Why is America given shit over Nagasaki and Hiroshima?

[sarahtasher]

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

The sentence would be more accurately worded ''because of the impossibility of securing a Soviet mediation'' (that the Red Army massacred the Kwantung Army was of course a bad thing....except for the Navy....but the true disaster was that all the Ketsu-Go plan hinged on ''repel the first American landing, secure Soviet mediation, keep some conquests''

[Dug]

What was the morally good option then in your opinion?

These were the options available:
- Nuke Japan, ~250,000 deaths, potentially forcing them into submission and surrender.
- Invade Japan, with an estimated ~400,000-800,000 American deaths (millions of casualties), and upwards of ~5-10 million Japanese dead (mostly civilians).
- Do nothing, let Japan continue its genocide across China, where they already killed millions.

You'll notice I'm not saying the nukes were unnecessary or that we should have done nothing. I certainly don't think "do nothing" was the right decision. In my view there was no "morally good" option but sometimes morals need to be put aside to address realities.

[Medusa Cascade]

The embargo probably didn't help either

[Machismo]

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 with far more resource costs to us?

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.

I'm very well aware that innocent people die in war. We are also talking about a different time, when civilian casualties were not as big of a "deal breaker" as they are today. I'm merely saying we don't get to claim the moral high ground, because we did the same things as the other guys. Everyone did it, and everyone was getting shit for what they did.

In modern wars, civilian casualties are the fastest way to lose the support of the local populace. That's what happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. There is a clear trend going, that when we are not out to defend our own homeland (WW2), and are not out to gather up more land (also WW2), then we have to have a better strategy.

[Shadowferal]

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

I concede that the shock value of the atomic bomb must of been quite a WTF moment..
But from examining the history they alone didn't seem quite enough.

[Mehrunes]

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.

"That only understood cruelty and annihilation"? And you talk about non-binary thinking...

[Gamer8585]

Well, the use of atomic weapons (and its bigger, meaner cousin: Thermonuclear) has the potential to render the planet devoid of all life, and their use in WWII had the potential to legitimize their use in conflict and usher in the Apocalypse. Also, many of the survivors were civilians that suffered extreme radiation burns and many died of cancer, so the photo-ops were not flattering.

Some context though:
1) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strictly civilian targets (as some people erroneously claim). Hiroshima was home to a large military headquarters, and Nagasaki was essentially Japan's Naval center.
2) Civilians were compelled to use each of their homes as small factories for producing military goods. Blurring the lines between the military and civilian areas due to material support for soldiers.
3) The context of military strategic paradigm up to the point was "War of Annihilation". Essentially hit your enemy until they surrender or die. With the development of WMDs this has thankfully fallen out of fashion.
4) If the atomic bomb wasn't used then an invasion of Japan would have been conducted. This invasion would have been really messy and probably even worse than getting nuked. Before US soldiers would have gone in there would have been constant firebombing of Japanese cities and the US Military was even planing to use HD Mustard (source: https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...,1118875&hl=en) to soften up strategic locations. Instead of 2 cities glowing green it may well have been 10 glowing yellow and lacking any form of infrastructure to help the wounded.

While the atomic attacks were bad it may have been the most merciful option when placed in the totality of context. Whats really amazing though is that many Japanese generals still wanted to fight even after the bombing, and after their Delegation to Moscow's request for the Soviet Military to not enter the war with Japan was rebuffed. Luckily for Japan the Emperor pulled rank and told the Hawkish faction to pull their heads out of their asses and negotiate a surrender.

[Thandrend]

When I was doing my American history degree final portfolio on a very similar question, my best statement in favor was that we ended the war and won with it.

My viewpoints have flip flopped and flip flopped again multiple times on this one particular issue.

Unfortunately, the united States is criticized, or specifically, Truman is, because it was a civilian target.

It's a tough topic.

[Donald Hellscream]

Because of the thousands of civilians that got nuked? I mean I understand the reasoning behind dropping the bombs but that doesn't mean innocents werent killed on a massive scale.

Bombing civilians is effective when fighting people who actually gives a shit about the population but it doesn't make it right.

[Medusa Cascade]

Saying no to the Racial Equality Proposal also didn't help.
Many events in WW2 can be linked back to events around WW1

[Deleted]

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.

What are you talking about?

[Shadowferal]

I don't believe the US understood the full implications of nuclear warfare as it does now.
Hindsight makes things so much clearer.
And it's so easy to get all judgmental well long after the fact and knowing the impact of nuclear warfare today.

[Narwal]

I'm very well aware that innocent people die in war. We are also talking about a different time, when civilian casualties were not as big of a "deal breaker" as they are today. I'm merely saying we don't get to claim the moral high ground, because we did the same things as the other guys. Everyone did it, and everyone was getting shit for what they did.

In modern wars, civilian casualties are the fastest way to lose the support of the local populace. That's what happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. There is a clear trend going, that when we are not out to defend our own homeland (WW2), and are not out to gather up more land (also WW2), then we have to have a better strategy.

OK, I can accept that no one in a war really has the moral high ground, wars of those times were bloody and indiscriminate, but I don't think the US deserves extra scrutiny. I would agree that in the wars of today, we should try to avoid casualties to the general populace. Particularly where we're fighting wars that have the ability to be popular to the people of those countries, for instance in the case of removing bad dictators. WWII was something different. We were fighting very popular governments, you don't win the hearts and minds of the German people of the time by killing off a government they wanted that was bringing them back into prosperity. Still believe the US made the right call, as shitty as it was, in Japan of WWII.

[oxymoronic]

This! This! A thousand times this!

sad and pathetic people in the world believe this. i dont even know how they can rationalize their thoughts other than the old saying "rational minds can rationalize anything"

- - - Updated - - -

I don't believe the US understood the full implications of nuclear warfare as it does now.
Hindsight makes things so much clearer.
And it's so easy to get all judgmental well long after the fact and knowing the impact of nuclear warfare.

what implications? other than children of a very protected (by USA) Europe boasting idiotic thoughts.

[Narwal]

I don't believe the US understood the full implications of nuclear warfare as it does now.
Hindsight makes things so much clearer.
And it's so easy to get all judgmental well long after the fact and knowing the impact of nuclear warfare today.

I would agree with this. We're lucky we "tasted" this back before other countries had their hands on the technology and we got into some end of existence shit.

[Shadowferal]

WWII was something different. We were fighting very popular governments, you don't win the hearts and minds of the German people of the time by killing off a government they wanted that was bringing them back into prosperity. Still believe the US made the right call, as shitty as it was, in Japan of WWII.

Nothing about WWII was about winning the hearts and minds of any of the Axis nations.
They were all culpable for the war crimes they inflicted on other nations and races.

[truckboattruck]

Why I'm not surprised. Then again, the good old ''we luv duh Nazis for killing duh djews but they did not killed duh djews'' is a classic for the always brain challenged Nazis.

excuse me?

[Deleted]

what implications? other than children of a very protected (by USA) Europe boasting idiotic thoughts.

Yeah thanks for joining in halfway through when the Japanese forced you into it.

The 16 million people Hitler murdered while you were protecting Europe I'm sure are eternally grateful.

[Machismo]

OK, I can accept that no one in a war really has the moral high ground, wars of those times were bloody and indiscriminate, but I don't think the US deserves extra scrutiny. I would agree that in the wars of today, we should try to avoid casualties to the general populace. Particularly where we're fighting wars that have the ability to be popular to the people of those countries, for instance in the case of removing bad dictators. WWII was something different. We were fighting very popular governments, you don't win the hearts and minds of the German people of the time by killing off a government they wanted that was bringing them back into prosperity. Still believe the US made the right call, as shitty as it was, in Japan of WWII.

I agree, we do not deserve extra scrutiny. Actually, I would prefer there be as much scrutiny as possible on every government.

[Deleted]

I agree, we do not deserve extra scrutiny. Actually, I would prefer there be as much scrutiny as possible on every government.

You people are very quick to point to human rights atrocities by nations whose oil you want to steal. Some hypocrisy here.