and murderous. Sure, there were individual people within Japan who were innocent. There were also 18 year old soldiers in their army who were probably completely innocent, had no idea what they were getting into and were killed regardless.

Innocents get killed in war, and war is sometimes necessary (like when a country attacks you and destroys half your navy in the process of trying to subjugate half the globe). It's also not possible to say, "This guy is innocent, leave him be" and focus only on people we identify as guilty.

Then you just rationalized and justified 9/11.

[Deleted]

Predicted death toll for operation downfall was half a million to one million US/allied soldiers and five to ten million Japanese.

So basically taking lives to save even more lives.

It takes a lot to make the decision but in the end it was the right one imo. It also prevented further use of these weapons.

[NineSpine]

No idea where you got that from. I was just talking about them never surrendering because the people in charge had some outdated idea of honour - not because they were mindless, savages - or animals. It took their 'god' to command them otherwise.

You just said you had no idea where I got that from, and then rephrased exactly what I said you said.

[mickybrighteyes]

Maybe because it was the biggest war crime in recent memory? Maybe because it specifically targeted civilians? Maybe because one Uranium and one Plutonium bomb were used to see "how the yellow bastards react" as a US newspaper at the time so succinctly put it, basically using women and children as lab rats in a nuclear holocaust?

Looking at how Russia and Germany were handling things... the bold is really not correct. I could see a previous poster's statement of "largest terrorist attack" (though I'm not sure it was the largest due to Tokyo losses among other events)

[Machismo]

Had they not dropped the nukes, the war with Japan would have continued for far longer. Hundreds of thousands or millions would have died. Is it immoral to kill 150000 in order to stop the deaths of several more hundred thousands or millions? Of course, the usual moral system we all know tells us "yes". But guess what, that moral system is useless. Morality doesn't work by rules such as "killing is wrong". Morality is just the word used for the analysis (and the resulting conclusions) of situations where the amount of wellbeing is attempted to be maximized. The amount of wellbeing, both present and in the future relative to that time, was maximized by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Was there a better alternative? Of course there was. There almost always is. But these alternatives are usually hard to find. Not nuking the cities and continuing conventional war against Japan certainly would not have been a better alternative.

Yes, it is immoral to purposefully kill tens of thousands of innocent people.

[NineSpine]

So basically taking lives to save even more lives.

It takes a lot to make the decision but in the end it was the right one imo. It also prevented further use of these weapons.

It brought about the nuclear arms race.

[I Push Buttons]

Maybe because it was the biggest war crime in recent memory? Maybe because it specifically targeted civilians? Maybe because one Uranium and one Plutonium bomb were used to see "how the yellow bastards react" as a US newspaper at the time so succinctly put it, basically using women and children as lab rats in a nuclear holocaust?

Lol the biggest war crime? A holocaust...

Guess you missed Nazi Germany killing 12 million Jews, Gypsies, Poles, disabled, etc...

Or missed Japan killing upwards of 20 million Chinese, Korean, Philippine, etc., people...

Nope no war crimes there. No holocaust there.

[schwarzkopf]

You just said you had no idea where I got that from, and then rephrased exactly what I said you said.

Sorry, my bad - I should respect people like you with English as a second language.

Apologies.

[caervek]

No, it wasn't. That's a myth.

If by wasn't you mean was, and if by myth you mean historical fact then sure why not.