He thinks thinks the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in any way necessary

>he thinks thinks the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was in any way necessary
>he thinks it would have been morally justified even if it was the only option besides an invasion
How can people still hold such misguided and blatantly evil opinions?

I agree with you that Japan's surrender had more to do with the Soviet conquest of Manchuria, but

>he thinks it would have been morally justified even if it was the only option besides an invasion
Elaborate on this.

The bombs were dropped to make a statement to the world OP.

>The Soviet invasion of Manchuria is the real reason why Japan surrendered

Vaporizing a civilian population of hundreds of thousands is an immoral action, it doesn’t matter if you think you can justify it through context and utilitarianism, in a vacuum that is not an excusable action.

What makes it more immoral than shooting them, bombing them conventionally, or starving them to death via blockade?

t. Amerimutt

>morally justified
>morality in fucking war
lmao

I've seen online communists bag out America over the nukes, which I've never understood, since those same people also believe that the only cure for fascism is a bullet. The Japanese civilianry were contributing to a fascist cause, wouldn't that make them deserving of death?

>in a vacuum
That's the entire fucking point of context, you troglodyte.

>What makes it more immoral than shooting them, bombing them conventionally, or starving them to death via blockade?
It isn’t really, killing civilians is always immoral, killing anyone is.

>Many Japanese settlers committed mass suicide as the Soviet army approached. Mothers were forced by Japanese military[21][22] to kill their own children before killing or being killed themselves. The Japanese army often took part in the killings of its civilians. The commander of the 5th Japanese Army, General Shimizu, commented that "each nation lives and dies by its own laws." Wounded Japanese soldiers who were incapable of moving on their own were often left to die as the army retreated.

Killing civillians is immoral, but sending conscripts to die or even killing enemy conscripts isn't? Strange moral philosophy you've got there OP.

>hiroshima
A military town that was selected as a good target for fat man to test the effectiveness of nuclear weapons should they be used in operation downfall. Had a chance of bringing the war immediately to a close on top of that once the devastating power of the atomic bombs were revealed.
>Nagasaki
A regrettable incident that the Americans knew would not have any effect on Japanese morale, and could have been avoided since at that point the invasion of manchuria was underway.
>he thinks it would be morally justified
I will remind you that morality is entirely subjective. To some, the use of the weapons would be morally justifiable as it had the chance of bringing the war to a close without American and British soldiers being forced to die in a foreign land for a defensive war, and might even have the chance of reducing casualties on both sides.

didnt they kill more with conventional bombing

dont be a dweeb op

They were no different from the other strategic bombing missions. The intention with all of them was to demonstrate to the Japanese leadership that America could and would eventually kill everyone in Japan if they didn't surrender. It succeeded in convincing them of this, and they surrendered unconditionally.

>killing people is immoral but killing more people is less immoral than killing fewer people
this is your brain on anti-Americanism

Nope that’s imorral too.
Basically anything involving war or even the existence of a state isn’t ethical in my opinion

>in my opinion
so you're admitting that whether or not the atomic bombings were moral is entirely subjective

> demonstrate to the Japanese leadership that America could and would eventually kill everyone in Japan if they didn't surrender
Several problems with your argument.

1. Strategically the A-bombs didn't do anything that wasn't already being done with conventional bombing. America had already been indiscriminately bombing civilian areas for months before the Atomic bomb so it's not as though the JHC didn't believe that America had the wherewithal or the ability to destroy its urban areas.

2. Japan was already running out of urban areas to bomb by the time of the A-bombs. American bombing runs were targeting "cites" of 30,000 people at this point in the war because all the bigger cities were already so ruined it was seen as a waste to keep bombing them. To put that in perspective that's the size of Mundelein village Illinois the 1,318th city by population in the US, a town so small it'd be a wonder if you'd ever heard of it.

3. Considering the JHC strategic thinking at the time of attacks the destruction of cities was in the words of a man on the Japanese High Council "not a pressing issue". The last ditch effort of the JHC was to mount a tenacious defense of the home islands and conscript every able bodied person as a combatant to bleed America into accepting a negotiated peace. This plan is essentially unaffected by the destruction of city blocks which are really the only logical places to use Atomic bombs since they become substantially less effective against mobile or dug in targets especially with the imprecise delivery method of dropping out of a plane at 30,000 feet.

Dropping the atom bomb on Japan was more about demonstrating the weapon's power to the Soviets than about achieving victory over the Japs.

If Stalin hadn't seen what the bomb could do, he'd have inevitably betrayed us and invaded western Europe.

My opinion and objective fact are synonymous so you haven’t proven anything

>my opinion and objective fact are synonymous
Ah, to be fourteen again.
No, your morality is not objectively right, its inherently subjective. The atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki, when viewed through the eyes of the men who ordered it, were steps taken in order to attempt to convince the japanese to surrender without an invasion of the home islands, and avoid what they estimated would me a much higher bodycount, not just among american soldiers and civillians, but among brits, french, the japanese, the chinese, australians, koreans, vietnamese, phillipinos, dutch, and many others. When viewed through the morality of men who's compass centered on minimizing further bloodshed and ending the war for everyone involved as quickly as possible, as well as toppling a fanatical fascist government that had terrorized asia with an iron fist for decades at that point, the bombings can be justified for people who share the axiom that suffering should be minimized. Your point of view, that any civillian deaths, no matter what they may stop, is unjustifiable, is a valid position, but by no means the right one. There is no "correct" answer to the trolly problem, mind you.