Murdered 225,000 Japanese people instantly just to show off new superweapon to the rest of the world

dont believe me just watch

*raises paw*

Anyone else stunned by the high level of discourse ITT?

>murdered 225,000 Japanese people instantly just to show off new superweapon to the rest of the world

I'm sure you can prove this rather large, sweeping statement and aren't using it to fling shit on a Burmese cheesemaking forum.

Except by that point, everyone had nukes.

Vietnam only served to further the Sino-Soviet split once it was concluded.

the point was vengeance? by killing civilians? americans baka...

You had an asymmetric conflict where superior commitment eventually defeated superior material resources, albeit at enormous cost.

The precedent of refraining from using atomic weaponry was only established after its effects were seen following Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That and the use of atomic weaponry would serve as an escalation of the war and would likely draw in China and Russia as a result - the latter being armed with their own atomic weapony too. Basically the stigma surrounding the non use of atomic weaponry was a big game of chicken; the minute one side used them it was fair game for the other to as well.

How exactly will nuclear weapons win a way against guerilla fighters?

lmgtfy.com/?q=hiroshima nagasaki death toll

It's obviously not an exact figure you autist. Substitute your own number in if it bothers you that much. It's really not relevant to anything if it was a couple thousand more or less.

>thinking the death toll is the part that needs to be proved.

Come on, second time's the charm. Let's see you show how it was to, and I quote

> just to show off new superweapon to the rest of the world

>Manhattan Project scientist Leo Szilard met with Byrnes on May 28, 1945. Szilard later wrote of the meeting,

>"[Byrnes] was concerned about Russia's postwar behavior. Russian troops had moved into Hungary and Rumania, and Byrnes thought it would be very difficult to persuade Russia to withdraw her troops from these countries, that Russia might be more manageable if impressed by American military might, and that a demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia." (Spencer Weart and Gertrud Szilard, Leo Szilard: His version of the Facts, pg. 184).

You're very naive if you didn't think of that as part of the motivation.

First off, James Bynres is a fucking Congressman and had no actual military authority. True, he was a confidant of FDR and was extremely influential, but the mere fact that Byrnes was thinking about deterring Russia is irrelevant even for showing any sort of American policy, let alone the sole nuclear policy.

Secondly, let me remind you of your own words.

>JUST TO SHOW OFF NEW SUPERWEAPON.

Now, where I come from, that means they had no other goals, like, I don't know, securing a Japanese surrender quickly and without all the problems and bloodshed of an invasion. Your little quote doesn't even begin to go into that.

Is English a second language for you? Are you just extremely stupid?

>this much autism over the word "just"

Why are you pretending I meant the war with Japan had NOTHING to do with the atom bomb? It was a flippant thread opening greentext. You can't possibly believe anyone holds the position the war with Japan had nothing to do with the atom bomb.

Reminder that US militarily defeated North Vietnam and the Vietcong, which failed to take over Vietnam in the Easter Offensive and forced them into the Paris Peace Accords.

Reminder that the only reason South Vietnam was conquered was because congress forced Nixon from office and blocked any attempt to send equipment to ARVN

>Why are you pretending I meant the war with Japan had NOTHING to do with the atom bomb

Because that is in fact what you said? Because your next point is about how America would not in fact use the atomic bomb in another war against communism and how it "completely destroyed our image as a powerful nation", a line that is a complete non-sequitur unless you think that the entire reason for dropping the bomb was one of image and not substance.

>You can't possibly believe anyone holds the position the war with Japan had nothing to do with the atom bomb.

I have seen people argue that very point, right here on Veeky Forums, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, or that it was done to pre-empt the chance of the Soviets invading Hokkaido, or quite literally that it was to deter or dickwave with Stalin, and that they deliberately sabotaged the Japanese surrender efforts solely to have the war still going when the bomb was ready. It's profoundly stupid, but that doesn't stop people from holding it.

Reminder that at the time of the Paris Peace Accords, the NVA held onto significant amounts of South Vietnamese territory, which they would not be withdrawing from.

Reminder that Nixon was looking for a way out of Vietnam almost from the start of his presidency and knew that withdrawal was a death sentence for South Vietnam.

Fearless, stubborn imperialist Japanese government was to blame and too bad for Japanese civilians who lived in such horrific time.

You seem to be really black and white with your thinking here. You definitely don't need to believe 100% of the reason for the atom bomb's use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to scare Russia / the rest of the world in order to recognize that was part of it and that the people in power did have an interest in maintaining an image. It was both a strategic move for ending the war with Japan quickly and an image move for showing off the city destroying superweapon we invested shitloads of resources in. The former is the mundane / official reason while the latter is the more interesting subtext. It'd be kind of weird to deny either of those two as motivations.

...

I refuse to believe you actually believe anyone holds the position the war in Japan had nothing to do with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You're pretending to interpret it that way so you can tism out about the word "just" because you're more interested in calling out hyper-literal semantic issues than you are in an honest pursuit of meaning.

>I didn't mean for you guys to read my post literally guys!!1 Y all the h8 >:-(

Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe you're just really bad at this?

You're severely misinformed just look at threads like this one.

desuarchive.org/his/thread/2261057/#2267028

People do unironically believe that forcing a surrender with Japan was not in fact part of the point of using atomic weapons; that Japan was ready to surrender and the Americans intentionally prolonged the war to have an excuse to drop the bomb.

It's idiocy, of course, but it's certainly honestly held idiocy, unless you want to think someone spent dozens of posts arguing that point just as a trololol.

>cold war and everyone was pointing nukes at each other
gee I wonder why

If I started a thread with:

>$25 billion to put a man on the moon just to prove we're better than soviets
>USSR collapses anyway

Would you try to argue that proving we're better than soviets wasn't the only reason and that advancing spaceflight benefited us in other ways? I would think the same sort of thing in that case in response, that of course there were other benefits and it was just a flippant thread starting greentext, not an actual insistence that nobody had any interest in lunar landing beyond proving we're better than another nation.

Yeah, go tell a veteran that they didnt fight a war. See how they react

>be a stupid nip
>start shit with most of the world
>make sure to commit pretty much very war crime in the book
>bitch when your opponents decide to treat you like the subhuman animal you behave like

So the US intervened to put up a puppet opposition government to the communist north following the French withdrawing from their former colony.
The US fought the war primarily with help from South Vietnam.
Due to the home front falling apart the government got a cease fire with the north and peace talks were underway but once the US pulled out with reassurances they would return if the north violated the cease fire.
The north violated the cease fire, the US did not return to prop up the government because it would have been political suicide. And thus the south fell, and Vietnam was reunited.

war is hell you know

>proceed to spend 20 years losing the Vietnam War and never nuking them, completely destroying our image as a powerful nation

Fucking hell my dude. That's on the same level of retardation as asking why the USA wasn't using nuclear bombs too break the blockade of Berlin. The whole strategic/political goal of the war would have been rendered unreachable the second a nuke is used on North Vietnam.

1) Domino Theory/ International reliability:
US strategists feared that communism would spread in SEA if Vietnam goes fully communist. They also wanted to show to all allies that the USA would support allies in the face of communist aggression.

Using a nuke on a tiny underdeveloped third world nation would have caused unprecedented levels of commie sympathy around the globe. Especially in SEA because most countries there would be affected by the negative effects of a nuke (fallout,refugees, brotherhood of steel, supermutants etc.).

A lot of Allies would rethink their position. Western Germany was very pacifist and unwilling to lead another war. Seeing another divided country nuked to deter commie aggression would drastically change the political landscape making them VERY unreliable allies in the best case. Same goes for the rest of Europe. Better red than dead wasn't a slogan for no reason. The US dropping a nuke in something that was designated a police mission initially could potentially destroy NATO.

2) The USA were keen on showing that their military power could stop the communist revolutionaries. One of the major assets the eastern bloc possessed was the revolutionary fervor in the third world. The USA wanted to demonstrate that it could destroy a revolutionary movement with modern military means.

3) The USA needed a communist aggressor to justify the War. Dropping a nuke would have killed even the last part of credibility. Carpet bombing North Vietnam and Laos killed most of the goodwill the USA initially enjoyed politically.

>South Korea during WW2?
are you talking about Japan? they annexed korea in 1910...

THERE IS A HOUSE
IN NEW ORLEANS

>Due to the home front falling apart

Not just the home front, the US Army was in a state of mutiny by the time combat troops were withdrawn.

Korea is the war that proved we'll never use nukes outside of a MAD scenario again.

If we used nukes in Korea or Nam we would have given China or the ussr to nuke our puppets, and give nukes to their puppets to use. It would be unnecessary escalation.

Even nukes wouldn't have won Vietnam

Exterminatus on All furries

>Korea
China didn't have nukes and the Soviets didn't have a forward positioned nuclear arsenal until the mid 60's.

China started nuclear tests in the early sixties, they would have still had passible relations with the ussr in the years of the Korean War, if you don't think the Russians would give them nukes and the bombers to use them in response to North Korea or China being nuked you are deluded.
Or did you forget that gravity bomb nukes are a thing?

>he US Army was in a state of mutiny

That's a little overblown. The state of the army was pitiful though. Morale was at an unprecedented low and drugs and alcohol gravely impaired the combat effectiveness of most formations.

The more pressing reasons were the gigantic costs of the war which the US simply couldn't stomach anymore and the mounting political pressure to reduce the engagement massively.

you don't have to be american tbqh, it was just a giant clusterfuck all around

youtube.com/watch?v=6E2-OOQo13c

>America Lost Vietnam

>America "lost Vietnam"

Korea ended in 53 laddo

>american corporation opens in vietnam and sells local variations of burgerlard.
>this means america won.

Yes and you don't think the nuclear program was around before they started tests? Nukes in China are a state secret, but you don't test until you have a stockpile.

>reach none of the initial strategic goals
>the war seriously weakens US grip over the economic system of the world
>the situation the USA was trying to avoid at all costs is a reality a few short years after they withdraw

When will this meme die? Burgers really can't stomach the fact they lost. 2050 this board will be full of burgers denying that the occupation of was failure.

Soviet Union didn't have nukes when the US dropped them on Japan, and Japan wasn't a soviet puppet state.

>a full decade before the first test
>ended over a year before the chinese nuclear program even began
>nukes anyways
Sure thing bud.

>ignoring the possibility for ussr sending China nukes

>ignoring the fact that the USSR couldn't even put their own nukes into a forward position until over a decade after Korea ended
Sure thing bud

>what are gravity bombs

>not understanding the reality of the situation
Gravity bombs don't mean shit if you're not in a forward position to use them.

You must not understand the operational range of a strategic bomber.

You must not understand Soviet incapability during that era.

>Vietnam Lost

>Ho Chi Minh
>winning anything

All that wasted money.

>largest economic growth the world has seen
>wasted money

I'm in hiroshima rn. Beautiful city. Cried at the memorial. They all agree it wasn't needed etc

>They all agree it wasn't needed
I'd take anything the Japs have to say on the matter with a shot of iodine.

It is wasted. You achieve nothing, you lost and what you feared happened. You wasted money and no amount of nationalism will change that.

>everyone that disagrees with me is American
WEW
L
A
D

If they did there would be more than one dummy.

>you don't test until you have a stockpile.
Kek

USA is part of UK now