Was it really neccessary?

>hurr you werent there so you cant use we!
t. autist

...

>was it necessary

of course it was, this turned the japanese from warriors into anime artists. that was quite the improvement of their culture. the cancer rates in the west are totally justified for that outcome.

t. paradox historian

What's the difference?

>Who surrenders on the basis of a demonstration?
Demonstration of the very first publicly detonated a-bomb? Pretty much anyone who doesn't wield one.

yes, that's how language works

>Be Japanese diplomat/ well read academic, perhaps an advisor to Emperor Hirohito
>Be fully aware that the US will annihilate anyone who stands in their way with respect to its ongoing campaign of westward expansion (native Americans)
>The deadliest weapon in all of human history was just used against your civilians. In addition to this, Russians are making quick to occupy Manchuria and close in on mainland China. Surely the Imperial Generals are considering peace terms given the gravity of the situation.
>Imperial Generals don't budge.
>Second bombs drops on Nagasaki
>No reaction from the shell shocked "international community"
>So the US are just going to continue with these war crimes while the whole world sits around and does nothing?
>Imperial Generals still won't surrender.
>Well the US knew about the Holocaust in 1941, I guess this is the new norm now.
>>>>Inb4 /pol/
It's all good fun to think about.

>minimum of bloodshed
>200 000 civilians killed

please try to understand what terms you are using...

Compared to literally any other way the war could end.

Yes, the alternatives would kill even more people. I understand the terms I used very well.

>For the geopolitical interests of the Americans
Yes.
>Did it actually cause the surrendering of Japan?
No.

drop 1 bomb + soviet declaration + threaten 100 more bombs
would 'only' save 100,000 lives
this

In case some retard misreads me, it wasn't by the sole cause of Japan surrendering or the straw that broke the camel's back was what I meant.

They didn't surrender after one bomb.

Fuck 'em.

They didn't surrender after only one bomb, and the case to be made that the Soviet declaration of war in any way altered their surrender decisions is dubious at best. It would also only save about 40,000 lives, as Nagasaki was far less lethal than Hiroshima.

If the bombs were not dropped on August 6th and 9th, then Hirohito wouldn't have informed his family of surrender on August 12th.

Surrender was inevitable, real historians should decide when by, but the war ended because of the dramatic affect of the bombs.

Many people agree that the use of overwhelming, overawing force and the threat of its continued use to the point of genocide is absolutely the most humane way to conduct wars if they must be conducted.

Far fewer people died (both in terms of civilian and soldier life) in the invasion of Japan than died in any one of the main theaters of war: Germany, France, China, or the Soviet Union, which were fought with traditional methods.

Very few (I wager almost none in the modern age) would continue to resist invasion when faced with the very real methodical and immminent extermination of their entire country, people, race, culture. I mean the Japanese were probably the most extreme bastards around at the time, willing to intentionally commit mass suicide to delay American forces, and not even they could continue fighting under such an ultimatum.

The problem of considering such a tactic as the most humane method is the long-term resentment such a tactic could create, as well as international backlash to mass indiscriminate killings. The U.S. was lucky to escape both repercussions when it bombed Japan. The Japanese didn't hold too much of a grudge, surprisingly, and the whole world was just so tired of war by the time it of the bombings that everyone was just happy it was over even if the U.S. had to fry two entire cities full of civilians to do it.

In a war of aggression, such a strategy of overwhelming force would be far less likely to be successful.

the lack of japanese surrender from the first bomb was more of a time based issue. The imperial war council was meeting to discuss the first bomb on the day the second bomb hits(also the day after the soviet declaration), if the americans instead make it known to that council or a later sitting on their plans to use additional atomic weapons i would think a surrender would definitely happen

Okay, and I don't. I think that the impact of the second bomb happening on that day affected their deliberations, which were a near run thing as it was and only proceeded after the failure of an army led coup. Do you have anything to support what you think?

>What's the difference?
The difference is that necessity isn't the same in both contexts

>Do you have anything to support what you think?
that would require evidence from a war council member, who are all extremely secretive on the matter and possibly dead
what i can say is that from a japanese perspective i see no difference in using 1 bomb with the threat of more, or using an additional bomb in a less/uninhabited place with the threat of more
there is a strategic difference in not losing 40,000 lives, however the threat of more bombs make this negligible for the japanese

>250,000 people killed in the battle of Okinawa alone
>a tiny scrap of land, not even the home island
Why are weebs so subhuman and stupid?

>Implying amerimutts count as human

For us? Yes. For the sake of the war, eh not really.

>Very few (I wager almost none in the modern age) would continue to resist invasion when faced with the very real methodical and immminent extermination of their entire country, people, race, culture.

That's literally what happened on the eastern front.

>The Japanese didn't hold too much of a grudge, surprisingly
When 3 million of your people are dead at the end of the war, you're mostly just glad that it's over like you said.
>even if the U.S. had to fry two entire cities full of civilians to do it.
And firebomb 60 cities before that

Casualty projections ranged from something like 1mil to 10 depending on whom you talked to.

To end it in as little blood as possible yeah.

>tfw Mainland is hard as fuck to invade.
>not many suitable beachheads
>Japs knew this so few possible beachheads are fortified out the ass.
>would of made D-days landing look like a leisure stroll.
>even talked about using nukes to soften the fortifications.
>casualty projections in the millions for Allies and Japs killed
>even after we nuked the cities twice, it took the emporer and fighting off an attempted coup to actually surrender

An invasion would of made Japan a wasteland. They would of fought to the last civilian they could throw.

...

t. butthurt europoor

sad in a way, if the allied forces had got to the mainland they could have raped all the women and started a western fathered colony straight off the bat out of rape babies

No. We would've won the war without it, but at a cost of hundreds of thousands of American and millions of Japanese lives.

yes and no

And yet they didn't surrender even after one was dropped on them.

...

Right? What more a demonstration do you need than dropping one on your city?