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

[Vegasgiants]

And dropping two nukes led to their UNCONDITIONAL surrender which the American people would have accepted nothing less nor should they.

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]

And dropping two nukes led to their UNCONDITIONAL surrender which the American people would have accepted nothing less nor should they.

 

[ding]

The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

— Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman, 1950, [101]

Except they unconditionally surrendered after the second bomb was dropped. But didn't unconditionally surrender after the first bomb was dropped.

Do you even logic?

 

[Vegasgiants]

Except they unconditionally surrendered after the second bomb was dropped. But didn't unconditionally surrender after the first bomb was dropped.

Do you even logic?

They surrendered after the Russian invasion

 

[ding]

They surrendered after the Russian invasion

They surrendered after the second nuke was dropped.

 

[Vegasgiants]

They surrendered after the second nuke was dropped.

And after the Russian invasion


Deny that

 

[ding]

And after the Russian invasion


Deny that

Japan surrendered after the 2nd nuclear bomb proved to them that they had to surrender or be systematically annihilated because of America's nuclear capability.

 

[Vegasgiants]

Japan surrendered after the 2nd nuclear bomb proved to them that they had to surrender or be systematically annihilated because of America's nuclear capability.

And after the Russian invasion

 

[ding]

And after the Russian invasion

Meaningless. There was never going to be a conditional surrender. Truman would have been impeached.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

— Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, [91]

I keep asking for the link to this attempt to by Japan to sue for peace...... If you mean the attempt through the Soviets that was an offer for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China and we would never have agreed to that.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I keep asking for the link to this attempt to by Japan to sue for peace...... If you mean the attempt through the Soviets that was an offer for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China and we would never have agreed to that.

I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer

 

[ding]

I keep asking for the link to this attempt to by Japan to sue for peace...... If you mean the attempt through the Soviets that was an offer for a ceasefire return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China and we would never have agreed to that.

We would have never accepted anything short of unconditional surrender. Period.

 

[ding]

I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer

There are voices which assert that the bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas. ... I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt the position that rather than throw this bomb, we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives.

— Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945[8]

 

[ding]

The U.S. anticipated losing many combatants in Downfall, although the number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate. U.S. President Harry S. Truman stated in 1953 he had been advised U.S. casualties could range from 250,000 to one million combatants.[12][13] Assistant Secretary of the Navy Ralph Bard, a member of the Interim Committee on atomic matters, stated that while meeting with Truman in the summer of 1945 they discussed the bomb's use in the context of massive combatant and non-combatant casualties from invasion, with Bard raising the possibility of a million Allied combatants being killed. As Bard opposed using the bomb without warning Japan first, he cannot be accused of exaggerating casualty expectations to justify the bomb's use, and his account is evidence that Truman was aware of, and government officials discussed, the possibility of one million casualties.[14]

 

[ding]

On 30 June 2007, Japan's defense minister Fumio Kyūma said the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan by the United States during World War II was an inevitable way to end the war. Kyūma said: "I now have come to accept in my mind that in order to end the war, it could not be helped (shikata ga nai) that an atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and that countless numbers of people suffered great tragedy." Kyūma, who is from Nagasaki, said the bombing caused great suffering in the city, but he does not resent the U.S. because it prevented the Soviet Union from entering the war with Japan.[53] Kyūma's comments were similar to those made by Emperor Hirohito when, in his first ever press conference given in Tokyo in 1975, he was asked what he thought of the bombing of Hiroshima, and answered: "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped (shikata ga nai) because that happened in wartime."[54]

 

[ding]

In early July 1945, on his way to Potsdam, Truman had re-examined the decision to use the bomb. In the end, he made the decision to drop the atomic bombs on strategic cities. His stated intention in ordering the bombings was to save American lives, to bring about a quick resolution of the war by inflicting destruction, and instilling fear of further destruction, sufficient to cause Japan to surrender.[55] In his speech to the Japanese people presenting his reasons for surrender on August 15, the Emperor referred specifically to the atomic bombs, stating if they continued to fight it would not only result in "an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization".[56]

 

[ding]

I think it is important to understand that war by nature is cruel. And let's not forget who started that cruelty.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer

Either provide the link or admit you got nothing.

 

[ding]

I keep asking if you are claiming he is lying....but you never answer

It was his opinion which at best was wrong and at worst was posturing to protect himself from backlash.

The reality is that Japan was never going to unconditionally surrender without being invaded or convinced through overwhelming force; which dropping two nukes with advanced warning did. So he was only right if we invaded Japan. The reality is that dropping two nukes on Japan resulted in the fewest possible loss of lives for all participants than any other outcome. Getting them to surrender by asking them to pretty please surrender wasn't going to happen.

 

[ding]

Either provide the link or admit you got nothing.

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Vegasgiants]

It was his opinion which at best was wrong and at worst was posturing to protect himself from backlash.

The reality is that Japan was never going to unconditionally surrender without being invaded or convinced through overwhelming force; which dropping two nukes with advanced warning did. So he was only right if we invaded Japan. The reality is that dropping two nukes on Japan resulted in the fewest possible loss of lives for all participants than any other outcome. Getting them to surrender by asking them to pretty please surrender wasn't going to happen.

So I should take your opinion over his?


I get jokes