Was this really necessary?

Was this really necessary?

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=1
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

yes

>option 1: invade
>projected casualties were going to be in the millions
>devastation everywhere as we'd have to fight tooth and nail over the entire damn island
>millions of civilians are either killed or displaced
>Soviets come in from the north and wreck shit up there
>realistically speaking it'd either be a bloodbath for both sides or Korea Japan Edition

>option 2: A-bomb a city or two
>only a few hundred thousand casualties
>only certain amount of cities destroyed vs an entire country
>the only targets were militarized zones and industrial centers
>Japan if they weren't fully retarded would surrender soon
>America can establish influence in the country and keep the Soviets out
>world is shown power of the A-bomb

Japan wasn't planning on surrendering anytime soon, so yes it was the better option. Besides the firebombing of Tokyo caused more deaths and destruction and the Japanese were doing all kinds of fucked up shit in Manchuria and Korea. The bombings wielded the best results with the least casualties, and we even warned them ahead of time that shit was going to get serious if they didn't surrender, which was retarded of them not to since they had no outside resources and the Soviets attacking them in mainland Asia.

Of course. All critics at the time should have been sent to Iwo Jima as first wave human shields

You are a idiot, the biggest invasion never reached million, search for normandia.

Yes and two weren't enough

Yes, weebfilth.

Yes and should've drop some on Korea just to be sure

I said "projected" you moron. It's one of the reasons why we never actually invaded Japan, way too costly and not really worth it in the end unless if people wanted to dig themselves into a deeper hole.

100%

Entirely, what better way to end the war?

Absolutely not. Read this.

archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=1

We didn't use enough, apparently.

*Looks at flag*

Nevermind.

Not a shitpost. Read it faggot.

Japan killed 20,000,000 civilian's "for the lulz"

The least of many evils.

No but war is war and honorable Japan accepts defeat with or without nukes

EMPEROR WANTED TO SURRENDER A MONTH BEFORE NUKES AND USA GAVE JAPAN THEIR DEMANDS

NUKES WERE UNNECESSARY BUT FINE BECAUSE WAR

Its not exactly about number of soldiers ( although as I recall the plan they drew up did feature well over a million soldiers for the US alone)

Regardless think of the amount of japanese that died in china, or in the pacific overall. Now imagine them fighting a ground war in japan itself.

>/?page=1
Even with two nukes the generals nearly overthrew the emperor to keep fighting, your completely off base.

The japanese wanted to negotiate a favourable surrender where they more or less kept japan and likely korea. US wanted unconditional and even after a nuke the japanese were not willing to do that.

They did not though

Well actually his surrender essentially maintained japan and his leadership. America for obvious reasons wanted complete surrender, its like germany turning around and surrendering on the condition they keep germany and hitlers still in charge.

Yes, if we didn't do it the Soviets would have invaded Japan before we could mobilize enough troops in the Pacific for a successful invasion. Some Japanese civilians died, but many would have died under the rule of the USSR, just look at what happened in the other Soviet occupied territories.

We had to establish dominance

The nukes were necessary for two proven reasons in Declassified Archives:

1. Japan while saying they wanted peace were arming population for invasion. A land invasion of Japan would have led to a Vietnam War level attrition, which Pentagon did not want to risk given the Pacific Theatre island casualties

2. OSS was 90% certain Israeli scientists at Los Almos had stolen the bomb secrets and were shopping them to China / USSR / France to try and buy themselves a country. Because the Moscow desk estimated Stalin was about 2 years away from a bomb, the USA/UK decided to hype the fuck out of a Nuke and the fact they would use a Nuke on the USSR to buy them time and a Peace Deal at Yalta. It kind of worked, USSR did not refuse to return Berlin to NATO hands, but it also backfired that the USSR threw everything they had at Nuke Proliferation for 20 years.

TLDR: Yes it was a good idea. Had Fat Boy not dropped, Japan would have fought it out for 5 more years, the USSR would have pushed all the way past Berlin and with a Soviet Germany, the PACT would have likely lasted through the OPEC Crisis.

>Was this really necessary?
We asked for an unconditional surrender, and did not get it. So we nuked them.

We asked a second time for unconditional surrender....and again, we had to drop a nuke.

So we asked a 3rd time, and lo and behold the japs were willing to negotiate.

Forced the Japs to surrender, preventing massive casualties on both sides. It also showed the Soviets that America had nukes, preventing them from trying to scoop up Japan in the post war land grab. Today, Japan is a prosperous nation, unlike almost every country that fell under soviet control.

Japan got their demands and the emperor wanted surrender before nukes, therefore nukes unnecessary

Still no apologies because war is war