How did the US get away with being the only one in history using the most inhumane weapon we ever built?

Power begets respect.

>nonce
I think you might mean dunce.

I'm not American and not a fan of American imperialism, but this is basically right. To convince Japan that it could ever be beaten was a real job. The guys at the top could not show any weakness to each other or to the peoplr.

No. No I don't.

The real question is why everyone else was pussy enough to not use this OP as fuck shit.

>Inhumane

Is there anything "humane" about any kind of war killing device you mong

> why conqueror Japan at all?

Mainly to end that whole "Second World War" thing.

There were only 3 choices

1. Carry out an amphibious invasion
2. Starve them into surrender
3. Drop atom bombs on them

Given that Japan didn't surrender after the first bombing and there was almost a coup to prevent the surrender and keep on fighting after the second, it's likely options 1 and 2 wouldn't work without litterally mountains of corpses.

Shit choice of insult then, at least fag is fine out of context, why nonce?

> he doesn't know what a nonce is

well define inhumane, i would consider the atomic bomb rather humane since the majority die instantly, ofc the fallout and aftermath will be nasty

i would consider mustard gas or something similar more inhumane even if it isent as devastating

i would also rather have a atomic bomb dropped on my city then having it firebombed

and to answer your question, murica motherfucker

filmsforaction.org/news/the-real-reason-america-used-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-it-was-not-to-end-the-war-or-save-lives/

Because you fuck kids.

I know what a fucking nonce is you windowlicker, I just fail to see why posting a picture of murrikkan jesus makes somebody a kiddie diddler.

inhumane because radiation makes you a literal zombie who only feels pain until it dies.

With a normal bomb people in the explosion range die almost instantly, with atomic its the same only that the people outside the range die a slow painful death.

oh also the area where it has been dropped becomes uninhabitable and unusable for centuries

>With a normal bomb people in the explosion range die almost instantly
Holy fuck no they don't you cunt. The shrapnel from the bombs tears off limbs and extremeness and leaves you there to bleed out, often for several minutes of agony.

extremities*
Also untrue, Nagasaki and Hiroshima are both thriving cities that were cleaned up and rebuilt after they were nuked.

Napalm is a far more inhuman weapon than nukes just for the damage it did to the ecosystem, let alone the fact that it's killed many more people than nukes ever have.

What is the lie and by whom have I been lied to?
Japan was not intent on surrender under any but the most extreme circumstances. Getting Japan to stop it's aggression required "conquering" them in a classical sense. It was threaten continued ThermoNuclear hell or hit the beaches in an invasion that would have dwarfed Normandy.

> how do insults work?

Is this baby's first visit to Veeky Forums?

It doesn't matter what the justification was. Japan started this conflict and they did it in a devious way. They ignored the rules of war and engagement. All bets were off. Everyone who had ever developed a better weapon on the past got the opportunity to use it on their enemy. Japan would not surrender unconditionally and give the United States the victory they deserved after a hard-fought and brutal campaign across the Pacific. Whether it was the US trying to conserve their own servicemen's lives, making a show of power, beating the USSR to the punch, what have you, is irrelevant, they were perfectly within their rights to use their new, laboriously developed, and effective weapon on an enemy who had spared no quarter throughout this war. That's basically the end of it and you can whine about it all you want but this was actually a good event for humanity in the long run as we've seen a serious decline in large-scale war thanks to the nuclear deterrent.

There is nothing dumber than the fool who tries to examine any part of war through a moral lens. There is nothing moral or justified about war and never will be, it's just our inner animal coming out and fighting over land and power.

Pic related is Hiroshima today, with a population of more than 1 million.

They're all mutated though with those funny slitty eyes.

>he broke some japanese laws by killing their people and radiating parts of their lands
It was war, Japanese law doesn't apply to the American government, and there were no laws against 'radiating' territories prior to the development of the atom bomb. I'm also unaware of laws banning the use of nuclear weapons. I'm aware of strategic arms limitation treaties and shit like that. Nothing actually legally substantive capable of stopping governments from launching ICBMs if they have them and want to; the American President has the Football and that's totally legal.

This is the worst thread on Veeky Forums right now and it's because of you newfags responding to a b8 seriously.

Our President recently apologized for the nukes. There is a large and growing contingent of apologetic progressive Nu Fags here in the states who feel the same. It's a real problem.

I don't have stats on-hand, but IIRC, it was somewhere on the order of 60-70,000. A lot, but actually less than the number who just died from the explosion.

Yes, leftist virtue signaling is a problem. Are you voting for Donald Trump? If not, you're part of the larger problem.

At this point I think I'm voting for him out of spite

>most inhumane weapon ever
Wat?

>literal zombie
Except it doesn't.

>in a normal bomb people die almost instantly
Except they don't.

Also you are completely ignoring: chemical and biological weapons, the fact that the extent of radioactive fallout afterwards was unknown, the fact that the war continuing would have meant many more deaths.

>most inhumane weapon
But user, everyone used incendiaries.

I don't know, is it?

You might not belong here

I've been here 18:07 GMT 11 November 2007.

If you just look at the immediate effects, the nuclear bombs were about on the same level as the firebombing of Tokyo. If you could justify that, justifying the nuclear attacks is a cakewalk.

He essentially said it was regrettable that it had to be done, not regretting dropping them.

*How did the US get away with fire bombing campaigns that were massively more destructive than the subsequent atom bomb - to the point where Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just additional losses to Japanese leadership?

>continues to massively not get how insults work
>tries and fails to imply he isn't a newfag

Ah, the classic non-apology, "I'm sorry if you feel offended..."

By winning.

Alright, I'll bite...

It's 1945. You, OP, are the supreme commander of allied forces. How do you end the Second World War in the Pacific theater?

>How did the US get away with being the only one in history using the most inhumane weapon we ever built?
lots of countries used mustard gas