With North Korea testing nukes it's tie to again ask:

With North Korea testing nukes it's tie to again ask:

Were the Atomic bombings on Japan justified? Did they prevent an invasion of Japan and greater loss of life?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM
alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/decisive-darkness-what-if-japan-hadnt-surrendered-in-1945.296250/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

A nuke was gonna get dropped somewhere whether you like it or not.

It would have been terrible no matter where it was dropped, but it had to happen once in order for people to take nukes seriously to not drop any more of them.

The whole discussion is a total meme. If nukes didn't exist they would have been annihilated with firebombing/conventional bombing. And all things considered I'd much rather be nuked then firebombed.

No justification is needed. In war any act that leads to victory is justified.

Is murder in war justified? Yes. Americans even dropped flyers in the cities days before attack warning civilians to leave. They just didn't give a shit about what american playboys had to say.

>but it had to happen once in order for people to take nukes seriously to not drop any more of them.
this is a pretty good argument I think. Russia developed nukes soon after and they probably would have ended up dropping one on Japan anyway since they had just declared war on Japan and probably had no interest in suffering massive losses on the ground considering hoe any of the died against the Germans

>the atomic bomb made japan surrender meme
It was for russia.
Literally the entire second half of ww2 for the allies was to position against a possible russian conflict after the war

The first Russian nuke was in 1949.

Say what you will about the Japs intransigence but they weren't all that.

We were at war with Japan so it was justified. If would have been justified to genocide them if they never surrendered.

No shit it was to show the Russians, but it was also a major factor in the surrender. 2 birds one stone my ricebelly friend.

Holy shit this is the best argument for nuking the Japs I've ever read.

If it weren't for this, maybe the US and Soviets wouldn't have had so much apprehension about starting some shit they would have really regretted.

Did they prevent a complete destruction? Yes.

Were they justified the way they were used? No.

They could have drppped one in the bay of Tokyo where it would serve as a show of force without the mass civilian casualty. After the drop in Hiroshima the communication lines were all broke so the japanese government/emperor in Tokio didn't know what had happened for days so they had to drop another one in Nakazaki.

Overall that was a stupid way of doing it.

We should have nuked Germany too. There were not enough nukes dropped in that war.

>moralizing by people who've never had to make a decision in their life on people who were trying to end the single most destructive war in human history

We very may well have taken Patton's advice and just gone to war with the Soviets as soon as Berlin was taken, and just fought a perpetual, civilization-ending war for the entire fucking century. They were playing for the biggest stakes anyone's ever played with. Fuck people who wring hands over 120k dying to end a war where tens of millions had already died.

The island would have been firebombed to hell and back regardless. If you want to discuss whether or not the bombing (regardless of what kind, firebombing caused even more casualties that nukes) of the mainland was justified, I'd say yes. It's always a safe bet to dominant through artillery/bombing rather than throwing your troops into the home turf of the enemy.

The US took the lack of response from the Japanese as a lack of surrender. The US informed Japan we were going to bomb them if they didn't back down beforehand. Were we supposed to know the emperor somehow hadnt received news that an entire urban area was leveled? Seems fair enough to assume they just were refusing surrender, since they had been refusing all the way up until we were at their front door pounding them with other types of bombs

Was there any reason we didn't just completely blockade Japan and wait?

I get that an actual invasion would have been way worse for both sides. But why didn't we just do nothing and wait.

Japan would have eventually sent out diplomats to negotiate peace terms (white peace, give up all colonies).

Where was the urgency?

This is what i like to think.

Imagine you were in the 40s. the invasion of japan seemed immanent. you get this big ass new weapon that can wipe city blocks. and it will save lives for your side. WYD

I think it's morally superior to vaporize people instantly, than to continue a total war that will end in a similar level of casualties.

>vaporize people instantly
Lmao. You can't possibly believe this is how most of the people died.

>Russia developed nukes soon after
A big lie, in fact the entire cold war was a lie and the social engineering on a global scale was well underway by the middle of the 20th century. Freemason FDR gave Jesuit Stalin the bomb - parts and plans - through lend lease. Always remember the first causality in war is the truth. More on topic, the Jesuits detonated the first A bomb in Hiroshima - a ground detonation actually - for revenge since they were expelled from Japan starting about 1600 for 200 years, never forgive, never forget. If you doubt this just look at the churches corny Miracle of Hiroshima propaganda. Those boys knew exactly what they were doing and knew the hill near the church would block the brunt of the blast.

>Since they dropped fliers warning they would drop a nuclear bomb, it was totally justified

We only nuked them to establish our nuclear dominance over the Soviets and prevent them from joining in the occupation of Japan.

People think these low yield first gen nukes were these world ending devices, but they weren't much worse than our carpet bombing campaigns at the time. The firebombed Tokyo into fucking dust with gasoline bombs.

Over half of the deaths in both cities occurred in the first day. It's safe to say the vast majority of people died within the first several days.

No, Truman just wanted to try his new toy

mass starvation. those japs would fuck themselves over in the millions for the sake of their mighty emperor

Was the Atomic Bomb Justified?
Short answer: Yes

President Harry S. Truman's decision to use atomic weapons against the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved to be one of the most controversial decisions in American history. As the years have passed, the controversy has only intensified. More and more people both in America and abroad have condemned both President Truman and America for that decision.

But this criticism is based on limited historical knowledge of both the situation Truman confronted and the basis for his decision. Such flawed analysis has been aided by the unfortunate influence of some very bad history, such as that written by members of the so-called "atomic diplomacy" school. These historians disgracefully alleged that Truman proceeded to drop two atomic bombs on a Japan, which he knew was on the verge of surrender, so as to intimidate the Soviet Union in the already developing Cold War. That specious interpretation must be refuted fully.

Truman sought to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two major military/industrial targets, to avoid an invasion of Japan, which Truman knew would mean, in his words, quote, "an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other," His assumptions were entirely legitimate.

By July of 1945 the Japanese had been subjected to months of devastating attacks by American B-29s, their capital and other major cities had suffered extensive damage, and the home islands were subjected to a naval blockade that made food and fuel increasingly scarce. Japanese military and civilian losses had reached approximately three million and there seemed no end in sight. Despite all this, however, Japan's leaders and especially its military clung fiercely to notions of Ketsu-Go ("decisive battle"). In fact, the Japanese government had mobilized a large part of the population into a national militia which would be deployed to defend the home islands.

Confirming the Japanese determination to fight on is the fact that even after the use of atomic bombs against both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese military still wanted to pursue that desperate option. The atomic bombs forced Emperor Hirohito to understand clearly, and in a way his military leaders refused to comprehend, that the defence of the homeland was hopeless. It took the unprecedented intervention of a Japanese emperor to break the impasse in the Japanese government and finally order surrender. It was only the dropping of the atom bombs that allowed the emperor and the so-called peace faction in the Japanese government to negotiate an end to the war.

All the viable alternate scenarios to secure American victory all would have meant significantly greater American and allied casualties and much higher Japanese civilian and military casualties. According to American military estimates at the time, those numbers would have been well above one million.

Hard as it may be to accept, Japanese losses would have been far greater without the bombs. And the overall casualties would also have included thousands of Allied prisoners of war whom the Japanese planned to execute in case of invasion.

Truman's use of the bomb should be seen as his choosing the least awful of the options available to him.

Even in retrospect, far removed from the pressures that Truman faced in 1945, his critics can offer no serious and convincing proposal regarding a viable and less costly alternative. The judgment of history is clear and unambiguous: the atomic bombs shortened the war, averted the need for a land invasion, saved countless more lives on both sides of the blood-soaked conflict than they cost, and ended the Japanese brutalization of the conquered peoples of Asia.

Given the alternatives, what would any moral person have done in Truman's position?

Hence they suffered for a day or week before dying

has anyone got an accurate figures for the amount of deaths from cancer due to the fallout of these bombs?

>Were the Atomic bombings on Japan justified?
No, they weren't. You cannot justify that level of force against the Japanese, it simply wasn't enough.

youtube.com/watch?v=BmIBbcxseXM
Source

kek

Jap rations were down to ridiculously low levels towards the end of the war. Continuing a blockade would have starved millions.

>bomb civilians TWICE instead of showing power of the nukes on military targets, ships, etc.
>save all jap scientist who worked in death camps
>help em destroy all evidence of Nanking Massacre and other war crimes

Ffs, burgers. First you saving kikes and literaly giving them free money. Then japs. Then funding ISIS and other sand thugs.

Cancer of the world.

>No, they weren't. You cannot justify that level of force against the Japanese

i read this and rage typed about 3 paragraphs in refute of this, then..

> it simply wasn't enough.

mah nigga

Your metrics are completely off m8 . Tokyo had a populace double the amount of both cities ...more people to kill. Ultimately if you dropped either fat man or little boy in Tokyo it would still trump the regular firebombing almost instantly. Maybe less real estate but a higher fatality quotient , its a measure of insane power within a small package.

It really is kind of a pointless discussion, within two generations Japan and the Japanese were completely fine - probably the best country in the world, in many metrics

.There were under two thousand extra cancer deaths attributable to both bombs, from 1945 onwards. Very minor. The thing to remember is that these early bombs weren't particularly powerful or advanced.

It made them quit that thing we didnt want them to do. So, sure. Why not?

Amen. Restrain on an enemy is the stupidest shit ever.

Japanese thinking. It's possible to conduct a moral war, to adjust targets, to treat casualties, and to respect prisoners. It will never be perfect, but it's necessary for our own morale (as white people)

They had it coming. No remorse, here.

But if they dropped the bomb in Tokyo nobody would be left to surrender, retard. Truman just used a sledgehammer to crack a nut

>don't nuke japan
>keep getting attack
>more americans die
>we possibly lose the war

Lmao moral war. It's us against them, the nuke ended the war. What else do you want? You want more soldiers to die ? That's not moral is it?

you can take your "moral war" and write it on your fantasy picture book

>asking Anglos if they think their genocidal bombing campaigns against civilian population (both conventional and nuclear) were justified
What answer do you expect? These people were subjected to decades of brainwashing telling them they are literally Captain America and protectors of justice and freedom everywhere in the world. The fact that in Germany alone they deliberately and systematically burned alive half a million people (knowing fully well that they will be killing civilians, and going precisely for that result) cannot even register with them at this point. Same with nuclear bombings.

The effect of nukes on Japan is greatly exaggerated, it was mostly war propaganda. They were dropped sure, and yea they function but the reality is they only killed a couple thousand people and the dangers of nukes and radiation general is greatly exaggerated to this day.

Do shit, get hit.

When we finally going to remove the Japanese scum?

>half a million people
>muh Dresden
Even fucking German authorities have disproved the bullshit half million figure.

The nukes were more effective than large scale firebombing campaigns. For comparison Dresden inflicted less casualties than either of the bombs.

Why aren't you guys using nukes on ISIS?

You still don't understand how big Tokyo is do you ? Maybe chill on using that " retard" word... jagaloon.

Would you use a shotgun to swat a fly ?

Friendly fire

First Anglo doing his favorite genocide denial thing.

The figure is not for Dresden, but for Germany total.

...

But you guys already did that by nuking Japan
Did I hurt you feelings shartmarter? No matter how big were Tokyo back then (not even comparable to the size of the metropolitan Tokyo of today), 2 nukes would have been enough to wipe the city

Why don't we take North Korea? Why should have invaded them years ago.

I'm so sick and tired of people giving 'muica shit about nuking Japan. They focus on this one event against the backdrop of the worst conflict in human history and conveniently forget that for like 15 years before 1945 Japan was raping and killing people in every country from China to the Phillipines and brutally killed more men, women, and children than died at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the firebombings combined.

>nuke a few thousand nips
>lose millions upon millions of american boys trying to invade the islands

Pick one you cucks

I thought 10th grade history class made it abundantly clear how batshit insane the Japanese were by the end of WWII

>we
>Norway

Was Nanking justificed? Nips played the game and they lost.

the fact that they dident give up after the first nuke is a pretty good testament to their resilience

Probably not you really don't know how to count nor does it seem like you understand warhead yield scaling... you should probably stop replying.

In any case Tokyo at the time was a city of about 5 million people ...let that marinate.

This isn’t the whole story, though. There is a subtle technical difference mixed in here. Firebombing on par with the Tokyo raid spread a moderate chance of death over a large area. The atomic bombs dropped in World War II spread a very high chance of death over a relatively small area. So depending on the target in question, the difference in fatalities might or might not matter. The Hiroshima bomb was perfectly capable of killing something like half of the city — but it was a pretty small city, compared to Tokyo. Tokyo has areas of incredibly high density, but also large areas of relatively moderate to low density.

>believing in all the pro genocide anglo propaganda to justify the killings
>I thought 10th grade history class
I thought they started brainwashing you guys earlier. When did they start teach you about the 6 gorillion killed jews?

Leader of NATO is a norwegian.
You're my little bitch now ;)

In order for them to surrender, they had to be nuked again AND have their entire Manchurian army disintegrate in front of their eyes.
There is a breddy gud Alt. His. story about what would happen if the Japs continued fighting even after the nukes and the Soviet intervention. alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/decisive-darkness-what-if-japan-hadnt-surrendered-in-1945.296250/
Trigger warning for the weebs, Japan gets eternally BTFO beyond all belief.

>Firebombing on par with the Tokyo raid spread a moderate chance of death over a large area
>100,000+ killed in a 3 hour raid
>moderate
SHART

Yep they were.

Moderate in comparison to Hiroshima (which is a smaller city, which would triple in casualties) .Your reading comprehension is appalling ..good day to you .

The avoiding US casualties thing is just a talking point, it was never the reason for dropping the bomb.

Before the US developed the bomb they had been pressing the SU for help in the war in the Pacific. Once the bomb was in play, it opened up new avenues. The US especially wanted to avoid a repeat of the Churchill/Eastern Europe disaster i.e. whoever conquers a territory during the war determines its sphere of influence (Churchill unilaterally interfered in Greece iirc, which gave Stalin the green light to mess up the soon-to-be Eastern Bloc's supposedly "democratic elections"). The US knew that if the SU joined the fight in the Pacific, then Japan would become a contested area. In order to prevent this from happening, to fully engulf Japan in the US sphere of influence, and to curb (what the US perceived as) Stalin's "greed" in Eastern Europe, the US needed a display of power strong enough to both bring Japan down to its knees immediately (before Stalin joined) and strong enough to make Stalin think twice before trying anything stupid elsewhere.

There's plenty of interesting literature on this subject. I've personally read
Gar Alperovitz — "Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam, the Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power"
Shane Maddock — "Nuclear Apartheid: The Quest for American Atomic Supremacy from World War II to the Present"
and of course a bunch of more general works on the Cold War which have sections that deal with the bombing of Japan, including John Lewis Gaddis' works, Thomas Paterson, Melvyn Leffler, Odd Arne Westad

But the Soviets joined anyways.
And because of this, China is now communist. The US was not fast enough.

>Were the Atomic bombings on Japan justified?
No. But so do other war crimes by all participants.
Problem is that other countries have acknowledged their crimes, and US is not.
Always the good guy. Even when bombing a sleeping city.

It was a strategic decision and we'd all do it again, because it was the correct course of action. There's really nothing to apologize for. We're not sorry for nuking you, at all.

>an english teacher in japan being a cuck for the japs
lmao if the bombs weren't dropped, the US and the USSR would have to stage land invasions.
Conservative estimates put the casualties to the millions for both sides. Without counting civilians of course. Do you really want Japan to have been BTFO beyond anything seen before?

>alt history forum posts are valid sources for reality
The fact is, before Hiroshima the Japs had already offered to surrender with the ONLY condition being that the Emperor stayed on the throne.
After the war the Emperor stayed on the throne anyway.
So the bombings were pointless.

I just posted it for fun desu, it's not supposed to be 100% realistic.
Any sources on that surrender claim?

The atomic bombs were not the most lethal bombings of cities. This meme needs to end. The worst bombing was the firebombing of Tokyo. It killed more than either of the atomic bombs and destroyed more land.

It was good it did happen. That toy was going to be thrown by some other country very soon.
Bomb happened. War ended.
No one has justifiable reason to bomb until cold war stuff started later on.

Should have nuked China than Japan.

Could have killed the future Chinese Communist Leaders and put an end to Communism in East Asia considering if Mao died, Vietnam, Korea, and Cambodia wouldn't have gotten influenced.

The US literally dropped flyers on the cities, warned the government multiple times and tried peace treaties. They had it coming.

Yes.

>muh Bataan
>muh Philippines

Did Macarthur come back from the grave just to write this shit or something?

Well. Funny part is the nuke was basically an act of restrain.

The alternative would have obliterated both Japan and the american army.

The number of deaths would have been much much bigger than hiroshima and nagasaki.

To be honest OP:

The US should never have stopped nuking the world.

The original plan was just to keep dropping nukes on cities as soon as they came off the production line. It was a mistake to stop. There should have been bombers flying around the world for the next ten years glassing major population centres in Japan, Russia, the Middle East, and Africa. Nobody should have been allowed to develop communism, or further develop technologically, or to have any form of civilizations outside of the West. We should have claimed our rightful place as the new world order, purified the earth, and then proceeded to recolonize.

>proceeded to recolonize
With who, jews?

Teach me how to shitpost this hard, please.

Canada undisputed shitpost champions

>nuke 120k civilians, radiation damage still present in genes
>Hitler is condemned as the war criminal

fuck you murca, you're what's wrong with this world