Was the nuking of Japan justified?

...

Murder is never justified.

With the luxury of hindsight, no.

Yes.

It saved a bunch of American and Japanese lives, in addition to bringing Japan under American occupation during the rest of the 1940's and 50's. The alternative would have probably involved some korea or vietnam-style split.

>The alternative would have probably involved some korea or vietnam-style split.
Why do people say this? It has 0 historical or even reasonable basis; the Soviets didn't have the naval presence to mount an invasion of Japan, even the "lightly" defended Hokkaido.

If the war continues, Soviet advances are going to be made in China and Korea, not in Japan itself, because that's where they could project force to.

Well can you? Without justifying the means with the ends?

was firebombing/conventional bombing until it was flattened any different?

Does it matter at this point?

Firebombing or 'conventional bombing', is never up for dispute, want to know why? The context it was used in was totally acceptable, it's seen as the force which totally destroyed Japans cities and removed their capability for war.

Keeping this in mind, what use does a nuke have on wounded dog in it's death throws? Anecdotal evidence, but the thing about the nuke and the reason why it's so controversial and fire bombing is not, is it was literally, factually, not needed past a simple demonstration of raw power for a new weapon which cost billions in R and D.

Nagasaki wasn't even on the initial list of targets for being nuked, as it was so heavily damaged from firebombing in the past 12 months, it was literally pointless to nuke it as they wouldn't be able to competently assess damage, but the other 3 target areas where no goes, so Nagasaki it was.

stop making this thread you autist

Yes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets, they didn't just decide those places just to kill random civilians. If not being gently vaporized it would have been destroyed anyway through conventional means.

>If not being gently vaporized it would have been destroyed anyway through conventional means.
>Gently vaporized
You forgot the "gentle" radiations that made thousand of people slowly suffer as well as the "gently" disformed babies.

Kek, you should really read up about the subject you think you know anything about. The dropping of Nagasaki is about as random as it gets.

Japs have been running a propaganda campaign about Hiroshima and Nagasaki being war crimes pretty much since the day US occupation ended, that is the difference between stuff like Operation Meetinghouse and nukes.

>[citation needed]

Not at all senpai. Unless of course you believe we can control the weather?

Without the nuking of Japan the USSR would have held a far larger influence over it.
Maybe that would have affected the cold war.
Maybe it wouldn't.

Politically speaking, yes, it was justified. But then again, so was slavery.

Maybe because all the Allies divided up the conquered territories afterwards and the division between East and West Allies led to this thing called the Cold War.

I don't see why it's unreasonable to guess a similar thing could've happened to Japan, as happened to Korea and Germany, if the US didn't publicly mark it as their own in the end. This was also part of Truman's motivation of using the bomb anyway - to let the Soviets know who their boss was, or so he thought.

>Maybe because all the Allies divided up the conquered territories afterwards

Which was done according to agreement in places like Iran, or by where the armies lay, in most of Europe.

The Soviets had no means of getting their forces to Japan. They had a tiny, tiny fleet, and almost not transport in the Pacific.

>I don't see why it's unreasonable to guess a similar thing could've happened to Japan, as happened to Korea and Germany,

Because the Soviets could get troops into Germany and Korean. They had no such ability to do so in Japan.

>it was literally pointless to nuke it as they wouldn't be able to competently assess damage
You said it yourself, as a raw demonstration of power. You think the rumblings of the cold war weren't analyzed until after WWII?

Besides, it still took TWO for them to roll over.

It's not justified that they drop only 2 bombs.

yes because it would have been east and west germany version 2

No.

We need, A GRAND GESTURE.

If you're japanese, no.
if you're american, yes.

sorry for being a piece of shit.

How else would anime have been created?

Justified as a war tactic maybe, but if there is a hell, Truman should be there.