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%