The atomic bombings of japan were necessary

Wilson Miscamble of Prager University argues that it was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that allowed the 'peace faction' in the Japanese government to negotiate a surrender.

So why did they refuse surrender after Hiroshima? It took Nagasaki AND the Soviet invasion to convince these fucks to even get to the negotiating table outside of their terms.

Continuing the strategic bombing would have achieved the same thing.

Japan was certain they could surrender conditionally, and certain that unconditional surrender would be worse than death, and pointless. It took as long as it took to convince them that America would actually kill everyone if they didn't surrender unconditionally. And then in the post-war, it didn't take too long to convince them that America wasn't going to enslave everyone.

Because it's insane to think this was obvious at the time. Japan was the aggressor, and ALSO fighting for their lives. It's not like America would surrender until conditions were just as bad.

I think they thought America was trying to scare them and wouldn't actually do it again

I've never heard a convincing explanation of why the Atomic Bombs in particular were a decisive factor in Japanese surrender considering that most of the home island had already been pounded into ash by conventional bombing raids. It seems to make no sense that 2 additional cities being obliterated would be the straw the breaks the camel's back when almost every other city had already been devastated to the same degree or worse with no possible recourse. Everything the Atomic Bombs 'accomplished' could have been done and was being done with firebombs across the whole of the japanese islands with impunity. If the JHC thought the destruction of cities was a pressing enough concern to end the war they probably would have entered peace talks well before the Atomic Bombs were used when it was clear the home islands were sitting ducks to day and night bombing raids.

It seems to me that bombing raids never actually achieved their intended purpose of forcing a government to surrender anywhere it was used: be it Germany, Britain, Poland, France or Japan. Surrender came at last not because of the destruction of cities but when either military resistance had become futile or political elements within the country capitulated.

>Why didn't America waste more munitions, more fuel and kill more civilians in a traditional bombing campaign instead???!?

This is the most retarded logic I have ever heard. If you had a super weapon to end the war and you're willing to mass kill hundreds of thousands anyway, WHY WOULDN'T YOU USE IT?? Why risk the lives of crewmen in endless bombing raids just to get these fuckers to back down long after the war was decided?

Weapons of mass destruction are very threatening and scary. Duh.

That's the thing, it had only just been pounded into ash. The atomic bombs dropped at around the time it was apparent that they were pounded into ash.

None of the other countries had the same bombardment as Japan. None of them were at risk of a total collapse before enemy soldiers had stepped foot on their soil. Japan was, and when they were, they surrendered.

My knowledge is only topical but from what I remember the USA just wanted to show off the nuke. Japan had cities wiped out during the war it was not that big of a deal In the grand scheme. Japan was far more terrified of being invaded by the Russians which I think happened or was impending idk I forget.

Of course they'd use it. And they did. And Japan surrendered when it was clear that America would keep going until they were wiped out. The atomic bombs were a part of this, the resolve and capability to kill all Japanese civilians was the ultimate reason.

>And most of all, they're mad because Japan did everything to deserve it.
/thread

Again, this sounds to me more like a narrative than a historical account. "The Bombs ending the war" is a story we tell out of convenience much like "The stock market crash cause the great depression".

The more convincing explanation of Japanese Surrender given their strategic plan being to bleed America into a negotiated surrender seems to be that the Soviet Declaration of War and the invasion of Manchuria was a much more decisive factor than the bombs were. Since the Soviets were meant to be the mediators of a potential peace talk between Japan and America their neutrality was a sine non qua of Japan's continued resistance.

From a strategic point of view the destruction of cities was NOT a pressing factor. The plans to fight a tenacious defense were essentially unaffected by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Atomic bombs would not have been particularly effective against dug-in or mobile defenders so their introduction to the theater doesn't change the fundamental calculus of Japanese strategic operation in the same way the the Soviet Declaration of War did. Not only did it upend their plans at a negotiated peace--the thing they were still fighting to achieve, with the Soviets rushing into Manchuria it also robbed them of many of the territorial concessions they hoped to win in such a peace. Thus, the Soviet declaration of War was of much greater significance than the bombs ever were.

Wasn't there a report saying Eisenhower and MacArthur opposed the atomic bombs?

we needed to drop more
those psychopathic pedo cartoons have corrupted the youth

>discussing the morales of war
retarded

either they nuked, killed many and ended the war

or they land invaded japan, killed many and ended the war

there is no such thing as a morally correct move in war.
war is war, you leave morals at the door, your only objective is to kill the enemy, and kill them fast before they kill you. there's nothing else to it. its disgusting and its why war fucking sucks. but to discuss whether killing people a certain way is wrong is retarded

So we can nuke the Middle East or what?

If they can't keep their terrorists under control and they keep causing problems for the west?

Sure.