Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Machismo]

Bomb was used at the end of war when japan already lost, and somehow no bomb was used against Nazis during whole time...

Well, we hadn't really finished making them. This was a ramped-up process, and the creation of the technology was really damn impressive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...hattan_Project

[Cyi]

Only you don't a choice unless you want to allow the enemy to maintain their forces through production throughout the war.

You want to stop the enemy from building tanks, planes, ships? You bomb the factories... Well guess what friend, people move to where the jobs are and if you bomb the factories you hit the people that live around them too.

Same deal with military bases. Look across the US at our military bases, hell across the world. Most of them, especially in the west, were built in the middle of nowhere. Entire communities popped up around them because that's where the jobs are... So if someone were to bomb our bases there would be mass civilian casualties.

That's a fact of life in war, especially in a total war like WW2. The only alternative is to simply allow your enemy to continue production which makes the whole scale slaughter even greater since their capacity to kill never diminishes.

This exactly. We bombed the hell out of Germany in WWII, most all of which occurred in city centers due to manufacturing occurring in these locations.

My take, don't start shit if you don't want to face the ramifications. Germany and Japan got what they deserved. Sucks for the innocents, but that certainly isn't the US's fault. What should we have done, sat back and done nothing? Let our shores get attacked and do nothing? Those that don't understand should open a book on the history of war, especially WWII. It would enlighten you.

[sarahtasher]

In a productive and constructive way, was Japan wanting to end the war in August 1945 ?

Certainly. They absolutely wanted to end the war. Except that they wanted to end it with keeping their conquests. (Taiwan, Mandchuria, Korea) plus keeping their assorted puppet regimes. Which is not ''surrendering''.

[NED funded]

This! This! A thousand times this!

Are you sure you want to do that, I've just checked their homepage amd they seem the type of site that would justify nazi warcrimes and seem to have an "interesting" focus on israel.

[Xirrohon]

It is a bit weird considering the bombing of Dresden was just as bad. I guess we have made peace with Germany and have never totally made peace with Japan. However, a lot of that is because of them.

[Dug]

You're applying modern day logic to a time that didn't enjoy our precision weapons while fighting an enemy that only understood cruelty and annihilation? Would it have been more just for the US to prolong the war with a ground invasion and more air raids. Leave Japan alone?

Being able to act but not acting is arguably immoral. Morality isn't binary, there's levels to it.

For my own morals and beliefs no I don't think the acts were moral. Their justification is an entirely other argument. War is going to result in deaths be they civilians or soldiers and I'm not anti-war. But for me, if I was making the calls, I can't turn around and act like what I was doing was morally "good". Necessary maybe but that's the way things go.

[Medusa Cascade]

Well if the Americans hadn't told Britain to cut all ties with Japan things might have gone differently

[Deleted]

Hiroshima was the "reality scale" test on actual humans and a démonstration of power to the whole world. Nagasaki was completely unjustified, but more cynical person would say it was an opportunity to test another type of atomic bomb.

[Deleted]

So why exactly is it wrong, in a war against an axis of tyrants and psychopaths, to fight fire with fire?

Two things:

1) Because other nations did bad stuff does not make it ok to do bad stuff.

2) STOP GOING ON ABOUT HOW FUCKING GREAT YOU ARE ALL THE TIME. NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THAT SHIT.

If you maybe inflicted less of your idiot nationalism on the rest of the planet people would be more inclined to give you a break.

[Shadowferal]

Lets get something straight, Japan didn't surrender because of the atomic bomb. It surrendered because of the USSR's involvement.

[Cyi]

And I'm not arguing against that. War is war and it's a fact of life that civilians will be caught in the cross hairs. But neither side should be trying to claim moral superiority and justification (morally) for their actions is all I'm saying. You may have an argument when its enemy soldiers slaughtering one another and one side is more "just" than the other but once civilians come into the mix (which will always happen) it just becomes an ugly debate over who had more just cause to kill them. Personally I can't come up with any sort of moral argument for it other than our side needed to win and they needed to lose. Shit happens and lets move past it.

Well no, the definition of moral, at least in the noun form is a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. In this case, we did have a moral high ground due to the potential numbers of people lost if an invasion had occurred. In addition, looks up fire bombing and all the civilians that were targeted and killed with that alone. I will give you a hint, it was about 3 times higher than those killed with the two atomic bombs.

[brimdog]

If someone is strangling you, bite a chunk from their arm and gouge their fucking eyes out.
Anyone that tells you later that you overreacted can go fuck themselves.

This is no different.

[ItachiZaku]

lol I like it.

[Narwal]

This is an idiotic question. We murdered tens of thousands of innocent people. THAT'S WHY WE GET SHIT FOR IT.

That's like asking why Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda get shit for 9/11. And yes, we started that war. No matter how just one's cause may be, as soon as you start attacking innocent people, then you don't get to claim the moral high ground.

Wouldn't tens of thousands of innocents die if we were doing more "normal" bombing of the time? Do I have to show you pictures of Berlin or other major cities during WWII to see if you can tell a difference between the town that was bombed by convential means?

By today's methods of war, pinpoint bombing, guerrilla warfare, which go towards avoiding as much collateral damage as possible, yes we would completely disagree with something such as an atomic bomb attack today. However, the methods of war back around WWII did not have the technology for such means. It's kind of dumb to say "you can do this, but not that, that's immoral" when both methods result in the same result, a completely destroyed city. One can do it quickly with less financial burden, more shock and awe which can immediately end a war, one does it over months and months, with high financial cost, and allows an enemy to attempt to drag out a war or change tactics and win.

Pretty simple choice for the time.

[sarahtasher]

See, in the summer of 1945, the supposed ''peace feelers'' of Japan were remarkably discreet. In addition that they were adamant of keeping what was left of their conquests, those peace feelers came from people with unclear position in the chain of command.

Above everything, thanks to ULTRA and Magic, the US actually read Japanese diplomatic correspondance in real time. They were thus a tad sceptical when, on one hand, Japanese diplomats from Sweden and Switzerland approached neutral channels by playing the communism card (if we don't keep China and Korea, communism will spread in Asia) and on the other hand Japan diplomats had orders to seek the Soviet Union mediation.

[Cyi]

Lets get something straight, Japan didn't surrender because of the atomic bomb. It surrendered because of the USSR's involvement.

I would say it was a combination of the two. Hell, they happened on the same day.

[Dug]

Well no, the definition of moral, at least in the noun form is a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. In this case, we did have a moral high ground due to the potential numbers of people lost if an invasion had occurred. In addition, looks up fire bombing and all the civilians that were targeted and killed with that alone. I will give you a hint, it was about 3 times higher than those killed with the two atomic bombs.

I mentioned that before. That we killed more civilians in the fire bombing raids than the nukes. Which is why I'm saying it's a hard thing to argue on the grounds of morals. Morality is a grey area and certainly not black and white. For my own morals and values killing civilians it not justified but when it comes to the reality of total war.. decisions have to be made.

[smaktat]

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.

Shock factor + basic bitches = media buffet.

Fire mages got nerfed by the same thinking. Shock factor of their burst + retarded WoW nerds = welp better fix what isn't broken welcome to bottom of the meters in Nighthold.

[Shadowferal]

Two things:

1) Because other nations did bad stuff does not make it ok to do bad stuff.

2) STOP GOING ON ABOUT HOW FUCKING GREAT YOU ARE ALL THE TIME. NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THAT SHIT.

If you maybe inflicted less of your idiot nationalism on the rest of the planet people would be more inclined to give you a break.

If the US were to enact more of an isolationist policy, do you honestly believe that to be a good idea?

I for one was dead set against my country loaning trillions out to EU businesses and banks and would have let them tank regardless of what it would cost most of Europe.

[RobertMugabe]

Wow, another bullshit thread denying war crimes.