American Politics

[UFGN]

Btw UK were awaire of the planned bombings of Japan and agreed to it as was required

If the UK had not supported the bombings they probably wouldn't have happened

[Jedi]

Jedi still sponsoring sweat shops ffs.

I'd rather work in sweatshop than be obliterated by a nuke, not gonna lie

[UFGN]

WW2 was a filthy horror show filled with horrific choices. Hiroshima is the most well known and directly consequential but there were horrible life or death decisions being made every day

600 civilians died in one night in Coventry because Germany decided to carpet bomb it.

Do you know who also knew they were going to bomb Coventry? Churchill.

He decided not to increase air defenses and to let it happen. Why? Because otherwise the Germans would know we had broken their codes

Horrific. But how can you criticise the decision?

[LMAO]

Btw are you against the brutal murder of 200,000+ innocent people?

I'm for diplomacy first. However, if war was the only option (i.e. finding myself as a commander in the middle of one) and dropping a bomb resulted in the fewest amount of civilian casualties and brought about the end of the war, then it's a price to be paid, as terrible as it is. That's war, it's not a pleasant stroll in the park ffs. Hard decisions have to be made, which is why I'm against war under all but the most extreme of situations.

[LMAO]

Congratulations! By choosing option B (full-scale land invasion), you've sentenced millions to death instead; women and children are still going to die, but now you've stretched it out to months and increased the body count.

But oh wait! Your decision had an unintended consequence. Since atomic bombs weren't used in war before, there isn't the condemnation of them. Now the USSR has their own nukes. Uh oh, they've just launched one at LA. In retaliation, you have to send one to Moscow. What's this? Now NYC has been nuked, and so has St. Petersburg/Leningrad. Whoops, guess DC is history now, as is Kiev. But that's not good enough. The Soviets decide to take out Sydney, Paris, Toronto, and London because f**k America's allies. Whelp, guess we can send Beijing, Prague, Budapest, Hanoi, and Pyongyang to the glass factory too.

Hope the air isn't too radioactive up on your high horse. You've now caused the deaths of billions of humans around the planet. So I'd watch who I'm calling a c*** if I were you.

Ah yes the completely mythical - this would have happened theory - such a truly awesomely pathetic defense ...

Let's take that to it's logical conclusion - today the US pisses off Iran the Iranians nuke New York, all far more feasible that your bullshit scenario above, in 2018 Iran actually can acquire the capability to do just that, it's a very real threat - so should you tomorrow drop an A-bomb on Tehran? ... how about Lebanon or Yemen both of whom have vowed "death to America" A-Bomb them as well? ... would love to know how your warped logic works out those scenarios? Feck the US is so disliked it should be A-bombing half the world ... because that would show 'em, right?

The fact is in 1945 nobody outside the US was even close to an A-bomb, Japan certainly weren't and had no means to deliver one anyway, these weren't suitcase jobs they were the size of a small car ... today any technically compete degree student could make one given the right components ... and today they will fit in a large suitcase ...

I stand 100% by what I said - anyone who believes murdering 180,000 civilians was a military imperative is an utter c*** ... if 180,000 soldiers had to die instead then let them feckin' die ... burning the skin of women and children and celebrating it as some sort of military triumph? ... UTTER c*** ... without doubt this was the greatest war crime in history ....

AS for UFGN what a complete moron ... we have to use every advanced weapon we have to show how strong we are ... it's the let's kill them because they might kill us tactic, now was that Hitler, Stalin or Mao? or in fact any other mass murdering dictator who used that line in his defense? No it was the supposedly enlightened leftist UFGN ... just wow

Gotta love these guys ... they have their high-horse principles and strict moral codes for other people, they will stand on their soap-boxes and preach all day long ... yet the very second they feel threatened, it's f**k the principles (why of course A-bombing civilians is justified) hell to defend me and mine anything goes ... now that's the very worst type of hypocrite ...

Hey genius, the Soviets had a bomb by 1949. And if Truman hadn't come to the conclusion that the bombings were to be the correct call, then we would've committed to a full-scale land invasion of Japan that would've resulted in the deaths of millions of people, with Japanese civilians making up a huge chunk of that. Anyone who'd rather go down that route is the c*** tbh.

Why won't you address the issue of a land invasion being the only other viable option instead of side-stepping it? What would you have done instead of dropping the nukes? I'd love to hear your perspective on the matter.

But I'm not expecting much from the guy who thinks we celebrate the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki every year. Find a new slant.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Jedi, you realize more than 200,000 innocent people would have been murdered if USA didn't nip it in the bud and drop the A bombs, right?

[LMAO]

WW2 was a filthy horror show filled with horrific choices. Hiroshima is the most well known and directly consequential but there were horrible life or death decisions being made every day

600 civilians died in one night in Coventry because Germany decided to carpet bomb it.

Do you know who also knew they were going to bomb Coventry? Churchill.

He decided not to increase air defenses and to let it happen. Why? Because otherwise the Germans would know we had broken their codes

Horrific. But how can you criticise the decision?

Because they can't see the forest for the trees.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" after all.

[EliteKiller]

Hey genius, the Soviets had a bomb by 1949. And if Truman hadn't come to the conclusion that the bombings were to be the correct call, then we would've committed to a full-scale land invasion of Japan that would've resulted in the deaths of millions of people, with Japanese civilians making up a huge chunk of that. Anyone who'd rather go down that route is the c*** tbh.

Why won't you address the issue of a land invasion being the only other viable option instead of side-stepping it? What would you have done instead of dropping the nukes? I'd love to hear your perspective on the matter.

Hey dipstick ... the US dropped a bomb in 1945 they had 4 years in hand on the Soviets who stole the tech from the US anyway ... but let's kill 200,000 innocent civilians at the first opportunity rather than try our WMD on a military target first ... that's the moral, decent thing to do ...

How about "with the US fleets massed off the shores of Japan the Emperor decided that all was lost and to save his people he surrendered unconditionally" the war ended with minimal civilian casualties on either side ...

Sound unlikely? but wait a minute didn't the Japanese Emperor decide once all was lost that to save his people he would surrender unconditionally? isn't that how most history book recall the events?

If Trump comes to the conclusion that A-bombing Iran were to be the correct call would that make it right?

So anyone not going for full out mass murder of civilians as the first and best option they're now a c***? seriously that's your position?

I have repeatedly addressed the issue of a land invasion not being the only other viable option ... as have countless others ...

Options on the table ....

1) Blockade - Starve out the Japs, they had no way of surviving without outside assistance ...
2) Demonstration - Take out a military target say Hachijo Jima island ... a nuclear bomb would have killed a few thousand soldiers and obliterated an island ... give the Emperor something to think about ... if that failed take out Okinawa ... with no need to commit a single US soldier ...
3) Soviets - The Soviet Union was preparing to invade Japan, Trueman knew this however he didn't want the Japanese to surrender to the Soviet Union ... his solution? kill 200,000 innocent civilians so the US get the win ....
4) Land Invasion - estimates on casualties range from 100,000 to millions but that assumes a 'never surrender' Japanese policy, we now know that once the Japanese homeland was threatened they did in fact surrender very quickly ...
5) Even if you have taken the decision to murder 100,000 civilians with your A-bomb ... why bring forward the murder of another 100,000? The Kokura mission (which became the Nagasaki mission) was originally scheduled for August 11th, but it got pushed up to August 9th because it was feared that further bad weather was coming. So rather than wait a week for the weather to clear, rather than give the Emperor a chance to surrender, nope let's just kill another 100,000 civilians ... for that alone Trueman should be considered one of the worst mass-murderers in history ...

[Jedi]

Jedi, you realize more than 200,000 innocent people would have been murdered if USA didn't nip it in the bud and drop the A bombs, right?

I don't think that's certain at all. In fact, many had argued that It's even probable Japan would surrendered regardless. Germany already surrendered and as Russia moved It's attention towards Japan it was becoming obvious they are f***ked. Japan was hoping for a Russian-mediated peace treaty or any kind of conditional* surrender. It's history and it's incredibly hard to determine what would have happened but this notion that Japan would have just gone on for who knows how long is nonsense.

It's an atrocity regardless of the circumstances, and i don't like people justifying it, let alone saying it was done with the intention to save lives.

It's a more complicated version of the fat man trolley problem which goes like this:

A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

(Except in the case of Hiroshima there is no guarantee that there's anybody you're going to be saving and It's just hindsight speculation.)

[LMAO]

Hey genius, the Soviets had a bomb by 1949. And if Truman hadn't come to the conclusion that the bombings were to be the correct call, then we would've committed to a full-scale land invasion of Japan that would've resulted in the deaths of millions of people, with Japanese civilians making up a huge chunk of that. Anyone who'd rather go down that route is the c*** tbh.

Why won't you address the issue of a land invasion being the only other viable option instead of side-stepping it? What would you have done instead of dropping the nukes? I'd love to hear your perspective on the matter.

Hey dipstick ... the US dropped a bomb in 1945 they had 4 years in hand on the Soviets who stole the tech from the US anyway ... but let's kill 200,000 innocent civilians at the first opportunity rather than try our WMD on a military target first ... that's the moral, decent thing to do ...

How about "with the US fleets massed off the shores of Japan the Emperor decided that all was lost and to save his people he surrendered unconditionally" the war ended with minimal civilian casualties on either side ...

Sound unlikely? but wait a minute didn't the Japanese Emperor decide once all was lost that to save his people he would surrender unconditionally? isn't that how most history book recall the events?

If Trump comes to the conclusion that A-bombing Iran were to be the correct call would that make it right?

So anyone not going for full out mass murder of civilians as the first and best option they're now a c***? seriously that's your position?

I have repeatedly addressed the issue of a land invasion not being the only other viable option ... as have countless others ...

Options on the table ....

1) Blockade - Starve out the Japs, they had no way of surviving without outside assistance ...
2) Demonstration - Take out a military target say Hachijo Jima island ... a nuclear bomb would have killed a few thousand soldiers and obliterated an island ... give the Emperor something to think about ... if that failed take out Okinawa ... with no need to commit a single US soldier ...
3) Soviets - The Soviet Union was preparing to invade Japan, Trueman knew this however he didn't want the Japanese to surrender to the Soviet Union ... his solution? kill 200,000 innocent civilians so the US get the win ....
4) Land Invasion - estimates on casualties range from 100,000 to millions but that assumes a 'never surrender' Japanese policy, we now know that once the Japanese homeland was threatened they did in fact surrender very quickly ...
5) Even if you have taken the decision to murder 100,000 civilians with your A-bomb ... why bring forward the murder of another 100,000? The Kokura mission (which became the Nagasaki mission) was originally scheduled for August 11th, but it got pushed up to August 9th because it was feared that further bad weather was coming. So rather than wait a week for the weather to clear, rather than give the Emperor a chance to surrender, nope let's just kill another 100,000 civilians ... for that alone Trueman should be considered one of the worst mass-murderers in history ...

Those options are nice and all, but they’re ultimately fantastic. Most overlook one crucial aspect: Tojo and the other Japanese military leaders didn’t want to surrender, and neither did Hirohito directly after the Potsdam Declaration. Everyone knew the war was effectively over in early 1945, but that didn’t matter because the military leaders would rather go down the suicide route than dishonor both themselves and Japan by surrendering.

1. No blockade was going to stop the Japanese military leaders since they were already planning to put Operation Ketsugo into effect in preparation for an Allied invasion. They were aiming for an armistice rather than a surrender, and were ready to sacrifice millions of Japanese citizens, selling propaganda to the Japanese that it would be glorious to die for the emperor rather than surrender, live, and face humiliation.
2. What would blowing up an island accomplish? The US could’ve just sent over the video of the test in New Mexico instead. And remember the US only had two bombs at that time. If the US gave the Japanese warning to look at what would happen to their cities and Little Boy had been a dud, then the Japanese would’ve been more invigorated to continue the fight, and then the US would’ve needed to pray the second worked. The margin for error wasn’t there.
3. That’s an invasion. Doesn’t count.
4. See (1) for Operation Ketsugo. The Japanese military leaders, especially Tojo, had other ideas rather than surrender.
5. That I can’t defend. I guess it was to demonstrate that the US had more than one bomb and a continuing refusal to surrender would result in more Japanese cities being glassed.

You keep arguing from the perspective of the bombings being cruel and reprehensible, but no one has been arguing otherwise. I see it as the option that would result in the fewest amount of lives lost. By going down the route of the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the later invasion of Japan in November 1945, millions would have died instead; the better option was to kill a couple hundred thousand in August to prevent a greater loss of life later, as f***ked up as it is. Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and Kokura) had the misfortune of being military industrial cities and thus, strategic targets in taking out the Japanese war machine. The US could’ve easily gone for nuking Tokyo and Kyoto and killed millions instead (although the Tokyo firebombing already killed over 100,000 people in March of 1945), but that wouldn’t have accomplished the goal of ending the war with as few lives lost as possible and leaving Hirohito alive so he could surrender.

Maybe the Japanese would’ve surrendered with only a Soviet declaration of war, maybe not. However, the bombings (and an amended provision in the Potsdam Declaration allowing the position of emperor to remain) guaranteed it. Hirohito said in his surrender speech: "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new a most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, nor to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers."

[EliteKiller]

Those options are nice and all, but they’re ultimately fantastic. Most overlook one crucial aspect: Tojo and the other Japanese military leaders didn’t want to surrender, and neither did Hirohito directly after the Potsdam Declaration. Everyone knew the war was effectively over in early 1945, but that didn’t matter because the military leaders would rather go down the suicide route than dishonor both themselves and Japan by surrendering.

Don't you see the huge flaw in that position?

Tojo and the other Japanese military leaders didn’t want to surrender, and neither did Hirohito ... let's face it nobody wants to surrender it means admitting that you've lost ... but you still have to do it ...

So guess what? Like all losing armies before them they did surrender ... go figure ....

Your argument assumes that they only surrendered because the US murdered 200,000 civilians ... but think on this ... in nearly every war both before and since, one side has always lost and been forced to surrender ... many, many armies have given it the 'fight to the last man' but in reality it almost never happens ... once your homeland is threatened, your wives and children are at risk, you give up ...

So how come then, according to you, the only war in the history of the world that has required the murder of 200,000 civilians by nuclear bomb to gain a surrender, is this one? Just possibly you're making up a theory, completely out of synch with world history, just to support a totally immoral decision after the event ... have you ever considered that?

FYi - The Japanese had already surrendered in their thousands to the US all across Asia ... hardly a solid history of 'going down the suicide route rather than dishonor both themselves and Japan by surrendering' ... fighting to the death sounds good, until you have to do it ....

Have you ever read the Japanese accounts of the surrender? Do you know what they say is the reason for their surrender? Go research Tsuyoshi Hasegawa a renowned Japanese war historian, it just might surprise you to learn the view from the side that actually did the surrendering ...

One more point you said "maybe the Japanese would’ve surrendered with only a Soviet declaration of war, maybe not"

I must assume you are fully aware that the Soviets had declared war on Japan on August 8th, and had started their invasion of Japanese territories on August 9th ... and that it was fearing a Communist invasion which would overturn their rigid, imperial hierarchy and transform their nation forever, that lay behind the Japanese surrender to the US, you did know all that didn't you? I'm guessing US schools do cover all off world history, or is it just history according to the US?

[Jedi]

History isn't math. You can't accurately calculate what would have happened. There's simply too much variables. Ending 200,000 lives in a few hours because something worse was likely to happen doesn't justify it.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Your argument assumes that they only surrendered because the US murdered 200,000 civilians

Lol because that's exactly what happened.

They decided to surrender three days after the bombs were dropped...Are you telling me that's just a coincidence?

[Royal Gooner]

Your argument assumes that they only surrendered because the US murdered 200,000 civilians

Lol because that's exactly what happened.

They decided to surrender three days after the bombs were dropped...Are you telling me that's just a coincidence?

They even said so in their surrender declaration.

[Va-Va-Voom]

Absolute shocker from EK.