Hiroshima & Nagasaki

The US warned the Japanese they had a bomb, they even dropped leaflets warning the civilians before the bombing

With the benefit of hindsight, I question the ultimate necessity of it, and I can't in good conscience actively condone bombing cities full of civilians.

That said, Truman was faced with a near guarantee to end an incredibly destructive war, in which all involved parties had committed atrocities. I can understand his decision.

How do you justify not pressing the insta win button to your soldiers?
>No, we're not going to nuke the sonsabitches, because 70 years from now when we're all long dead, a bunch of underdeveloped man children will be mad at us

Of course it was important but once again remember the context. The death and destruction of the war such as in Dresden for example. Luckily OP will never be in charge of a situation like that or his weak clemency would cause more death and destruction.

>b-but muh warnings
Doesn't matter.

If you must scare someone, what's the best moral thing to do? Stab his baby to death in front of him or shoot his hat off with a loud revolver? Use your brain, you dumb chimp. America deserves to get nuked.

this

is it really intelligent to ask why people fired guns in a war?

Japan is densely populated as shit, you can't detonate a nuclear bomb on them without killing millions of people. I know you Euros have brains that have been addled from millenia of inbreeding, but maybe this once I thought you would be able to figure out this simple problem in your own argument. I was wrong.

DO IT AGAIN, BOMBS AWAY LEMAY

>you can't detonate a nuclear bomb on them without killing millions of people
hurr

Your analogy is asinine. The Japanese were a war cult. They weren't going to have a cup of tea with the US and watch them drop a bomb on uninhabited land. Even if they did it wouldn't of convinced the Japanese to surrender, the first bombing couldn't even do that. Stop being a sensitive bitch and think rationally

Lol if you're Japanese do some research on the Nanking massacre. That was worse than the two nukes used to end the war.

>Even if they did it wouldn't of convinced the Japanese to surrender
[citation needed]
>the first bombing couldn't even do that
I explicitely said "multiple tests".

you're right, I chiefly am concerned with the lives of good men that would be wasted putting an end to this war began by the Japanese in that fashion

whether the japanese of that time would have run themselves to the brink of extinction than finally quit is of a lesser concern

>whataboutism

kind of makes you wish those fighting men could reach up through the depths of history and punch these guys in the face

The US only had 2 bombs at the time and it would take months to produce more. Even if demonstration was done the Japanese wouldn't stop because there would be no real casualties
>Lets do two bomb demonstrations for the Japanese and hope they will stop killing our soldiers. If they don't surrender we won't have any more bombs to drop for a few months

Nuclear bombs emits radiation my friend

>multiple tests
>only had 2 bombs
If the Japanese didn't surrender right after the first bombing, why would they surrender after a demonstration?

>Even if demonstration was done the Japanese wouldn't stop because there would be no real casualties
[citation needed]

it's not even comparable, as one is a weapon of war, and the other is villainous rapine and murder

>Lets start genociding the Japanese civilian population with nuclear arsenal and hope they will stop killing our soldiers. If they don't surrender we will genocide them all.
O say, can you see...

see

What a retard

If the US wanted to genocide the Japanese population why did they directly warn them of the bombing and urge them to evacuate? Why do you ignore the genocide of the Chinese at the hands of the Japanese?

>only had 2 bombs
Build more and do more tests. What's more sacred, innocent human life or money?

>I'd rather stab someone's baby to death in front of him than shoot his hat off with a loud revolver to scare him. That'll show him!
Don't reply to me again, brainlet.

Weaboos: Proof that Nerds aren't always smart

US priority was to save American lives. Why waste time with demonstrations that probably won't work and wait months for more bombs to be made at the expense of Allied lives?

>whataboutism

>Dude just do trick shots!
>Calls other people retarded

he has no idea of the immense undertaking it was to even build one bomb

he doesn't know how long it too to create the isotope required for the reaction

Um, that's not an argument, sweetie.

>missing the point this hard
Stop projecting your retardation.

Having scrolled through a thread full of arguments that were all ignored, I'm just tossing insults out for fun.

BY

THE

DAWN'S

EARLY

LIGHT

>What's more sacred, innocent human life or money?
Do some basic fucking research on the Manhattan Project. Building nukes in 1945 was unbelievably more difficult from even 1950.

Reminder that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both perfectly valid military targets and nobody would have batted an eye if they were hit by firebombing rather than nukes like we did to every other major city in Japan.

Also the nips totally had it coming.

>Make retarded argument
>Make retarded analogy
>Get called out for retarded argument and analogy
>Bro you just don't get it!

user, you don't have a username. You can just cut bait and close the thread, and we can all forget this ever happened.

>ugh! it's too much trouble! let's just annihilate all these innocent civilians in an instant!
O say, can you see...

WHAT

SO

PROUDLY

WE

HAILED

>demonstration would lead to Japanese surrender
[citation needed]

>Why did innocent people die in war?
Total War's a bitch, next time don't attack a superpower that outperforms you in manpower, capital, industry and natural resources. I think this Sherman quote is incredibly relevant.

>it's retarded because I think it's retarded and I believe you're retarded for being retarded!
Just stop posting, kiddo.

>Total War's a bitch
Dropping nukes on civilians is being a bitch.

Yes but it was alot better than other options.

You're wrongly snubbing the other options.

>Banksyshit
Pleb tastes.

>civilians
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. The US went to more effort than it was obligated to by warning of the impending attack, even jeopardizing the crews on the mission by dropping the warning leaflets and giving the Japanese time to prepare. If there were viable alternatives to hit those targets just as hard without killing so many people, you bet your ass Truman would have used them. But high explosives weren't effective enough and firebombing was more costly to the USAAF and far more devastating than the nukes to the cities affected. The nukes offered just as much - if not more - precision than any other weapon available, but it was far more effective.

The atomic bombings are no more immoral than any other strategic bombing effort the Allies undertook. In fact, compared to missions like Operation Gomorrah, the firebombing of Tokyo, or just about any major Axis bombing effort, the atomic bombings were more close to the norm.

>The US went to more effort than it was obligated to
made me think

AT

THE

TWILIGHT'S

LAST

GLEAMING

That's pretty gnarly, Japs just aren't extreme enough probably.
Besides literally all you have to do to not get nuked is have nukes. Like was Japan even trying?

>Total war is okay when we do it
>bad when you do it
Start shit get hit

It was pretty shitty, but it's quite hypocritical to focus on the nukes when the fire bombings killed more civilians than any singular nuclear bomb

Congratulations, you've discovered that people sometimes get horribly injured in war. Horrific pictures of the victims of war don't tell you anything but the fact that war is hell.

Warring powers have no obligation to the safety of their opponents beyond the bare minimum standard set by international law. The US put its own men in danger by warning of the attack beforehand to give noncombatants the opportunity to leave. It offered support immediately postwar for those affected, which again, they were under no obligation to do.

WHOSE

BROAD

STRIPES

AND

BRIGHT

STARS

THROUGH

THE

PERILOUS

FIGHT

Nothing wrong. Japs deserved it!
Or maybe you think 2 bombs weren't enough...

America's been nuked more than a couple times already

>War is Hell ® so just forget about it brah, p-please

japan was not a food importer during the time of ww2, they would have been self sufficient entirely

>Bombed major population centers in China
>Used shit such as chemical bombs and biological weapon against them
>cries when they get a taste of it
Those nips have harvested the twister,now they experience the tornado
Open up those bays Curtis LeMay!

You should've nuked Japan the same way you nuked yourselves, brainlets.

So who do you thinks responsible for this thread? The Nips or the weebs?

maybe 2 towers weren't enough...

Bait poster

I agree
Starving up the japs or leaving them to the Slavs would be much more enjoyable

I legitimately can't see anything wrong with the nukes, all Japan's fault having war in the first place. They probably shouldn't have done that.

The nukes are the F-35 of WW2 discussion. People with little education on the topic like to bring it up because it makes them seem educated and offers an easy way to point to the US being wrong.

For the F-35, it's easier to just point to the big scary numbers with no context than it is to go after real issues like interservice bickering or the fact that the VA is so goddamn incompetent that it's taken for granted that injured vets are going to have to depend on charity.

For WW2, it's easy to just point to the nukes and say they were bad. But the real horrors and potentially unethical or even criminal acts - the firebombing campaign, handing German POWs to the Soviets, and plenty of other things - are less well known and more nuanced, so they're too hard for people to discuss for attention.

Nips are happily to be America's bitch and suck their HIV dicks till nowadays after these bombs, I don't see anything wrong. It just showed Nips' true colors.

More Japanese civilians died in firebombings than in both atomic blasts. If the nukes weren't dropped, the firebombings would have continued. Don't be a retard you fucking hippie.

>I legitimately can't see anything wrong with annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.

O'RE

THE

RAMPARTS

WE

WATCHED

>Being this daft about the war up to this point

Dense population =/ lack of uninhabited land

70% of the country is sparely populated mountains.

The issue is that 80% of the population lives in only a few major cities

Yes that's exactly what I said, just restating something with a picture isn't an argument.

>"the nukes"
It's "the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians that were gratuitously massacred", Mr. Educated.

Go ahead, go bomb so more American "towers" if you want, see what will happen.

What did Jap do before they got nuke I wonder? Eeven today there still quite a few Japs,especailly their politicians, deny the atrocities they did back then. Your/their victim card was never really work.

Both.

you got any more of the freedom shadow pics? I seem to be out, user.

>I'm going to sacrifice millions of my fighting men so fat autists won't say I was mean 70 years from now

WERE

SO

GALLANTLY

STREAMING

>I legitimately can't see anything wrong with annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
That's exactly what Japs did when they started their "holy war" in Asia. Go fuck yourself, weeb.

...

>see what will happen
You'll get BTFO by peasants, again and AGAIN? lel

AND

THE

ROCKET'S

RED

GLARE

>whataboutism

This was the pic ur looking for

I think he's saying they were just asking for a sucker punch for the finale of the war

>You'll get BTFO by peasants
Do you even know who I am? You fucking retard. Go blow some Murican towers see if I care.

Nevertheless, Japs deserved to be bombed, Americans finally did it right for once.

THE

BOMBS

BURSTING

IN

AIR