I don't have any comment on Mosul or what we are doing in the Middle East because it simply doesn't connect.
But there is no chance in hell that the two bombings killed more Japanese civilians than the invasion of Japan would have. And an invasion was very likely. Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives.
> Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives.
No, there were alternative ways. Before dropping to the city, you can just drop it to the mountains or along the sea coast to show the power of the bomb. If it doesn't work, do it multiple times in different locations. After that drop it to the military camps. If all doesn't go well drop to the city. Also it didn't have to happen twice in the city, because it was a matter of time for the Japanese government to surrender. It was just an inhuman action to drop two atomic bombs in the city skipping all of these steps.
Even at the end the Japanese government believed by arming the entire population, and turning woman and children and the aged into suicide bombers, that they could inflict such heavy casualties on the allied invasion force that the US would agree to a peace treaty keeping Japan in control of the peoples they had conquered and enslaved.
The US only had two bombs. They weren't even sure they'd work. It might take months to make and deliver more. Thousands were dying every day on both sides. The US leaders decided a demonstration was too risky, what if it failed?
They had already firebombed most of Tokyo and killed more Japanese in one night than the nuclear bombs would kill. And still the Japanese leaders were still determined to use their people as cannon fodder to try to force massive casualties on the invasion force. They probably would have shrugged off the demonstration bombs, especially when no others were dropped after the 2nd for another month.
Meanwhile, tick, tick, thousands more would die every day while the US dawdled. And then they'd have to use the next ones on Japanese cities, so the delay just kills more.
> The US only had two bombs. They weren't even sure they'd work.
It worked. It didn't have to happen twice. It shouldn't have been used like a human experiment.
> It might take months to make and deliver more.
Wait until you are prepared. Or you can stop with a bomb. The US was preparing for 10 bombs until the end of the year.
> Thousands were dying every day on both sides.
No, such number of non-combatants were dying only in Japan.
> The US leaders decided a demonstration was too risky, what if it failed?
No, the bombing succeeded. No need for second one. Also Japan was ready to surrender two months before Hiroshima.
>Meanwhile, tick, tick, thousands more would die every day while the US dawdled.
The bombing in Tokyo is also known as one of the most inhuman bombing ever recorded. Bombing never happens like a natural disaster. If the US does not take such action it will never happen.
Japan wasn't ready to surrender unconditionally. It didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They only surrendered a week later after Nagasaki. Before that they were only ready to surrender if the US agreed to let them keep the territories they'd enslaved.
Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them?
War is hell. The US didn't rape Nanking. It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs. The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit.
>Japan wasn't ready to surrender unconditionally. It didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They only surrendered a week later after Nagasaki. Before that they were only ready to surrender if the US agreed to let them keep the territories they'd enslaved.
The Japanese government was preparing for the surrender for a year before Hiroshima. They were also talking with the Soviet Union for peace negotiations months before. It was matter of time for surrender and just the condition which was not decided. Japanese government has not enslaved like what the US did to Africa.
>Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them?
As I said, there were alternative ways without killing that much and using atomic bombs in the city twice. It is just that the US took the easy path.
> War is hell.
Yes, very true.
> The US didn't rape Nanking
The large number claimed by the current Chinese government of which country that does internet censorship and anti-Japan campaign is a propaganda which is officially denied by the Japanese government and historians.
> It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor.
Pearl Harbor was definitely bad. But mostly killed were combatants that is different from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
> It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs.
Wow millions? Where did this large number come from?
> The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit.
They were trying to have a better condition for surrender. Surrender was a matter of time and the US didn't have to drop the atomic bombs twice in the city.
The japanese committed millions of atrocities in World War II. Their government denies virtually every single one. Even if the Chinese exaggerated the rape of Nanking, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (judges/prosecutors from all of the Allies, including Russia) put Chinese deaths at over 200,000 in that one brief event.
They tortured, starved and murdered POWs, the Bataan Death march being just one example. Unit 731 tortured and murdered prisoners with biological and chemical warfare experiments.
And you keep saying they were ready to surrender. I agree they wanted a peace deal. But only if they could save face, and retain the territories they had conquered. The Military Facists who ran the government and the Emperor refused to consider unconditional surrender until the bombs were dropped. And even when the Emperor changed his mind, part of the military facists attempted to revolt and stop it.
> The japanese committed millions of atrocities in World War II.
Killing combatants in war is different from "torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs" or "committed millions of atrocities". Please be more specific, accurate and show sources if you want to talk about this kind of large numbers.
>Their government denies virtually every single one.
Wow virtually every single one? So there might be lots of examples. Please show them so that I can check the validity of your claim. I am suspicious that you are exaggerating stuff like the Chinese government.
> the Far East (judges/prosecutors from all of the Allies, including Russia) put Chinese deaths at over 200,000 in that one brief event.
Death is different from raping. You should not mix them up. Killing or raping is bad no matter what.
> They tortured, starved and murdered POWs, the Bataan Death march being just one example. Unit 731 tortured and murdered prisoners with biological and chemical warfare experiments.
Yes torturing is really bad. But isn't US better at this? Both Japan and the US did bad things in the past. One thing to notice is that the US is still bombing and killing not just terrorists but innocent people including kids.
>And you keep saying they were ready to surrender. I agree they wanted a peace deal. But only if they could save face, and retain the territories they had conquered. The Military Facists who ran the government and the Emperor refused to consider unconditional surrender until the bombs were dropped. And even when the Emperor changed his mind, part of the military facists attempted to revolt and stop it.
Yes the Emperor and the Japanese military could have done a better job to surrender earlier. But did the US tell Japan that they will drop atomic bombs to make them surrender? The answer is no. The Japanese government did not even notice that it was an atomic bomb in the first place. US is the one who dropped atomic bombs and killed non-combatants, and no matter what you think it is considered one of the most inhuman actions in human history and this fact will never change.
> Yes torturing is really bad. But isn't US better at this? Both Japan and the US did bad things in the past. One thing to notice is that the US is still bombing and killing not just terrorists but innocent people including kids.
Nice try to completely avoided the actual facts of the rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March and Unit 731. Regardless of what the U.S. does now ( and I agree some of it is awful), Japan's armies raped, tortured and murdered enormous numbers of POWs and civilians during WWII. You can't deny it any more than I can deny that the U.S. currently kills terrorism suspects with drones.
> Yes the Emperor and the Japanese military could have done a better job to surrender earlier. But did the US tell Japan that they will drop atomic bombs to make them surrender? The answer is no. The Japanese government did not even notice that it was an atomic bomb in the first place. US is the one who dropped atomic bombs and killed non-combatants, and no matter what you think it is considered one of the most inhuman actions in human history and this fact will never change.
The dropping of the bombs was clearly humane. The Emperor and military were going to use millions of civilians as human shields and weapons during the invasion. They refused to surrender unconditionally until the bombs were dropped. They intended to duplicate the results of the "Divine Wind" yielded against the Mongols, only using human lives instead of a hurricane. All so they could retain their "empire" and their ability to subject Chinese, Koreans, and peoples across the NW pacific.
Then your nationality is Japan or not? Interesting to hear.
> Nice try to completely avoided the actual facts of the rape of Nanking, the Bataan Death March and Unit 731. Regardless of what the U.S. does now ( and I agree some of it is awful), Japan's armies raped, tortured and murdered enormous numbers of POWs and civilians during WWII.
Even if some include propaganda from the Chinese government, I have already said "both Japan and the US did bad things in the past." and not completely avoided the facts. You even did not answer my questions. Please read my comments carefully.
> You can't deny it any more than I can deny that the U.S. currently kills terrorism suspects with drones.
Oh yes, babies are terrorist suspects, doctors and patients in hospitals are also terrorist suspects. Aren't they?
> The dropping of the bombs was clearly humane.
If dropping atomic bombs is clearly humane, why not use them in every war? The US should use them in every war since Hiroshima and Nagasaki but they have not. Atomic bomb is considered one of the Weapons of Mass Destruction, that even the US justifies for starting a war in Iraq for the suspicion of them for just having a WMD. Clearly using atomic bombs is an inhuman action and the US knows it. That is why they have not used it anymore.
> The Emperor and military were going to use millions of civilians as human shields and weapons during the invasion. They refused to surrender unconditionally until the bombs were dropped. They intended to duplicate the results of the "Divine Wind" yielded against the Mongols, only using human lives instead of a hurricane. All so they could retain their "empire" and their ability to subject Chinese, Koreans, and peoples across the NW pacific.
Again I have already said "the Emperor and the Japanese military could have done a better job to surrender earlier". You seem to rush into conclusions without reading my comments carefully and many times having a false conclusion. At the present day, atomic bomb is a WMD and using WMD is clearly considered an inhuman action also by the US government themselves.
I know there was such suggestion, but it still does not cover my full comment. Also "valuearb" says there was no chance, but I say there were alternative ways and indeed there were. Atomic bomb is costly and takes time to produce, but the US just took the easy path and it does not change the inhuman action for the two bombings to the cities.
You really should read a good history of the war. You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays. You don't understand how committed Japanese military leadership was to fight to the end. You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.
>You really should read a good history of the war.
You only talk about one side of the history, and you should definitely learn from both sides.
> You don't understand how many people were still dying every day because of it, and how many more would die due to delays.
Only if the US tries to kill the non-combatants. It is not a natural disaster.
>You don't even understand that the Nuclear bombs weren't even the most deadly or inhumane bombings Japan endured.
You don't understand how atomic bomb survivors have been enduring physically for their whole life. It is different from a regular bomb. It is an inhuman action to use them for humans and the US is the only one who actually used it ever in the history.
The idea that the USA bombed Japan to spare Japanese civilians from a worse fate is just absurd.
The underlying logic is extremely controversial, and relies a lot in "othering" the Japanese, and talking about them in terms like "they would fight to the last man, woman, and child" like they were wild dogs or something.
A much stronger theory is that Japanese were sacrificed in order to flex muscle against the Soviet Union.
So what? Imagine if America got bombed and then people used the behavior of poorly understood minority sectors of the country as justification.
Man, as an outsider looking in, it seems like the propaganda program surrounding the atomic bomb is astoundingly effective. Everyone regurgitates the same arguments, the fact that its contentious in the history and ethics communities seems to be glossed over completely.
It's not contentious. The facts are clear. It took an extraordinary turnabout by the Emperor to even consider surrender, and that only happened after the two bombs. Before the bombs the Japanese leaders believed they could force the US to accept a peace where they kept most of the lands they had enslaved.
The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't even the most deadly of the war. The US had burned most of Tokyo to the ground and more was coming.
Japanese citizens were going to die in masses when the invasion force hit the beach. Either sacrificing themselves in suicide attacks, or being used as human shields.
The facts are absolutely not clear, it's a hotly debated historical topic, and the fact that you claim it's clear is just a testament to how the American education system chooses to portray its own history to its children.
>A much stronger theory is that Japanese were sacrificed in order to flex muscle against the Soviet Union.
I've seen that theory floated but it never made sense to me, and I haven't seen any documentary evidence to support it.
I prefer to apply Occam's Razor... which to me suggests the simplest conclusion is that the US bombed Japan hoping to spare American soldiers from the worse fate of an invasion, not the Japanese.
No one said the US used nukes to spare Japanese civilian deaths. They did it to end the war which was killing thousands of people a day from both sides, and that was before an invasion that would easily kill over a million people.
The Japanese leaders still thought they could negotiate an "honorable" surrender that would allow them to keep the lands they had brutally enslaved.
They still believed in the Kamikazi, the "Divine Wind" which destroyed the invasion fleet of the worlds most dominant and brutal military machine just before it could brutally subjugate Japan. They thought they could arm children, the elderly, housewives, or turn them into suicide bombers and kill so many of the invaders that the bloodbath would force the US to agree to their terms.
US leaders really had no choice. If they tried to wait out the Japanese without using the bomb, the family of every sailor and pilot who died in those many months would be rightfully angry. They'd be out for blood against the entire sitting US government in the next election. Just as the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead US soldiers would be, after finding out the US invaded without using the bomb.
By ending the war more quickly with the bomb, US leaders also saved the lives of an immense number of Japanese who were being fired-bombed, shot and starving in huge numbers.
General US Grant was renowned for fighting brutal battles of attrition intended to bleed the confederate armies of soldiers, between his forces and theirs his battles created casualties of 350,000 Americans. But before he was given total command of US forces nearly a half million had already been killed. He ended the war after one last bloody year that was costing nearly 200,000 lives a year, and killing civilians by the many thousands.
Another way to think about it is this. How many American soldiers would be killed in the invasion? The American soldiers who would invade are every bit as innocent as the women and children killed in the A-bomb attacks. Estimates are that Around 500,000 American soldiers would be killed or seriously wounded in an invasion. Every American soldier was an innocent man, defending his country from the Japanese who brutally attacked st Pearl Harbor. Do the lives of these innocent men not matter to you? This perfectly demonstrates what's so screwed up about liberals in America. They would literally rather send many more of their own countrymen to get their arms and legs blown off and killed, rather than kill the enemy. It's sickening, awful and evil how they would gladly sacrifice more of their own innocent fellow Americans to save the wives and children of attackers. Send 500k Americans to get murdered by the japanese, plus their dead, or kill 250k with the a bomb.
The choice is clear once you have the facts. Of course maybe you don't think it matters if American soldiers die. Maybe you think it's better that they die than the enemy. Try telling that to the wife of a soldier lost in battle. Try explaining that to a kid who wonders where his dad is. "The Japanese who attacked us at Pearl Harbor and want to kill us are more important to keep alive than your daddy".
You see think pictures of the a bomb with horror. And rightly so. But you forget the horrors of Okinawa. The terror of Kamikaze pilots literally suicide bombing the Americans.
The a bomb was not only better from a military and casualty standpoint, it was better for Japan in the long run. It completely broke the back of their military empire in a way that not even an invasion could. It was complete and utter defeat that crushed their delusions that they would gain greatness through military strength. That enabled them to move on and rebuild focusing on the right thing, economic power
I definitely don't think terrorism is more justified if it saves your own peers' lives.
The narrative that it saved Japanese lives is based on wrong premises (they'd never surrender, etc.), but tries to build a persuasive argument that it was for their own good.
I can't understand why you think "the american military saved their own lives by killing foreign civlians" is at all a more persuasive justification.
Ok so you literally think that it's better to have 500k Americans killed than 250k Japanese, when the Japanese attacked us. And you consider defending yourself terrori sm???
How are the Japanese civilians any more innocent than the Americans? Can you answer this?? No you can't. You are just confused and have no comprehension of how evil Pearl Harbor and the Japanese rulers were. You have obviously never heard of the Bataan death march.
I literally think you are a horrible human being. You would rather sacrifice more of your own countrymen to save the wives and children of the attakcers. You are a straight up evil human being. There are no other words to describe it.
Thank you for proving to me beyond a doubt that liberals hate this country and would gladly see it burn.
It's gonna be great busting out this comment next time dang or another mod is crying that I'm being too mean and hostile to some duped liberal or conservative.
How can you even say that? They were peacefully living when the insane Japanese killed thousands of Americans, and were preparing to invade the USA? It was fight or be killed. So if you are defending you homeland, defending yourself from murder, your wives from rape, you are somehow no longer innocent?
Your like the witch hunters. If you float your guilty so kill them. If you drown your innocent but dead.
If you want tough choices, ask Japanese to choose between living as they are now (with atomic bombing in the past) or Japan living as a North Korea (but without atomic bombing).
But there is no chance in hell that the two bombings killed more Japanese civilians than the invasion of Japan would have. And an invasion was very likely. Most likely Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a million Japanese lives.