Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[Slirith]

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

If said innocent people are protecting the enemy in any way(meat shields etc) then yes. If a couple hundred innocents need to be killed to kill 2000 of the enemy, then sucks to be the civilians. Trying to use "morals" to protect innocent people being used as meat shields so the enemy can continue to commit atrocities is dumb.

[Shaqthefat]

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

They weren't on the cusp of surrendering. There was even a rebellion to stop them from surrendering. The emperor had to come in and force them to surrender

[LaserChild9]

How can you be so naive?


LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — When a captured Nazi U-boat arrived at Portsmouth, N.H., toward the end of World War II, the American public was never told the significance of what was on board.

The German submarine was carrying 1,200 pounds of uranium oxide, ingredients for an atomic bomb, bound for Japan. Two Japanese officers on board were allowed to commit suicide.

Two months later, in the New Mexico desert, the United States detonated the first atomic bomb, a prelude to the obliteration of two Japanese cities.

Unknown to many of the people who built those bombs, not to mention the public, Japan was scrambling to build its own nuclear weapon.

http://articles.latimes.com/1997-06-..._1_atomic-bomb

Seeing how effective foes like the Taliban and Al-Q are with items from farms (all ingredients for IED's are found on farms.)

I feel like the weaponisation of 1940's Japanese farm equipment is laughable at best. What could they possibly have made that would have been a threat to the US Navy?

I fixed that for you, you seemed to have completely ignored what I was ACTUALLY replying to (top quote) and gave me a lesson on how the military were building nukes for some reason. Ofc I assume you actually read my post because surely you wouldn't take something out of context for nefarious means. Maybe you just missed the quote so I have bolded it for you now I also underlined the really important things.

[llubtoille]

I wonder what the global response would be, if the USA used nuclear weapons to deal with terrorism.

[McFuu]

I fixed that for you, you seemed to have completely ignored what I was ACTUALLY replying to (top quote) and gave me a lesson on how the military were building nukes for some reason. Ofc I assume you actually read my post because surely you wouldn't take something out of context for nefarious means. Maybe you just missed the quote so I have bolded it for you now I also underlined the really important things.

I have no idea what you are even talking about anymore. We are talking about a land invasion of Japan. While we could cut them off, they have everything they need on main land Japan to remain extremely dangerous. They already had weapons, but you made the insistence that farmers can't be dangerous, which is stupid because there are plenty of weapons and tactics especially in a mountainous terrain such as Japan to make farmers dangerous. The Vietcong are also pretty adept at this style warfare. No doubt anyone who would have wanted them could have gotten military grade weapons from the Japanese army to fight off invading foes.

Back to your insistence on never invading Japan and surrounding them for all eternity and saying that they had nothing to hit our Navy with. Cool, so forever we will have to run recon over them, and blow up everything they start making that could potentially hurt us.

[Molis]

They weren't on the cusp of surrendering. There was even a rebellion to stop them from surrendering. The emperor had to come in and force them to surrender

I tried that argument several times already. They just want to spew the America is bad rhetoric for killing civilians.
Who the fuck cares what Japan, Germany, and Italy did.

[Polarthief]

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.

Was gonna say I haven't heard of the atom bombings in forever.

Black slavery on the other hand...

[cubby]

Because the Japanese were a hive species from outer space. Meanwhile, apart from the mythical Japanese hive-mind, the Japanese army was broken and chewed out and their ability to continue the war was nothing more than a wet dream of some of the generals (on both sides). Combined with imminent Soviet intervention that would hasten the surrender even more, US would lose 500k soldiers only if they used them as a substitute for bombs.

You need to read more history (and stop reading hive species conspiracy theories? maybe?) - the Japanese were ready to defend the homeland to the very last citizen. The army might indeed have been broken, but taking the Home Islands would have been another 6-12 months of fighting, and most conservative estimations have casualties at 300k.

So while your snarky revisionist history might be adorable on the forums, it has no place in reality.

[Berengil]

"It's okay we did it because it saved American lives"

That's the best reason of all. Idiots who oppose the USA court their own erasure.

[Stormspark]

Why? Because the US acts like it has some sort of moral high ground, when it is the ONLY country to ever use a nuclear weapon on another country. Hypocricy.

[cubby]

Why? Because the US acts like it has some sort of moral high ground, when it is the ONLY country to ever use a nuclear weapon on another country. Hypocricy.

If you think about it, that really doesn't answer the question.

[Shadowmelded]

What I like even more is the part where a lot of people in power in the US during that time disagreed with him.

Including a large number of military leaders.

[Hammerfest]

Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

Because it is perceived as advantageous to do so by those who don't like the US.

[Zuben]

At least they were concrete demonstrations of the destructive power of WMDs before everyone and their dog had one.

[globenstine]

fuck em. its not like they didn't kill civilians at pearl harbor. i would have nuked tokyo. they should consider themselves lucky.

[Hammerfest]

Eric Dubay put out a three hour long video supporting the notion that nuclear weapons are a hoax...

[Kaleredar]

This is what I was talking about for the record. And last time I checked, the anti-nuke camp on highest levels opposed the nuke, among other reasons, on the idea that Japan was indeed already beaten.

They were A camp within the United States military. Obviously, they were not the camp that ultimately held the most sway. As was the camp of Japanese officials who didn't want to surrender. As I've said like, four times, there was a coup within the Japanese Government that wanted to continue the war even after the second bomb was dropped.

Damn, it's almost as if your analogy with finding only after the fact that the gun wasn't loaded was a crock of shit. I also didn't mention them knowing that Japan would surrender per se, since as my second post makes clear, I focused on Japan simply not being a threat,

Not being a threat? They said they would continue to fight. That is the exact opposite of "not a threat." The United States WAS considering ground invasions of Japan to be a potential course of action.

The Potsdam conference was the last, clear chance they gave Japan to surrender. Japan didn't take it. I don't remember a part of world war 2 that involved a "we're just going to let the enemy stew until they officially surrender." That's not how WW2 was fought, by anyone. The allies roundly forced the Axis' hand through military actions. Russia didn't stare really menacingly at Berlin until they gave in. They shelled the hell out of it. In fact, by some estimates, the Russian bombing of Berlin at the conclusion of the European theater killed about as many civilians as the nuclear bombs, combined, did.

so fuck off with putting words in my mouth. But since you insist on this tangent, posturing is a thing that even countries partake in. Do carry on with your inane jingoistic justification of weapons of mass destruction though, it's adorbs.

It was a military bombing campaign. Just like the dozens run by the Allies on Japan previously, which, as I said, claimed hundreds of thousands more lives than the Nuclear bombs did. As far as military personnel at the time were concerned, the bombs just happened to be a whole hell of a lot bigger. The "weapons of mass destruction of a post apocalyptic fallout world" was not a consideration of theirs at the time.

[Machismo]

If said innocent people are protecting the enemy in any way(meat shields etc) then yes. If a couple hundred innocents need to be killed to kill 2000 of the enemy, then sucks to be the civilians. Trying to use "morals" to protect innocent people being used as meat shields so the enemy can continue to commit atrocities is dumb.

Then people like AQ or ISIS can make that same argument about their targets. They are killing innocent people in order to get to some bad guys.

[McFuu]

Then people like AQ or ISIS can make that same argument about their targets. They are killing innocent people in order to get to some bad guys.

AQ and ISIS kill innocent people as the intended target. Completely different than innocents being killed because they live near strategic points or being used as "shields". If 9/11 occurred on 9/15, we'd talk about the attack being primarily a way to cripple the economy or strike a symbolic blow. But that isn't the point of terror attacks of that type, they target the population primarily.

[Moon-Man]

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.

Dropping Nukes on Japan was Illegal. A crime that is unpunished.

Getting Shit over it would be smallest punishment. U.S rightfully deserves it too.