It was 100% justified

But why bomb two cities instead of one? It was simply unnecessary

...

Because the Japanese didn't surrender after the first one.

The whole point of the bombings was to produce a spectacle that the Japanese government could no longer deny.

I've never read of one- but I'm sure there was also plans to use chemical weapons of some kind "just in case".

I'm not too sure, for one certain elements of the Japanese government were pro peace and it was a shame we ignored them (and some even sketchier things I've seen on places like IHR), but as a whole the government was extremely anti peace, as shown by their confiscation of the American warning leaflets. Also saved a bunch of POWs.

no

just 99.9%

They had to drop it on something solid so that the Japanese could not reverse engineer it if it failed to detonate.

However they didn't need to drop it on a populated area. They could have gone for a purely military target like some airfield somewhere. It should have been preceded with propagada leaflet campaigns telling civilians to get out (over several area so they can't concentrate fighters and AAA over the actual target).

That is my analysis, they needed to drop one somewhere as it was the only way to get nationalist officers and Hirohito to switch up on the crazed militarists. I am not a super smart general expert but there are definitely some unanswered questions.

It is all factually true, you dumbshit.

I think Truman regrets giving the bomb into the Army's control and letting a second bomb hit.
He took control of it back pretty quickly and thinking its too much loss of children lives.
Would Japan have surrendered after 1 bomb?
Was the second bomb necessary?

>The Soviet Union was about to invade
With the non-existent invasion fleet?

Justify Nagasaki though. I 100% can guarantee you know nothing about the bombing of Nagasaki. The fact it wan't the primary target, the fact that Nagasaki had been bombed 5 times already in the past 12 months and nuking it was pretty much pointless and damage would not be able to be assessed, so therefore was not on the primary list of targets..

How is a nuke justified when it's target is literally only there by chance? Kokura was cloudy so they couldn't find a spot to drop their nuke. The pilot circled over Nagasaki and found a opening and dropped the nuke.

We are taught ends do not justify the means, yeah? So then anyone who argues the nukes caused the Japanese to surrender therefore they are justified is a moron. You cannot justify a nuke when the nuke is literally dropped outside of the plans for said nuke, just because it achieved their end goal, which was coming anyway.

>Without the rapid shock of a second bomb it's perfectly conceivable they wouldn't have surrendered for months

Yeah sure, as it is perfectly conceivable (as per the american generals of the times advice) without the nukes and without invasions japan's surrender was inevitable.

To put it into perspective, here is a map of just how much they fire bombed japan into oblivion. This is what caused Japans surrender, not the unnecessary utter vaporization off hundreds of thousands of literally no reason.

The only supply line they had connect their two main islands, that was literally it. They had no capacity to make war.

But America had just spent billions in 1945 dollars so they had to use it. Simple as that,

The fuck are you going on about, Nagasaki was a major seaport and produced a shitload of military hardware, of course it was justified. The nips hadn't surrendered by the time Nagasaki was bombed, and so another show of force was required in order to force unconditional surrender, end of story. Don't blame the americans for nip stubbornness and stupidity.

>the US is supposed to sit on their hands and wait while Japanese armies are still raping and murdering their way through half of Asia because muh feelings

How in Christ's name did liberals go from Harry Truman to this?

What? If the firebombing (which, yes, was far worse than the two bombs) had been sufficient, THEN IT WOULD HAVE MADE THEM SURRENDER. It didn't, ergo it wasn't enough; that's practically a fucking tautology.

We're not arguing about which was more destructive, of course the firebombing was, that's not new information to anybody here -- at least I hope it's not.

You mean the Pacific Fleet, the one that they did in fact use in Korea, Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands? No, the Pacific Fleet was nothing special, but the ragged, ragged remnants of the Japanese Navy were concentrated in the south, the Soviets were planning to attack from the north, it's not far-fetched at all.

>It should have been preceded with propagada leaflet campaigns telling civilians to get out
That's exactly what they fucking did

>they didn't need to drop it on a populated area. They could have gone for a purely military target like some airfield somewhere
Both cities had strategic value. One even had the headquarters for one of the armies

>The International Military Tribunal for the Far East estimated that, in an addition to children and the elderly, 20,000 women were raped.[48] A large portion of these rapes were systematized in a process in which soldiers would go from door to door, searching for girls, with many women being captured and gang raped.[49] The women were often killed immediately after being raped, often through explicit mutilation[50] or by penetrating vaginas with bayonets, long sticks of bamboo, or other objects. Young children were not exempt from these atrocities and were cut open to allow Japanese soldiers to rape them.[51]

It was, but I'll make the point I've made before:

Had the war gone differently, had the US lost at Midway, and Japan was on the verge of invading the West Coast and had acquired atomic weapons... Would you still consider it justified if the Japs had nuked Seattle and Portland to avoid invading the US and force surrender?

Activate your almonds faggots.

What the fuck am I even reading.

>We are taught ends do not justify the means, yeah?

Then you grow up and realize the adults peddling that bullshit were retarded because the ends absolutely justify the means.

Yeah, I remember you from a couple weeks ago.

People rightly pointed out that your analogy DOESN'T FUCKING WORK -- those simply aren't analogous situations. Rather, they're vastly different in not just one but several ways.

Not many people responded to you because what you said wasn't as clever or insightful as you thought it was, not because your astute argument made them slink out of the thread.

IDK mang.

>i can't figure out a hypothetical

I also remember you from a couple weeks ago.

get a fucking room retards

preferably one far away from here

>not wanting Seattle and Portland to have burned

I'm not failing to understand you, I'm pointing out that what you're saying is stupid.

There's no such thing as a perfect analogy, but when an analogy breaks down as quickly and easily as yours, then it's a bad analogy and you should stop trotting it out. It does not effectively make the point you're trying to make.

And acting like anybody who disagrees with you must just not understand what you're saying makes you seem like a petty child, dude. It doesn't have very much dignity.

>Had things been different, they would not be the same.

Stay classy, Veeky Forums.

Also, I don't know what country you're from, but if the Japs had nuked two American cities, there would now be a crater where Japan once existed.

IT'S NOT A FUCKING ANALOGY, IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION

>his nationalism fogs his attempts to study history

Sad!

What's it like to be subjective and biased when studying history? Must be a heavy burden.

Well, a Japanese attack on the American mainland would only be morally comparable to an American attack on the Japanese mainland if you believe that self defense is morally equivalent to aggression and fascism is morally equivalent to democracy.

Also, you're gay.

It's both, you idiot. A hypothetical situation which is clearly intended to parallel what actually happened, but with the sides flipped. That makes it an analogy.

Jesus actual fucking Christ, man.

>people unironically getting butt blasted about the nuclear bombings but not the Tokyo fire bombings
ebin.

You're gonna need to give me a little more to go off of if you want your quip to sting, man. I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

>implying the Japs wouldn't have just firebombed the West Coast had they possessed the opportunity

You retards act like Hamburg, dresden, tokyo etc weren't just as devastating as Hiroshima.

When your squeeze your two brain cells together to put together your "muh hypothetical situation" at least stop and take the time to

READ A FUCKING BOOK

before posting

thx kys

If it was why didn't they drop one (or two) on the germans?

They surrendered before they could be nuked

Atom bombs have long term effects.

>That's exactly what they fucking did
Wrong. They didn't warn about nuclear bombs.

quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-US-dropped-flyers-as-a-warning-before-bombing-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki

The hypothesis that the Japanese would have caused US surrender by dropping two atomic bombs on two western cities is FUCKING LAUGHABLE and would have done nothing but accelerate our own bomb technology to TURN JAPAN INTO THE SEA OF JAPAN.

It may be the world's shittiest analogy. In fact, I'm not sure it even qualifies as an analogy, just role reversal.

They didn't have to and that's not even the point.

but they were populated, victory was inevitable at that point so limiting civilian casualties should have been a high priority

>so limiting civilian casualties should have been a high priority
The Japanese had decentralized arms production to civilian workshops because all their factories had been fucked up.
WW2 was total war, you could not separate civilians from military targets, they're one and the same. Especially since the luxury of PGM's did not exist in any meaningful quantity at the time.

Lets be honest here, the biggest problem with nuking Japan was the fact that Kyoto didn't get hit by couple kilotons of canned sunshine.

I think people who think the bombs were unjustifiably used forget many issues that lead to the bombings of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1. The bombs were originally going to be used against Germany but they surrendered before that was possible.

2.The Japanese government refused the peace terms created at the Potsdam conference, which were way less severe than those given to Germany.

3. Even after both bombings, the Minister of War wanted to continue fighting, it wasn't until Emperor Hirohito himself overruled the goverment that Japan surrendered, and while Hirohito publicly announced it was the USSR declaring war on Japan that lead to his decision to surrender, he told MacArthur himself that the bombings were the main reason he surrendered.

I'll leave this with a qoute from General Leslie R. Groves: "Truman sod not so much as say 'yes' as not say 'no.' It would indeed have taken a lot of nerve to say 'no' at that time."

>The Soviet Union was about to invade
They had nowhere near the capability to invade the home Islands.

But muh Japanese masters told me that the nukes were a horrible war crimes and that Hirohito and Tojo were good boys that didn't do nothing wrong.

You can write that as much as you like, it's not going to make it true. Given the state and distribution of the Japanese military and the capabilities of the Pacific Fleet, an invasion and occupation of Hokkaido wasn't at all out of the question.

After that, well, things start to get way more speculative than I'm comfortable with.

ITT: Butthurt chinks and gooks. Japan is the best, deal with it. Once they drop the cuck constitution with the help of based Abe, Japan will wreck you faggots once and for all and we won't have to say sorry ever again.

There is nothing wrong with deliberately targeting enemy's civilian population during a total war.

t. Weeaboo

I wish a nigga would

>we are taught
No
>you cannot then justify
Who said that nukes are a means that require and ends to justify them. I am of a mind that their use is not inherently unjust.

So was Pearl Harbor, so was 9/11.

t. Abdula Bin Muhammed

Pearl Harbor was "justified" from the Japanese perspective, but also incredibly stupid and infuriating to the US, making it doubly stupid for the Japanese.
You can argue about it being a surprise attack and unjustified in those regards, but the rules of war is an oxymoron at best. The only reason anyone follows them is because of the fear of reprisals for breaking them. And many a faction and nation has very much ignored the rules of war in the past and into the present, the Japanese were hardly unique in that regard.
What was unique was their suicidal fervor and lack of care both for the soldiers and population of other countries and the lack of care for their own soldiers and population.

>It was 100% justified
Absolutely wrong, it wasnt even one per cent justified

US pacific bomber command, under Curtis LeMay (who famously said "There are no innocent civilians") after carrying out a bombing campaign agaisnt Japanese cities, first annihilating those with a population of 100,00 and once that was done, begun the systematic destruction of cities with populations of 50,000.
US Pacific bomber command dropped more ordinance (mainly napalm) on Japanese civilians in a year than was launched agaisnt Germany in the entire war

The bombing campaign brought Japan to its knees, and with the soviets are their northern borders, and the armies victories long behind them, and they wanted peace

>American officials, having long since broken Japan's secret codes, knew from intercepted messages that the country's leaders were seeking to end the war on terms as favorable as possible. Details of these efforts were known from decoded secret communications between the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and Japanese diplomats abroad.

In his 1965 study, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (pp. 107, 108), historian Gar Alperovitz writes:

Although Japanese peace feelers had been sent out as early as September 1944 (and [China's] Chiang Kai-shek had been approached regarding surrender possibilities in December 1944), the real effort to end the war began in the spring of 1945. This effort stressed the role of the Soviet Union ...

In mid-April [1945] the [US] Joint Intelligence Committee reported that Japanese leaders were looking for a way to modify the surrender terms to end the war. The State Department was convinced the Emperor was actively seeking a way to stop the fighting.

TLDR - Japan was nuked as a show of force to the soviet union

>ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html

>historychannel.com.au/videos/bombing-war-guernica-hiroshima-promo/

Sounds like switching over to atomic ordnance was completely justified, after all why waste massive amounts of money in fueling hundreds of bombers required for a conventional bombing mission when you can do the same job with only half-a-dozen planes when using nuclear weaponry.

>ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html
>posts "evidence" of Japan's innocence and desire for peace from IHR, a website that falsifies records and mostly focuses on Holocaust denial

literally every time this conversation is brought up this happens.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Historical_Review

Because that worked out so well last time.

>1.hurr durr we got dese bombs lets use em anyway!
>2. They didn't surrender the first time so that means they'll fight to the last woman and child!!
>3. You see, they surrendered afterwards so it was justifiable. The only way.

my point was- the Japanese wanted to surrender, and the terms they proposed were identical to the ones the ended up getting offered by the US

But the US denied a Japanese surrender, simply so that they could use the atomic bomb as a show of force to the Soviet Union

I actually got the info from a history channel documentary about US pacific bomber command that i watched last week, thats just an additional sauce.

find the History Channel documentary- its really good, eye opening

>"I actually got the info from the history channel"
>thinking this is any better than the Holocaust denial website

alright faggot, instead of giggling like a little girl, why dont you put something of your own together and refute me, or else head back /b/

>Refute that Japan was denied a surrender, then offered nigh on the same terms, after the bombs were dropped

>American Prometheus: the Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer - this won a Pulitzer prize and backs what ive said

heres another al beit it didnt win any prizes:

>Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan -

>tell japan that if it does not completely surrender unconditionally they will face destruction on a level never before seen on Earth
>japan does not surrender
>drop bomb on hiroshima
>tell japan that if it does not completely surrender unconditionally they will face destruction on a level never before seen on Earth
>japan does not surrender
>drop bomb on nagasaki
>japan surrenders
>???

Before bomb:
>I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence. We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.
After nuclear bombings and soviet declaration of war:
>The Japanese Government would like to be permitted to state to the Governments of America, Britain, China and the Soviet Union what they most earnestly desire with reference to the execution of certain Provisions of the Potsdam Proclamation. This may be done possibly at the time of the Signature.

By August of 1945 Japan only had one way out of the war, either accept the Potsdam declaration or fight to the last man, woman, and child.

t. butthurt zipperhead

>justified
yes

>necessary
not really

killing 6 million jews was justified.

It was a little overkill.

>my point was- the Japanese wanted to surrender, and the terms they proposed were identical to the ones the ended up getting offered by the US
i highly doubt this is the truth
the US was shooting for an unconditional surrender - there were no terms offered

not an argument

This

>B-but muh six gazillion trillion
The fucking holocaust wasn't a Tactical effort to stop the loss of More human lives.

What is modern day Palestine?

>What is modern day Palestine?
the result of the creation of a jewish state due to the holocaust

Japan never simply contacted the US, or broadcast to the world, that they wished to end the war. Why not, if they were trying to surrender?
The US is monitoring the Japanese attidude via broken codes, and is not seeing any desire to end the war. Instead, Japan is rushing troops to Kyushu. Japan is building fortifications. Japan is stockpiling fuel and planes for Kamikazi attacks on the invasion. Why, if they were trying to surrender?
After Hiroshima, Japan's War Minister (a general) broadcasts an exhortation to the troops to continue fighting. Why, if they were trying to surrender?
Potsdam is ignored. Why, if they were trying to surrender?

The Japanese governemnt was not sending instructions to diplomats. Quite the opposite. Diplomats were trying to get instructions from the government, but were ignored. Particularly from Switzerland, where they had met with the OSS, and the USSR, who was ignored.

Gar Alperowitz is a hack who lies, distorts and cherry picks in order to advance an agenda. He's the Thomas DiLorenzo of the Pacific war.

It is generally prefferable that warriors kill warriors and let the civilians be, even if that is an old romantics view of war.

Japan wasn't trying to negotiate with us. Plus they sneaked us. Fuck 'em.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki really showed the world the destructive power of these weapons and made politicians and generals wary of the dangers that come. If it wasn't for the Japanese bombings, who knows where the first nuclear bomb would have landed.

The Japanese Military Junta at the time was highly fragmented and splitting down the middle, while all were sworn to secrecy while they warred among each other on who would take the fall for the major fuck up that was the Pacific Campaign. If the only condition they could all agree to was that the Emperor did no wrong, and only the Emperor could heal a Post-War Occupied Japan, their request that the Emperor not be harmed seemed like the only realistic condition to end the war on. The United States refused this single condition multiple times, delaying the Junta response and allowing the U.S to utilize their new toy for everyone to see.

It took the last-minute pleas of a Weeaboo for the President not to drop the nukes on Tokyo and Osaka, as were originally planned.

based nipponese

Deep down Americans feel guilty and try to amend themselves by thinking those bombing were righteous. Those threads are a proof of that.

OP is right though. They were justified by madness and lust for power. You can justify anything anyway. Denial is just pointless.

You're basically saying a one world government is justifiable...since that was the entire purpose of the atomic bomb.

You don't get to decide the conditions of a surrender when you're losing.

>It took the last-minute pleas of a Weeaboo for the President not to drop the nukes on Tokyo and Osaka, as were originally planned.

Fucking weaboos ruining everything.

Jews are responsible for all wars and terrorism in the Middle East. Killing 6 million people who would gladly kill you and everyone you love if it were the other way around is a small price to pay to end most of the wars going on in the world.

Maybe culturally. But fallout decays much faster than you think.

>Soviet Navy
The gooks in China and South East Asia were doomed, Soviets would have killed almost all of them like in Manchukuo and Korea. But the home islands were impossible to touch with the Soviet Navy in 1945, even with an American Invasion 2.5 million deaths minimal were predicted for such an event. The bombing was justified but not for your autistic reasoning, read a book once in a while you fucking double retard.

Okay let's see.
>Iran-Iraq War
>Kuwait
>Yemen Civil War
>Iraq Civil War
>Iraq Civil War 2
>Iran Civil War
>Jordinian Civil War
>1980s Jihadist Uprising in Syria
>modern Jihadist Uprising in Syria and Iraq
>another Yemen Civil War
>the Shia uprising in Yemen
>Libya Civil War

For a bunch of people who all agree they hate the Jews, Muslims sure spend most of their effort killing each other instead.