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

[gipper]

If the Japanese had any significant aircraft left by then, then the long bombers that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have easily been shot down.
They were alone, slow, and an easy target.
The fact they were not attacked, shows that Japan was essentially defenseless, and no longer had any airplanes they could put up.

Plus the US bombers including the nuke planes, bombed during daylight. The Japanese had been defenseless to aerial bombing for some time. It was a war crime.

 

[gipper]

What was wrong with that?

Yeah all those Japanese women and children were subhumans.

Sick fuck!

 

[gipper]

Yet they kept refusing to surrender, and they had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to defend against our invasion.



They all had enough fuel for one kamikaze flight.



Yes. Except for all those thousands of kamikazes and suicide boats waiting to pounce on our invasion.



It is true that saving lives was not the issue.

The reason why we used the nukes was to try to make Japan surrender.



It is a shame those civilian leaders were not in control of the Japanese government. Their lack of actual power made their willingness to surrender rather pointless.



I disagree with said point. We should have introduced the atomic bombs by nuking three Japanese targets all in one day.



It wasn't. Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki were both military targets.



The World Trade Center attack deliberately targeted civilians. That makes it quite different from military targets like Kokura Arsenal and Nagasaki.



We do however nuke military targets in an enemy nation that is refusing to surrender and has millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes ready to pounce on our invading forces.



Conservatives like facts.



Truman knew from intercepts that the Emperor's status was not the only sticking point for surrender. He knew that the military faction (the faction with the actual power) wanted more than one condition.



Did they offer to stop their genocide against the Chinese people?



There was no such stalling of the surrender. Not by Mr. Truman. And not by anyone in the Truman Administration.



They also knew that Japan's civilian leaders had no power and their willingness to surrender was irrelevant.



Mr. Truman received all sorts of contradictory advice regarding the Emperor.

All wrong.

 

[Open Bolt]

Plus the US bombers including the nuke planes, bombed during daylight. The Japanese had been defenseless to aerial bombing for some time. It was a war crime.

Bombing military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a war crime.

All wrong.

Nope. Japan kept refusing to surrender, and had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to resist our invasion.

We nuked military targets in Japan for the purposes of making them surrender.

 

[gipper]

Bombing military targets like Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a war crime.



Nope. Japan kept refusing to surrender, and had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to resist our invasion.

We nuked military targets in Japan for the purposes of making them surrender.

Wrong and dumb.

 

[Open Bolt]

Wrong and dumb.

Nope. Not wrong. Bombing military targets is not a war crime.

Japan kept refusing to surrender, and had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to resist our invasion.

We nuked military targets in Japan for the purposes of making them surrender.

I do not agree that facts are dumb.

 

[gipper]

Nope. Not wrong. Bombing military targets is not a war crime.

Japan kept refusing to surrender, and had millions of soldiers and thousands of kamikazes waiting to resist our invasion.

We nuked military targets in Japan for the purposes of making them surrender.

I do not agree that facts are dumb.

You know nothing. Stop posting.

 

[Open Bolt]

You know nothing.

Wrong again. I know everything that there is to know on this topic.

That's why it is so easy for me to debunk all these anti-nuke falsehoods.

Stop posting.

No.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

My God the historical bankruptcy of this thread is quite something........lololol

No wonder you people punched a GD time card your whole lives are are experts on this.........lolololol

Good thing you only punched a time card or you would be dangerous........................lolol

This was something else....lol

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Wrong again. I know everything that there is to know on this topic.

That's why it is so easy for me to debunk all these anti-nuke falsehoods.



No.

It is incredible what they taught these kids in public schools. My God how well they brainwashed them.

Actually it is frightening the ignorance of these widget makers

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

What the hell did they teach you mother fuckers about history................LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

But you recite all 57 genders backwards

 

[Dayton3]

Yeah all those Japanese women and children were subhumans.

Sick fuck!

No they were valuable human beings worthy of life.

But in wars those people also get killed.

 

[Dayton3]

Plus the US bombers including the nuke planes, bombed during daylight. The Japanese had been defenseless to aerial bombing for some time. It was a war crime.

How is that a "war crime"? There is no guarantee in war that the side that starts it is entitled to a fair fight.

 

[Open Bolt]

Even some generals thought that the bombing was unnecessary

Who cares? Japan was still refusing to surrender, and we had every right to keep on attacking them.

unfortunately it is illegal to bomb civilian targets and the US signed and congress ratified acceptance of the Geneva Conventions Protocols 1

That's not unfortunate. That's a good thing.

proportionality would be my concern as it appears to be excessive indiscriminate bombing
which does create a moral dilemma when do civilian casualties become excessive

Fair enough. But look at the people killed at Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death March. The atomic bombs were small potatoes compared to that.

 

[Open Bolt]

"which military target would you have hit?"
any army or navy or base or even the emperors castle

That's what they did do. Hiroshima was a military base.

This is not and has not been an attack on America or blaming America...
this is a discussion about the morality of nuking 2 cities, at least one of which was NOT a military target.

Both atomic bombs were dropped on military targets.

There were obviously still military targets....and THOSE are what should have been nuked....

Those are what was nuked.

 

[Open Bolt]

The whole (alleged) argument that "they only have one bomb" is inherently illogical. If you can make one bomb, then you can make any number of the same thing, because you already did it.

Not if making a single bomb takes years of effort, with years more effort to make a second one.

Before Nagasaki, the Japanese government believed that this was the case. Then they suddenly realized that they were wrong.

This idea just smacks of revisionist mythology

Not really.

and should be dismissed out of hand.

Facts should never be dismissed.

USSR wasn't "installing puppet states in Eastern Europe" until after that date, when they saw a mustering of force in western Europe, particularly Germany, by the same country that had pre-empted them out of Japan with the world's then-only Nuke,

I'm not sure what date you are referring to, but the Soviets were installing puppet states in Europe long before we nuked Japan.

This whole fantasy of USSR-as-invader bent on world domination is a sicko fantasy contrived in the warped minds of the Dulles Brothers and their ilk. History tells us how far off the mark it is.

Russia's history of aggression says otherwise.

That's projecting far too much speculation. The original statement was that "we had to defeat Japan before the Soviets could invade". That's simply not the case. The goal at that time and place, of both the US and the USSR, was Japanese surrender. Invasions by either country are not mutually exclusive.

Keeping the Soviets out of Japan was a desirable outcome for the US given the way Russia was stamping out freedom in the territory they captured.

Along the same lines:
"Communism" was not a player in this war.

Sure it was. Russia was imposing Communism wherever they captured territory.

 

[Open Bolt]

But also no longer a threat.

A couple million Japanese soldiers and thousands of kamikazes would have been able to do some damage to our invading forces.

Yes, given time. That's pretty much the topic of the entire thread.

Japan was out of time. It was time for them to surrender.

 

[Open Bolt]

They were still asking for terms even after Hiroshima.

Japan didn't even start to ask for terms until after both atomic bombs had already been dropped.

We wanted unconditional surrender.

We gave up unconditional surrender when we issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which was a list of generous surrender terms.

The Japanese only surrendered because they were afraid of the Soviets and ending up under communist rule.

They surrendered because they knew they could not stop the US military from conquering Japan. Their efforts to escape the war began when we captured Okinawa.

They weren't still holding out for terms after Hiroshima??

They didn't even start asking for terms until after Nagasaki.

 

[Open Bolt]

America needed to pretend that it had dozens of nukes available, which was what Hirohito and his advisers believed before making the surrender proclamation. But there were only few atomic bombs available at the time. The target for the third A-bomb was the emperor's palace in Tokyo.

We would have had plenty more atomic bombs come off the assembly line had the war continued.

 

[Open Bolt]

You have been provided with quote after quote after quote from US military leaders of the day.

None of those quotes are relevant to the untrue claim about imaginary surrender offers.

General MacArthur sent fdr a 40-page letter informing him of Japanese overtures to surrender well before the Battle of Okinawa.

No he didn't.

If American lives meant anything to that scumbag he might have followed up on those possibilities instead of dismissing them as politically inconvenient.

Imaginary overtures are difficult to follow up on.