Was the US justified in dropping two nukes on japan?

this has to be satire

t. Donald John Trump

I love how SJWs forward this as WHIETY CRIME but when you asked occupied Asian countries, they'd say it wasnt enough.

I didn't know countries could speak

They could.

If you wanted to speak to one, a talking ball painted with the colours of that country's flag would communicate with you as proxy for that country.

I view the bombs dropped as unnecessary in ending the War in the Pacific. At the late stage of the war, the Japanese goal was to sue for peace with the Americans that wasn't an unconditional surrender in order to keep the imperial institutions it had intact, namely the Emperor and the Military's role in national politics. In order for the Americans to actually accept, the Japanese had to increase the pain for the Americans to invade and also to convince the Soviet Union -- which at this point was not at War with Japan -- to act as a 3rd party in negotiating a peace between the two powers. Once the Soviets invaded Manchuria and quickly obliterated the Kwantung Army, Japan was left in a completely hopeless situation as the Home Islands were completely isolated. With the Americans quite willing to face enormous casualties and no hope of a negotiated peace when those talks broke down in the face of a Soviet invasion, defeat was inevitable and unconditional surrender shortly followed suit.

It needs to be remembered that at the time of the atomic bombings, there wasn't a nuclear taboo against using them as there is now, so Japanese leadership didn't react in any horrified manner when the news arrived. Compared with earlier strategic bombing campaigns of Tokyo, Kyoto, and all the other major Japanese cities, the atomic bombs weren't an abnormality at all. Most of the firebombings were far more destructive than the atomic bombs, and if that level of earlier destruction didn't persuade Japanese leadership to surrender, then the business-as-usual destruction caused by the atomic bombs wasn't highly likely to change their minds either.

As far as it being unethical, I don't find it any worse than the strategic bombings the Allies were conducting over Germany and Japan, and that was usually viewed as justified in the context of Total War.

Dropping the bombs created nuclear diplomacy stopping a nuclear war
It ended the war before soviets could find a way to transport and land troops at Hokkaido
It stopped more people being killed in firebombings
Hiroshima had soldiers aswell as a couple of AA batteries so it wasn't undefended
Hirohitos cabinet was largely pro war (anami, toyoda etc) and a lot of them were still pro war after the bombing but Hirohito (doing something an emperor never did) overruled his cabinet.
Sources: Kido and Togo. They hardly ever thought of the soviets as a threat to mainland Japan due to the act they didn't have much of a navy to land troops there

From what I've read from kido, emps was horrified by the bombs

>Needed to show the Russians and Stalin it worked
Russians knew it worked because they saw earlier tests. They've heavily infiltrated the nuclear program at least as early as 1943 and had their own program going feeding on american data.

no
/thread

Pro Bomb dropping:
-ends japanese domination of asia
-prevents deaths on both sides due to an invasion

but they americans didn't know that.

No, we should have firebombed, starved, or invaded Japan in oblivion. Taking the easy way out is always wrong; you should finish the job.

t. Shillary Cliton

>American Generals of 1945
>those who spearheaded the war
>leader of Navy and Army
>say it was unnecessary
>say Japan was already defeated
>say there were other ways to force their surrender
>say there was no way for them to conduct efficient war without material assets
>used fire bombing to destroy their means of war
>evaporated the dog while it was down

MacArthur said they were simply looking for another way to surrender without losing face.

William D. Leahy said they had been defeated through firebombing, the severing of almost all their supply lines and the utter destruction of their navy. He said with further severing of the 2 main islands Japan would have no way to conduct a war and were done.

Japan had just sent their flag-ship Yamato on a seppuku mission and no longer had a capable navy.

American Government had just spent 2 billion on the weapons and needed to test them.

Americans and 4channers of 2016 say the nukes were totally justified, without reading any further into the subject.

Americans and 4channers of 2016 say Japan was barbarous during WWII and their treatment of China.

Americans and 4channers say this is justified, but Japan is not.

It was simply an experiment and the only way you can justify it is by saying might is right, which is fine. But it's not justified in a war sense.

>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

>"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

- William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441.

War is good

Two nukes weren't enough

>Was the US justified in dropping two nukes on japan?

Nope. They could have just blockaded Japan and waited for a surrender.

>killing women and children
When has the corrupt anglos not found scapegoats to justify these heinous actions?

Bombing of Hamburg? Invasion of Iraq? Arming the disgusting k*rds to plan their bombs while hiding in the mountains like gypsies?

> to keep the imperial institutions it had intact
From the accounts and sources I've read, this entailed maintaining their all pre-1937 possessions including the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan. What sort of a raving thief expects to keep at least half the loots after he's been busted a big time in real time?

>the Military's role in national politics
Yea, the same role in terms of setting up a warmongering, Fascist regime with the civilian government as an utterly powerless puppet that had started the shitfest in the first place?

>defeat was inevitable and unconditional
Yet Suzuki Kantaro had the nerve to respond,

"My thinking is that the joint declaration is virtually the same as the earlier declaration. The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply mokusatsu suru ('to kill with silence', i.e. ignore completely). The only alternative for us is to be determined to continue our fight to the end."-response to the terms of surrender outlined in the Potsdam Conference, July 28th, 1945

Yup, the A bombs were necessary insofar as the Nips needed real good thwacks in the head to sober up and face the music.

>As far as it being unethical, I don't find it any worse than the strategic bombings

No disagreement there; I'll also add my two cents that it served as sure poetic justice for Chongqing, Nanking, Manila, Indochina famines, Unit 731, comfort women, etc...

Yeah, fooey to bombs. If enough people died of starvation, they would have given up.

So much this. Americans in general like to think of the WWII in Asia as some sort of honorable and commendable duel that was primarily an affair between their own country and Japan that can now be talked over with much poetics and respectable bullshit. And I'm inclined to give both my middle fingers to that; the Yanks got involved only at the tail end of the conflict, the war against Japan was primarily our (non-Japanese Asian) affair, and for us, it was squarely a war of existential and racial survival against a genocidal Fascist warmachine dedicated to the enslavement of the rest of East Asia.

And I sure ain't shedding no tears for them until I stop seeing their politicians dropping flowers at Yaskuni.

>If enough people died of starvation, they would have given up.

Worked against Germany.

>And I sure ain't shedding no tears for them until I stop seeing their politicians dropping flowers at Yaskuni.

Because all those civilians in Hiroshima had so much to do with that.

Point of order.

They were dying of starvation and getting their fucking asses kicked.

Civilians in Chongqing and Manila had much to do with the war efforts on either side, then?

"In Japan they would be set up like this: they’d have a factory; and then the families, in their homes throughout the area, would manufacture small parts. You might call it a home-folks assembly line deal. The Suzuki clan would manufacture bolt 64; the Harunobo family next door might be making nut 64, 65, or 63, or all the gaskets in between. These would be manufactured right in the same neighborhood. Then Mr. Kitagawa from the factory would scoot around with his cart and pick up the parts in proper order."-Curtis Lemay

Your own forefathers in the AAF had far more sense and perceptive intelligence than any apologist SJW with internet these days.

Everyone needs to see pic related.

These bombs were a sick joke.

>the bombs that were born and designed to be dropped on Berlin ended up being deployed on a fisher town and the only Catholic city in Japan

Anything used outside of its intended purpose isn't justified, the usage of the bombs in the Pacific theater wasn't justified

Also Nagasaki wasn't their original target. It was another city which where the site to drop it was obscured (I think from smoke from other forms of bombing) so they circled over Nagasaki and dropped it.

All the intelligence at the time led the US to believe that they wouldn't

Also a blockade would've arguably cost more lives to both the US and Japan, that is if the Soviets went along with it.

>Also a blockade would've arguably cost more lives to both the US and Japan, that is if the Soviets went along with it.

It's cute that you're implying the Soviets had a navy.

Here's a fun question to ask in these threads.

Is there a single bit of documented evidence that the Japanese cabinet was willing to surrender unconditionally before the bombs?

No, but there's a plenty to the contrary;

"My thinking is that the joint declaration is virtually the same as the earlier declaration. The government of Japan does not consider it having any crucial value. We simply mokusatsu suru ('to kill with silence', i.e. ignore completely). The only alternative for us is to be determined to continue our fight to the end."-Suzuki Kantaro, the last prime minister of the wartime cabinet, response to the terms of surrender outlined in the Potsdam Conference, 28th of JULY, 1945.

Note the date; this was well by the point when for some mysterious reason, so many folks on this thread assumes naturally that from blockade and starvation, the Japanese were going to surrender inevitably without conditions. On the other hand, if I'm allowed to cite anecdotal instances as evidences, my grandma who was 11 back then was forced out of her classroom to collect pinetree-barks for shitty, recycled oil, and practice bamboo-spears in the playground as to repel the Americans when the "Mainland Showdown (本土決戰)" was going to take place.

I know the Soviets had never quite the reputation of being the world's foremost maritime power, but they had far more of a serviceable and functioning navy than the Imperial Japanese Joint Fleets Command after the Bombing of Kure which only had Nagato, Junyo, and few destroyers left available for action. This is assuming that they could somehow get themselves out unharmed out of their ports completely zoned in with naval mines, and they had fuels, manpower, and other supplies to make them combat-available.

>so many folks on this thread assumes naturally that from blockade and starvation
>assume
>assume
>assume

>"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

>"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

> The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY

>"...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs."

HERBERT HOOVER

>In early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

HERBERT HOOVER

1/2

If we want to pretend as if religion mattered an inch during the WWII, how about we start with the Manila Massacres? The first and the largest Catholic community in the entire Asia-Pacific, after all.

Okay.

Post a single bit of documented evidence that the Japanese Cabinet was going to surrender unconditionally.

Remember, the cabinet has to make a unanimous vote to accept a peace deal.

The cabinet must, by law, have a representative from the army as one member.

The Army didn't want war crimes trials, an occupation, or to give up Korea.

And I'm supposed to give more credibility to friendly, pleasant, sensitive, and overall a nice humanitarian Ike reminiscing 10 YEARS AFTER the war than the very own words of the Japanese leadership itself?

Leahy can go screw himself with him deciding when they were defeated or not for them rather than the Japanese leadership itself.

>"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

>"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

Like, I can go fucking, literally, all day. That's how much voicing there was done against these weapons, by the heads of them military, by the people who mattered in 1945.

But yeah, we just "assume" japs were never going to give up and seppuku, because of the 1945 propaganda films.

Then do go on all day, but with the primary sources from the Japanese THEMSELVES willing to submit to UNCONDITIONAL AND UNILATERAL SURRENDER rather than this American general or that American politicians reminiscing after the war after having seen all those unpleasant footage and nice, little humanitarian spiritual crises.

>Post a single bit of documented evidence that the Japanese Cabinet was going to surrender unconditionally.
Kek, why the fuck would that exist? If they were going to surrender unconditionally, they would have. Are you actually retarded? Of course they were not going to surrender under the given conditions. MacArthur explains it perfectly.

>MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

>Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

>"Following the three-power [July 1945 Potsdam] conference emissaries from this country could contact representatives from Japan somewhere on the China Coast and make representations with regard to Russia's position [they were about to declare war on Japan] and at the same time give them some information regarding the proposed use of atomic power, together with whatever assurances the President might care to make with regard to the [retention of the] Emperor of Japan and the treatment of the Japanese nation following unconditional surrender. It seems quite possible to me that this presents the opportunity which the Japanese are looking for.

>Later Bard related, "...it definitely seemed to me that the Japanese were becoming weaker and weaker. They were surrounded by the Navy. They couldn't get any imports and they couldn't export anything. Naturally, as time went on and the war developed in our favor it was quite logical to hope and expect that with the proper kind of a warning the Japanese would then be in a position to make peace, which would have made it unnecessary for us to drop the bomb and have had to bring Russia in...".

vvvvvvvv VERY FUCKING IMPORTANT vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb."

^^^^^^^^ VERY FUCKING IMPORTANT ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

RALPH BARD

>with the primary sources from the Japanese THEMSELVES willing to submit to UNCONDITIONAL AND UNILATERAL SURRENDER

Okay, post it.

>inb4 he posts something the foreign ministry floated without authorization from the cabinet
>inb4 he posts something by the peace faction of the cabinet that was constantly being overruled by the military
>inb4 he evades this question entirely and keeps up the passive aggressive whining

>"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."

>Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

LEWIS STRAUSS

America was planning an invasion of Japan in October, operation downfall. An invasion of Japan would have resulted in millions of deaths and destroy most of the islands infrastructure, it would have been much worse than what the two nukes did. The Japanese should be grateful we ended with bombs rather than invading.

>"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

>"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

>"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

PAUL NITZE

>"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE

Except half those quotes I post say that the Generals of the time thought, even without a ground invasion - they could have gotten peace.

But yeah, I will take your words over General MacArthur's.

>so many folks on this thread assumes naturall
xD

Kek.

Okay.

You've shown me evidence from US sources.

The US wasn't the one making the decision whether to surrender.

Do you have any evidence that the Japanese cabinet, the people who had the power to make that decision, intended to surrender?

Turns out they were wrong. The first demonstration was Hiroshima and the Japanese refused to surrender.
What's your point?

>bro let's bomb the shit out of them with conventional weapons and starve them out
This would probably kill more people than the nukes. It would also give the Soviets a chance to start laying claims to parts of the Japanese mainland, which we obviously didn't want.

Also, the Japanese were warned before the nukes were even dropped.
They had every chance to surrender and they refused multiple times.

pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/

> "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

>He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

I am literally copy and pasting from this very thread now.

SeeNow answer me this, in the year 1945, when we have been warring, since literally for ever. Why is this barbarous weapon the only way you can figure to force a surrender? Of course after being nuked twice you would surrender, it would be utter insanity to continue - the Japanese were not insane.

You took the easy way out, it is in no way justified, at all. Espeiaclly when this is the result - and you will use similar images of japs skewering babies to say they deserved it. Pic related is a child.

You still haven't provided any proof that the Japanese were willing to accept and unconditional surrender before the nukes were dropped.

>I am literally copypasting
Yes. you're copypasting useless shit. We know about MacArthur's opinion. It conflicts with reality. The Japanese were given the chance to surrender before being nukes. They refused. They were given another chance to surrender after being nuked the first time
THEY
REFUSED
Then they got nuked a second time. Finally, they surrendered.

The clock was ticking. The US had to force an unconditional surrender immediately to prevent the Soviets from grabbing any territory like they did in Germany. The Japanese were not going to be given the luxury of dragging their feet.

>Why is this barbarous weapon the only way you can figure to force a surrender?

This is a common misconception.

The US didn't see the atomic bombs, at the time, as a particularly unusual step.

After all, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people, and the total casualties of the atomic bombings would come to something like 20% of the total Japanese killed by US bombing.

It was simply a more effective form of firebombing, which is something the US had been doing since the Hamburg raids of 1943.

After the two bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the plan was to use the next three bombs to support an amphibious invasion of Kyushu.

Really, the atomic bombs were lucky for all involved.

They demonstrated to the Japanese that the US wouldn't even give them the option of a glorious fight to the death. It was surrender or die without any fighting whatsoever.

It also gave the High Command a convenient excuse to end the war.

Like, a continued blockade alone would have racked up a body count in the millions. You can't blockade a country that isn't self sufficient in food without entire segments of the population being slaughtered. And the segments of the population that do die aren't even the ones that support the war machine.

Kek, those leaflets were used as a psychological weapon, they were not used to sue for peace, are you actually retarded? That leaflet refers to firebombing, not atomic bombing.

Kek. Try harder.

>The leaflets dropped right before the atomic bombing that refer specifically to the atomic bomb are talking about firebombing
What are you smoking?

>You still haven't provided any proof that the Japanese were willing to accept and unconditional surrender before the nukes were dropped.
I literally told you that doesn't exist? Because if they were willing to surrender unconditional they would have? Are you actually reading anything I am posting?

>It was simply a more effective form of firebombing, which is something the US had been doing since the Hamburg raids of 1943.

Yeah sure, but when you firebomb a nation to shit house, and they have no ability to war -due to blockades due to firebombing, what usage does dropping a nuke over a Catholic community have?

>Really, the atomic bombs were lucky for all involved.
Kek, this is literally the worst thing anyone can say. Pure ignorance.

>You can't blockade a country...
But you can evaporate civilians and children, when they are down?

You cannot argue with context, because as soon as you put context into it, you have no argument. Testimony from those nuked are among the saddest testimony I have ever heard. War is war - no one argues against firebombing because firebombing is what destroyed Japan and their ability to war. If anyone is arguing AGAINST firebombing, they are literal SJW retards.

It's never been about nukes, it's about how they were used on an enemy to demonstrate a point. Here is a quote from a BRIGADIER GENERAL

>"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

There was simply no material asset to the usage of the nukes. Keep in mind, I have barely touched on my own subjective opinion (my feelings on their testimony is about it) all I am simply doing is expressing the views and opinions of those who actually 'won' the pacific war.

Kek. No. Here is the leaflet which was dropped, which actually references Hiroshima.

Let's not even get started on the fact that they might not even have dropped them and their existence being American propaganda.

Kek what a retard heaven doesn't exist.

>what usage does dropping a nuke over a Catholic community have?

The same usage as the firebombing.

To remove a Japanese city that would have supported the war machine

Atomic bombing had the advantage over conventional bombing, a blockade, or an invasion, that it represented a threat of extreme, and unknown force that the Americans could unleash at any time.

After the second bombing, a US pilot on a conventional mission got shot down and tortured for information about the bombs.

He didn't know anything, so in order to keep the rest of his fingernails, he told them the US was making 50 of them a month.

The idea of having the entire country scorched from the earth provided a unique threat that no conventional force, no matter how devastating, to the civilian population, could match.

It's why Japan is a first world country right now and not a giant graveyard.

>I literally told you that doesn't exist? Because if they were willing to surrender unconditional they would have?
Then there is no point to your posts. The US wanted an unconditional surrender and the nuclear bombings were used as leverage to get it.
End of story.

>catholic community
Totally irrelevant. There's tiny communities of everything in any major city.

>But you can evaporate civilians and children, when they are down?
Killed fewer people than starving them out would. The Japanese lost more soldiers to starvation than enemy fire.

>the firebombing was okay but the nukes weren't
What's the fucking difference? The firebombings killed more people.

???
Your image also mentions the atomic bomb specifically.

Why would he be able to post such an evidence? Clearly he doesn't read Japanese, nor does he have any grasp over the fact that the entire Japaneae leadership was divided against each other between the civilian bureaucrats, the General Headquarters, Kwantung Army, Joint Fleets Command, Emperor himself, none of which were able to coordinate a coherent exit plan accetable to themselves and to the Allies. This is the half the reason why the Japs got into such a mess in the first place, and why negotiating for surrender was virtually impossible by the structural nature of the leadership(s).

Our friend, on the other hand, would rather shitpost on and on about handful Americans guving fragmentary qualms and bickers, and pretend that reflects the intentions of the Japanese Empire as a whole. And I'd say it's a pretty typically shallow American response being unable to comprehend that the other nations function with logic and circumstances of their own.

There's never any new arguments in these threads.
Nukes are bad
It was war
Why did America think they could do that
Had to end the war quick
Wasn't there any other way
More people died in the fire bombs

It happened 70 years ago, we know the motives, the reasoning, the result. There's nothing to discuss here. It's a matter of opinion now

MAD is still that nice cement between all those things that makes nations go "do we really want to roll the dice on this one?"

True story.

The US no longer uses MAD.

We use NUTS.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection

>Totally irrelevant. There's tiny communities of everything in any major city.
Well, the community wasn't "tiny" it was the largest Asian catholic community in the northern hemisphere at the time.

>Then there is no point to your posts. The US wanted an unconditional surrender and the nuclear bombings were used as leverage to get it.
End of story.
But the purpose of this thread is weather or not they were justified xD the question has never been did they force the surrender, of course they fucking did you mong.

>Killed fewer people than starving them out would. The Japanese lost more soldiers to starvation than enemy fire.
Kek. Like, keep saying it over and over and over all you want - I cannot say anything to refute that. All I can do is post you quotes of leaders which say you are outright wrong. Refuse to acknowledge them all you want, that's ignorance for you.

>What's the fucking difference? The firebombings killed more people.
Really? When you use firebombing to destroy factorises, to destroy supply lines, to end a nations ability to war - deaths are a necessary evil. Is it really that hard for you to comprehend the nukes may have been dropped in unjustifiable situations? That it was a simple experiment? What purpose do the nukes have past flexing muscles when a nation has no ability to conduct any warfare due to traditional forms of bombing?

It forced their surrender, great - generals at the time suggested other ways to end the war. They say they were not needed, YOU say they do. I am never going to take your word for it, kek.

I am going out, reply if you want I won't be until later tonight (if thread still up).

>???
>Your image also mentions the atomic bomb specifically.

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/04/26/a-day-too-late/

The validity of those leaflets have always been under suspect.

"Largest Catholic community in Asia"
It's almost as if Philippines, coincidentally absolutely wrecked by yours truly IJA never existed. Furthermore, Catholic Lives Matter, amirite?

yo the 1940's were fucking awesome

You like to pretend, for not-so mysterious reason that the primary sources from Japan regarding the prospect of unconditional surrender doesn't exist most likely due to the fact that you're yet another shallow, American SJW with no knowledge of Japanese, nor of Japan, nor of Asia in general, but the truth of the matter is that plenty of primary sources from the Japanese themselves regarding their unwillingness for unconditional surrender exists aside from the Suzuki Kantaro's response to the Postdam principles.

"We can no longer direct the war with any hope of success. The only course left is for Japan's one hundred million people to sacrifice their lives by charging the enemy to make them lose the will to fight."-War Journal of the Imperial Headquarters, cited from Daikichi Irokawa's Age of Hirohito

In fact, we have a whole elaborate set of IJA's plans for the "Mainland Showdown" that was willing to repeat Iwo Jima and Okinawa at infinitely larger scales called the Operation Ketsugo ("Decisive") involving 5 million (nonexistent in reality) troops, and over 20 million civilians drafted as meat shields.

During the conferences between the Emperor and the wartime cabinet of "Big Six" in the Supreme Council of Wartime Direction, Anami Korechika, the Minister of the Army used this suicidal plan that would've entailed human losses infinitely larger than Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a pretext for delaying surrender as to inflict 'one, last large loss' to the Americans, and get favorable terms of surrender.

And the funny part was that the Emperor went along with it, believed that they could inflict enough losses to the Allies for a negotiated surrender, and afterwards would be able to propose a plan drawn up by Kido Koichi that included the maintenance of Korea and Taiwan as for the preconditions to end the war.

1/2

It's not like the firebombings killed fewer people. I think it's a little hard to blame them when you realize it was mainly for shock and awe because we were sick of having to dig the crazies out of their bunkers.

Battle of Okinawa shattered this hope of putting up an effective resistance 'painful enough' for the US for good, but even then, the Japs apparently thought that they could still negotiate for the surrender through the Soviet mediation while staying completely oblivious of the fact that the Soviets had rather greedy plans for the Far East themselves-that is something for which the US leadership definitely could not be held responsible.

Even in the process of attempting to negotiate through the Soviets, the Japanese ambassador in USSR, Sato Naotake couldn't even deliver proper terms of surrender because of the bureaucratic and political fuck-mess described above; each of Army, Navy, Kwantung Army, and the Joint Fleets Command had their own demands and conditions for surrender, and the ambassador couldn't even draft a coherent proposal out of them until the Soviets made their intentions to get involved honest and clear in the Postdam Conference. Then even after the Potsdam Conference, you have the citation from Suzuki Kantaro above.

The squabble over the 'terms of surrender' within the Japanese leadership continued for days even after the Soviet invasion and the Nagasaki bombing with notable voices within the supreme leadership such as the Naval Minister Toyoda Soemu still advocating for the final confrontation in the mainland until they could negotiate for conditional surrender.

Even after the those voices were overridden finally by the decision of the Emperor, the military hardliners found it simply impossible the prospect of total defeat, resulting in a botched, last-minute coup attempt as to remove the current government, and install a new, direct military cabinet that'll direct the war effort until the whole Japan was reduced to smoldering graveyard. You can look up all about this incident called Kyujo Incident of August 14th.

>all that bullshit about the firebombing
Do you actually know what the firebombing campaign entailed? The nature of Japanese cottage industry meant that we were pretty much trying to burn down entire cities. Tokyo alone killed some 200,000 people.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more legitimate targets by your standards - Hiroshima a major military command center and Nagasaki a relatively untouched industrial center due to the difficult nature of finding it with the bombing radars. If the firebombing of Tokyo was a "necessary evil" because it was a strategic target, then the atomic bombings sure as shit were necessary.