The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[M14 Shooter]

I mean, if they hadn't been saved for that purpose, they would have been burned up with napalm before that.

Funny how no one cares about burning Japanese cities to the ground with incendiaries - but a nuke? OMFG!!!

 

[HenryBHough]

Beware mirrors.

Why?[/QUOTE]

Because you snowflakes tend to shit your drawers when seeing scary stuff.

 

[martybegan]

How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.
.

Lets start with one study, it should be easy, quote and link to a study. I have never seen one, not that I have looked for one. So link to a study, quoted the study, with at least a page number, so that we can see exactly what you are talking about.

Simply stating, "study says so", does nobody any good, the least of all you.

I have posted a link to the actual decision by the Emperor the surrender was because of the 2 nukes and the Army tried to prevent it.

And due to the fact that once a 2nd one detonated, they knew it wasn't a one-off weapon (although it would have been a while before the US had another one).

 

[Picaro]

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.

MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country

"not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"


you sure are real smart about WWII

for an idiot.....

so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...


ok

you win

you had to kill those old people to make them say "uncle"

Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins, only concerned about saving the lives of theri own people, completely unlike the rest of the world, which has always been poor hapless hippies victimized by the Evul Amurkins. Wonder how many Pandas died?

 

[anynameyouwish]

nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.

MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country

"not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"


you sure are real smart about WWII

for an idiot.....

so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...


ok

you win

you had to kill those old people to make them say "uncle"

Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins, only concerned about saving the lives of theri own people, completely unlike the rest of the world, which has always been poor hapless hippies victimized by the Evul Amurkins. Wonder how many Pandas died?

"Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins,"


I am truly sorry you are an idiot.

We are talking about the morality of nuking 2 cities.

I never said that the Americans who dropped the bomb were "Evul Racist Amurkins". You are lying and accusing me of words and beliefs that I do not agree with. Are you truly this despicable and deplorable? must you resort to lies?

I have maintained that instead of nuking 2 cities the bombs should have been dropped on military targets.

If the intent was to get japan to surrender then an army or two or even the royal palace would have been more appropriate and just as effective.

I sincerely hope that you can stop playing the conservative-stooge victim and just try to discuss the issue.

""Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins"


I am not surprised that someone that would say "all life is precious" when it comes to abortion has no feelings whatsoever about murdering thousands of old people and children.

 

[martybegan]

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.

MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country

"not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"


you sure are real smart about WWII

for an idiot.....

so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...


ok

you win

you had to kill those old people to make them say "uncle"

Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins, only concerned about saving the lives of theri own people, completely unlike the rest of the world, which has always been poor hapless hippies victimized by the Evul Amurkins. Wonder how many Pandas died?

"Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins,"


I am truly sorry you are an idiot.

We are talking about the morality of nuking 2 cities.

I never said that the Americans who dropped the bomb were "Evul Racist Amurkins". You are lying and accusing me of words and beliefs that I do not agree with. Are you truly this despicable and deplorable? must you resort to lies?

I have maintained that instead of nuking 2 cities the bombs should have been dropped on military targets.

If the intent was to get japan to surrender then an army or two or even the royal palace would have been more appropriate and just as effective.

I sincerely hope that you can stop playing the conservative-stooge victim and just try to discuss the issue.

""Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins"


I am not surprised that someone that would say "all life is precious" when it comes to abortion has no feelings whatsoever about murdering thousands of old people and children.

The cities were military targets.

Armies by nature don't just stack 10 divisions in one camp and say "please bomb me!"

Most naval units were already destroyed, and most of their remaining aircraft were dispersed to allow for kamikaze attacks.

Meanwhile their Armed forces had HQ units in those cities, and those cities were production centers for war materiel.

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are talking about the morality of nuking 2 cities.

The USAAF burned every major Japanese city to the ground - significantly, mostly, or in toto.
Of all these cities, 2 were destroyed by nuclear weapons.
Where's the moral question?

 

[rightwinger]

Henry Stimson, Secretary of War

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf

My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.

That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.

Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:

-- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted.

Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​

-- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.

-- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.

-- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.

-- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.

-- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:

The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​

-- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.

-- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.

-- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.

-- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore ceased.

-- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. Many of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.

-- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.

-- By June 1945, the Japanese Navy’s surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,

After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze air force and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​

-- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy and the Air Force. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.

-- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.

-- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.

Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.

By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​

So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.

Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID Japan WOULD NOT surrender. We were faced with an invasion that would probably have killed 6 million Japanese and we would have lost a million troops. Again the FACTS after 2 ATOMIC Bombs the Government oif Japan REFUSED to surrender, they REFUSED. The Emperor over rode them and order the surrender and the response from the Army was an attempted Coup to stop that from happening.

Even assuming we did not invade in November, the winter months would have killed millions of starving and freezing Japanese citizens. And the Army which ran the Government DID NOT CARE.

The only terms they offered were a ceasefire return to 41 start Lines except in China where they offered no concessions and NO disarmament, no troops in Japan and NO sacking of the Emperor.

Once we had an atomic bomb there was never any need for an invasion

The only question was how we should use our new nuclear superiority

Current position was that killing 150,000 civilians was the only way to get Japan to surrender. There is no proof that says a lesser act would not have yielded the same result

 

[rightwinger]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight

There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.

Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.

70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Henry Stimson, Secretary of War

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/ps/japan/stimson_harpers.pdf

My chief purpose was to end the war in victory with the least possible cost in the lives of the men in the armies which I had helped to raise. In the light of the alternatives which, on a fair estimate, were open to us I believe that no man in our position and subject to our responsibilities, holding in his hands a weapon of such possibilities for accomplishing this purpose and saving those lives, could have failed to use it and afterwards looked his countrymen in the face.

That is obscenely absurd and revisionist. Stimson didn't even really write that article. He was pressured into "writing" it, and then his "draft" was heavily edited by others. By the time he "wrote" it, he was quite ill.

Months before we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already prostrate, starving, and virtually powerless. The home islands were cut off from China. The Japanese people were approaching the point of starvation. Japan was virtually defenseless against air and naval attacks. Consider:

-- In July 1945 the Japanese government was forced to impose yet another cut in staple food rations: a cut of 10%, in fact. As a result, the food ration per person fell below 1700 calories, well below the minimum needed to maintain basic health. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, published in 1946, noted.

Undernourishment produced a major increase in the incidence of beriberi and tuberculosis. It also had an important effect on the efficiency and morale of the people, and contributed to absenteeism among workers. (p. 21)​

-- Cases of night blindness due to malnutrition became common.

-- Japan was even running so low on rice that the government announced a program to process acorns as a substitute for rice.

-- The food shortage became so bad that the government actually published articles and booklets on how to eat food no one would usually eat, such as “Food Substitution: How to Eat Things People Normally Wouldn’t Eat.” One government booklet advised citizens to eat locusts and insect pupas.

-- Japan was running so low on fuel that the government began exploring pine-root oil as a fuel substitute for aircraft.

-- By October 1944, many new fighter pilots were being trained with films instead of live flight training in order to save fuel:

The Toho Motion Picture Company constructed a lake in Setagaya and filled it with six-foot models of U.S. warships. Atop a tower a movie camera on a boom took pictures of the vessels from various angles, simulating different speeds of approach. These films were shown as a substitute for flight training in order to save fuel. (John Toland, The Rising Sun: The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire 1936-1945, New York: Random House, 2003 Modern Library Paperback Edition, p. 536)​

-- Japan was running so low on metal that its military aircraft were increasingly made with larger amounts of wood. In fact, in July the government announced it had established a department to make planes out of wood.

-- Starting in early 1944 the lack of metals became so severe, due to the U.S. naval blockade, that the Japanese government was forced to start confiscating and melting bridge railings, metal fences, metal statues (even those in Buddhist temples), gate posts, notice boards, and even household items.

-- Although Japan built underground aircraft factories, raw materials were in such short supply that only 10—yes, just 10—aircraft were manufactured in those factories.

-- In March 1945, imports of crude oil, rubber, coal, and iron ore ceased.

-- By June 1945, Japan had a grand total of 9,000 planes of any kind. Most of these were trainers or old planes designed for kamikaze raids, and less than half of them were properly equipped for such raids. Many of those planes could not have been flown anyway due to the lack of fuel.

-- By early 1945, the vast majority of Japan’s merchant vessels had been destroyed.

-- By June 1945, the Japanese Navy’s surface fleet had essentially ceased to exist. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported,

After the liberation of the Philippines and the capture of Okinawa, oil imports into Japan were completely cut off; fuel oil stocks had been exhausted, and the few remaining Japanese warships, being without fuel, were decommissioned or were covered with camouflage and used only as antiaircraft platforms. Except for its shore-based Kamikaze air force and surface and undersea craft adapted for anti-invasion suicide attack, the Japanese Navy had ceased to exist. (p. 11)​

-- By June 1945, every major Japanese port was mined by the U.S. Navy and the Air Force. Indeed, U.S. Navy mines closed the Shimonoseki Straights, which cut off naval activity between the Japanese main islands of Honshu and Kyushu. U.S. Navy mines also shut down 18 of Japan’s 21 naval repair yards on the Inland Sea. Hiroshima’s port was shut down. Nagasaki’s port, formerly a major port, became nearly worthless.

-- By early 1945, few Japanese stores remained open because there were so few commercial goods being produced or imported.

-- As mentioned earlier, Japan was virtually defenseless against air attacks. By June 1945, the odds of a U.S. bomber being shot down in a bombing raid over Japan were 3 out of 1,000.

Given these facts, it is no surprise that there was such a strong civilian backlash against war veterans and the military in general after the war.

By June 1945, Japan posed no threat to us. The Japanese were purely on the defensive and their situation was only getting worse by the day because of our virtually total naval embargo and total control of the air. Thus, it should come as no surprise that the United States Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that “in all probability” Japan would have surrendered before 1 November 1945 even if we had not dropped nukes and even if the Soviets had not invaded:

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. (p. 26)​

So this nonsense that we had to use nukes to "save hundreds of thousands of lives" is gross revisionism of the basest kind. Again, weeks before Hiroshima, we knew from multiple sources that Japan's civilian leaders, including the emperor, wanted to surrender, and that their only condition was that the emperor not be deposed, which was exactly the arrangement that we later accepted--after we had nuked two cities.

Again for the slow and amazingly STUPID Japan WOULD NOT surrender. We were faced with an invasion that would probably have killed 6 million Japanese and we would have lost a million troops. Again the FACTS after 2 ATOMIC Bombs the Government oif Japan REFUSED to surrender, they REFUSED. The Emperor over rode them and order the surrender and the response from the Army was an attempted Coup to stop that from happening.

Even assuming we did not invade in November, the winter months would have killed millions of starving and freezing Japanese citizens. And the Army which ran the Government DID NOT CARE.

The only terms they offered were a ceasefire return to 41 start Lines except in China where they offered no concessions and NO disarmament, no troops in Japan and NO sacking of the Emperor.

Once we had an atomic bomb there was never any need for an invasion

The only question was how we should use our new nuclear superiority

Current position was that killing 150,000 civilians was the only way to get Japan to surrender. There is no proof that says a lesser act would not have yielded the same result

LOL even after 2 nukes the Japanese Government REFUSED to surrender but hey we are to believe that cute puppies and wishful thinking would have got them to surrender.

 

[elektra]

There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.

Yes, you are right, no evidence, other than, that is how it happened in history

 

[Ernie S.]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight

There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.

Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.

70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam

No doubt the death toll was horrific, but in my not so humble opinion, it was necessary to indicate to the Japanese people that we were willing to and capable of wiping out the entire population. They were completely demoralized and the military realized that there would be no more willing participants in their effort.

 

[Unkotare]

Beware mirrors.

Why?

Because you snowflakes tend to shit your drawers when seeing scary stuff.[/QUOTE]


?????

 

[Unkotare]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight

There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.

Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.

70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam

No doubt the death toll was horrific, but in my not so humble opinion, it was necessary to indicate to the Japanese people that we were willing to and capable of wiping out the entire population.

We were neither of those.

 

[Ernie S.]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight

There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.

Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.

70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam

No doubt the death toll was horrific, but in my not so humble opinion, it was necessary to indicate to the Japanese people that we were willing to and capable of wiping out the entire population.

Not the point. The point was to make them think we were.


We were neither of those.

 

[elektra]

How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.

This is my 2nd time asking for you to link to one of these numerous studies. Should be easy for you, you refer to them frequently.

Simply stating, "study says so". Is lazy fi not outright lying.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How do you figure that? Internal Japanese records make it clear that it was the Soviet invasion that finally pushed the hardliners into agreeing to surrender. This has been documented in numerous studies.

This is my 2nd time asking for you to link to one of these numerous studies. Should be easy for you, you refer to them frequently.

Simply stating, "study says so". Is lazy fi not outright lying.

He can not link to them since they don't exist I have actual documents that show clearly the the emperor of japan surrendered because if the 2nd atomic bomb and that the Japanese Army staged a coup to stop that surrender......

 

[Picaro]

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.

MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country

"not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country"


you sure are real smart about WWII

for an idiot.....

so we had to nuke 2 cities full of grand parents and children because they didn't have a navy but t hey did have an army so we couldn't nuke the army because we needed them to say "UNCLE" so we kill a whole bunch of innocent grandparents and children because conservatives love killing people...


ok

you win

you had to kill those old people to make them say "uncle"

Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins, only concerned about saving the lives of theri own people, completely unlike the rest of the world, which has always been poor hapless hippies victimized by the Evul Amurkins. Wonder how many Pandas died?

"Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins,"


I am truly sorry you are an idiot.

We are talking about the morality of nuking 2 cities.

I never said that the Americans who dropped the bomb were "Evul Racist Amurkins". You are lying and accusing me of words and beliefs that I do not agree with. Are you truly this despicable and deplorable? must you resort to lies?

I have maintained that instead of nuking 2 cities the bombs should have been dropped on military targets.

If the intent was to get japan to surrender then an army or two or even the royal palace would have been more appropriate and just as effective.

I sincerely hope that you can stop playing the conservative-stooge victim and just try to discuss the issue.

""Don't forget about all the cute lil puppies and kittens that died, killed by those Evul Racist Amurkins"


I am not surprised that someone that would say "all life is precious" when it comes to abortion has no feelings whatsoever about murdering thousands of old people and children.

Nobody cares what you faggots think about anything; we know you don't actually give a shit about people, just anti-American rhetoric, so crawl off and find a pedophile to defend like a good Democrat.

 

[Picaro]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight

There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.

Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.

70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam

We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

It did not have to be a question of whether we used them or not

Did we have to choose targets where 150,000 civilians were killed?
Could a non lethal “demonstration” have yielded the same results?

Drop one in a low populated or strictly military area and let the Japanese evaluate the results. Then tell them we have dozens just like it and would target Tokyo next

Unfortunately, yes. We had to inflict massive casualties in order to break their will to fight

There is no evidence that massive casualties was the only way to obtain a surrender.

Given we only gave them three days to decide, we can’t tell if the additional 70,000 Nagasaki deaths were necessary.

70,000 deaths in an instant may not seem like much, but it was more than we lost in eight years in Vietnam

We lost almost that many to traffic accidents every year in the 1960's, yet you left wingers never post Pity Parties for those people, just those who died fighting your Heroes like Ho, Mao, and Khrushchev. We know what you actually don't like, and that is America's existence.

You indulge your emotions like a little girl.