Do you think nuking Japan was a necessary evil?

[Rooflesstoofless]

No, I don't think it was necessary but it probably cost fewer lives than fire bombing the entire country into submission.

[Daymanmb]

Not really, the war in Africa was primarily fought by German and Italian troops, so when they surrendered the war in Africa ended. It was therefore an extension of the European theatre, just as war in the Middle East was.

So if Russians were fighting in Europe and in the Pacific arent they simply extensions of themselves? Im sticking with semantics. It was one war fought in many places.

[Saucexorzski]

Isnt that fucking obvious? Just like you cant prove nukes saved hundereds of thousands of lives.

i dont make the claim it saved lives, i make the claim it worked. i make the claim that war is terrible and if you start a total war you going to get it. I make the claim that the only means to peace with the US was for the Japanese to surrender unconditionally, they refused. I see no evil in the action of dropping weapons that were developed to be used.

[Daymanmb]

No, I don't think it was necessary but it probably cost fewer lives than fire bombing the entire country into submission.

A country that was trying to negotiate peace...

[Kalis]

So if Russians were fighting in Europe and in the Pacific arent they simply extensions of themselves? Im sticking with semantics.

No, because Russia, the US and British Empire were fighting on two fronts - Europe and Pacific. You argued that the war was over, yet that was only true in one theatre, not in both, as Japan had not surrendered.

So regardless of whether you class it as one war or two, the war was not over.

[NineSpine]

You know, maybe if you apply geopolitics instead of idealistic moralism into policies?

The humiliation of Germany was based on moralism. The peace after WWII with Germany was based on smart geopolitics. You have it utterly backward.

[Saucexorzski]

So if Russians were fighting in Europe and in the Pacific arent they simply extensions of themselves? Im sticking with semantics. It was one war fought in many places.

Then it was not over in the Pacific until Japan surrender.

[NineSpine]

i dont make the claim it saved lives, i make the claim it worked. i make the claim that war is terrible and if you start a total war you going to get it. I make the claim that the only means to peace with the US was for the Japanese to surrender unconditionally, they refused. I see no evil in the action of dropping weapons that were developed to be used.

So let's apply your logic elsewhere: 9/11 was justified because it was the best weapon they had access to.

[Daymanmb]

I see no evil in the action of dropping weapons that were developed to be used.

And never again since.. isnt that strange if they were developed to be used... And I guess when a country wont surrender to your liking buyt still wantas to negotiate peace, the next best thing is to drop 2 nukes on em... good thought process.

[Celarent]

You can tell a lot about motivations when a subject is at your mercy.

Imperial Japan conquered and occupied more than 20 countries and territories. When the Japanese defeated a country, they sent the men to labor death camps, the women and girls to turn tricks, an unlucky few to the most horrifying vivisection imaginable, and then had some fun with random massacres — helpfully taking photographs the whole time.

After Hiroshima and Nagasaki were vaporized, all of Japan's mistreatment of others stopped, and the United States defeated Japan, the United States spent 7 years peacefully rebuilding the country, pouring billions of dollars into construction, education, security and self-government.

The irony? The Japanese thought Americans were going to do to them what the Japanese had done to everyone else. Instead we have efficient cars and anime.

[Obelisk Kai]

Id really like to see the "information" youre basing this on.

http://fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...c-japans-plan/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operat...n_Ketsug.C5.8D

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/olympic.html

http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/dai...ation-olympic/

[Kalis]

V-day
noun
noun: V-day; plural noun: V-days
Victory Day, especially with reference to the Allied victories in World War II.

I cant help but notice that day isnt plural and there isnt an asterix with an exception.

We have VE Day on 7th May and VJ Day on 15th August. I have never heard of V Day.

[Saucexorzski]

So let's apply your logic elsewhere: 9/11 was justified because it was the best weapon they had access to.

To Al-Qaeda i believe they absolutely thought it was necessary and not evil in the slightest. However their war against the US and the war between the US and Japan in WWII are hardly the same thing as Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization and not a Nation. Its a nice analogy though ill give you credit for trying it, but i don think it will work the way you desire.

[Macaquerie]

A country that was trying to negotiate peace...

In any negotiations the Japanese were sure to demand that they be allowed to keep some of their war gains, since they still occupied territory at the time. This was obviously never going to fly, and the only acceptable peace was one where they got nothing, which is what the Allies demanded and the Japanese refused.

[Saucexorzski]

And never again since.. isnt that strange if they were developed to be used... And I guess when a country wont surrender to your liking buyt still wantas to negotiate peace, the next best thing is to drop 2 nukes on em... good thought process.

Well once we saw how destructive nuclear weapons are as well as once others acquired them, going to war with said others was basically asking for mutual destruction. So not really surprising at all that they have not been used again.

[nonameelf]

He was the first US president to visit while in office. But apparently that doesn't go well with your "evil Obama' narrative.

[Dreknar20]

The humiliation of Germany was based on moralism.

humiliation is based on loosing the war. Which they were in both wars.

Humiliation/peace are not the deciding factors in the aftermaths of both world wars

[NineSpine]

To Al-Qaeda i believe they absolutely thought it was necessary and not evil in the slightest. However their war against the US and the war between the US and Japan in WWII are hardly the same thing as Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization and not a Nation. Its a nice analogy though ill give you credit for trying it, but i don think it will work the way you desire.

You think the categorization of the organization committing the act is what determines the validity of the act? Do I even need to point out how absurd that is? It's laughable on it's face.

[Saucexorzski]

No, because we cannot go back in time.
But even the experts from that time agreed they didn't even need to use a bomb at all.
So I imagine that if they don't need a bomb, one on a non-civilian target would have had a good result too.
The best option would have been to not use a bomb at all.

Shoulda woulda coulda its all pointless. They did and it worked and in war results matter more then the feelings of the descendants of those that made the choice. You can go ahead and hold those folks guilty if you want for all the moral high ground you wish to claim you stand on.

[NineSpine]

humiliation is based on loosing the war. Which they were in both wars.

Humiliation/peace are not the deciding factors in the aftermaths of both world wars

Yes, they absolutely are. The rise of the Nazis is 100% contingent upon the humiliation and punishment of Germany after WWI.