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

[RetiredGySgt]

No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."

But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.

One more time. Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized. In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs. Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.

At the time it was used, it was just another weapon. 60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII. Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.

Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.

Look dumb ass I have repeatedly linked to the documents the Japanese never offered to surrender, all they offered was a ceasefire return to 41 lines and NO concessions in China.

Hey jug head I’ve tried educating you for a fucking decade, to no avail. You only know the lies you were told in grade school, and haven’t advanced from there. Get informed.

Hey MORON I have a LINK to the ACTUAL INTERCEPTS you know what the Japanese Government told their people what to offer and what to say.....

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "

We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.

 

[gipper]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.

It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win. As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war. Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons. Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care. When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object. When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.

When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible. Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.

No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war. The wanton massacring of civilians is a war crime. Stop believing propaganda.

 

[Silver Cat]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.

It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win. As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war. Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons. Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care. When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object. When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.

When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible. Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.

No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war. The wanton massacring of civilians is a war crime. Stop believing propaganda.

Ok. One more time.

Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.

What should we choose? Why?

 

[gipper]

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "

We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.

No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor. Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Try learning for once grunt.

 

[Silver Cat]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.

It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win. As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war. Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons. Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care. When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object. When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.

When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible. Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.

No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war.

Who should have? Only foreign leaders?

 

[Silver Cat]

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "

We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.

No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor.

Any proves?

Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh, this little demonstration gave us 75 years of peace and prosperity.

 

[gipper]

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "

We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.

No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor.

Any proves?

Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh, this little demonstration gave us 75 years of peace and prosperity.

So mass murder because it results in peace. WTF!

 

[gipper]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.

It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win. As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war. Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons. Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care. When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object. When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.

When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible. Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.

No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war.

Who should have? Only foreign leaders?

No one.

 

[Silver Cat]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.

It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win. As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war. Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons. Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care. When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object. When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.

When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible. Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.

No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war.

Who should have? Only foreign leaders?

No one.

It is impossible.

 

[gipper]

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "

We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.

No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor.

Any proves?

Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Oh, this little demonstration gave us 75 years of peace and prosperity.

Let’s nuke all the Empire’s enemies. Then we can have peace for 75 years.

 

[gipper]

Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":

On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .​

​

On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:​

"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)​

​

The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.

Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.

Not to mention Churchill's fire-bombing of the residential areas of German cities. Strafing passenger trains.

It is today's sterile wars that create wars that go on forever with no end in site and no desire to win. As long as we can keep the war from hurting the civilians, no one cares to stop the war. Soon, there won't be bodies at all on our side; it will all be robots and remotely fired weapons. Then the military-industrial complex can milk the treasury for ever and the people won't care. When an enemy's population is spared the cost in blood of the war their political leaders are running, they won't object. When the population is paying the price then they become part of the argument to their political leaders.

When we go to war, we should go to war to end it as fast, with as little loss of life to our side, as possible. Carpet bomb every city the enemy has until there is unconditional, total, surrender.

No. Our leaders should not have the power to commit total war.

Who should have? Only foreign leaders?

No one.

It is impossible.

Silly. Wars were often fought throughout history, without resorting to total war.

 

[gipper]

No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."

But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.

One more time. Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized. In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs. Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.

At the time it was used, it was just another weapon. 60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII. Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.

Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.

Look dumb ass I have repeatedly linked to the documents the Japanese never offered to surrender, all they offered was a ceasefire return to 41 lines and NO concessions in China.

Hey jug head I’ve tried educating you for a fucking decade, to no avail. You only know the lies you were told in grade school, and haven’t advanced from there. Get informed.

Hey MORON I have a LINK to the ACTUAL INTERCEPTS you know what the Japanese Government told their people what to offer and what to say.....

Blockhead keeps saying I GOT A LINK. LOL.

What a dumb pussy.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes. We were fighting for our interest. They were fighting for their interests.

Are you like, fucking retarded? Are you waiting for the short bus right now?

 

[JoeB131]

... has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945? No.
...

5th most powerful military in the world.

2024 Military Strength Ranking

Ranking the nations of the world based on current available firepower.

www.globalfirepower.com

Yes, just look at them in action!

 

[JoeB131]

We were fighting a foreign military, not women, children and the elderly; not unarmed civilians. Real American military leaders - real MEN - of that time and this understood the distinction.

The Axis powers made no such distinction, and neither did we after a certain point.

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "

Again, the problem was, they were trying to negotiate a favorable surrender on their terms. The world had already learned what a mistake that was with Germany in 1918, when a "Stabbed in the Back Myth" led to Hitler and another war. Nothing less than complete defeat and unconditional surrender was acceptable.

The fact is, unlike Germany, which still can't stop apologizing for what it did in World War II, Japan really hasn't accepted full responsibility, still tries to claim their actions weren't so bad, and scratch their heads wondering why the rest of Asia is terrified that they are building aircraft carriers.

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, guys. Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.

What should we choose? Why?

Use our naval superiority to keep them from resupplying their troops in Australia, they give up in a couple of weeks.

The reality- The Chinese Army isn't really that good. They haven't been in the field in an active war since 1979, against Vietnam, where they Vietnamese fought them to a standstill and they had to withdraw after a few months.

They lack the naval logistics to invade Taiwan, much less Australia. (The real threat to Australia is actually Indonesia, which has too many people and nowhere to put them, and there's Australia, right there.)

But as stated, even a limited nuclear war would end civilization as we know it. It would cause nuclear winter, causing crops to fail, billions would suffer the effects of radioactive fallout, international trade would be disrupted to the point that a lot of American companies that depend on Chinese components would stop production.

Again, look at the disruption that Covid-19 is causing, then multiply that by 1000, and you get the picture.

 

[Silver Cat]

Ok, guys. Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.

What should we choose? Why?

Use our naval superiority to keep them from resupplying their troops in Australia, they give up in a couple of weeks.

The reality- The Chinese Army isn't really that good. They haven't been in the field in an active war since 1979, against Vietnam, where they Vietnamese fought them to a standstill and they had to withdraw after a few months.

They lack the naval logistics to invade Taiwan, much less Australia. (The real threat to Australia is actually Indonesia, which has too many people and nowhere to put them, and there's Australia, right there.)

May be. May be not. May be it will be not only China, but bigger Alliance (including Indonesia).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/think-we-have-military-primacy-over-china-think-again/2020/05/12/268e1bba-948b-11ea-9f5e-56d8239bf9ad_story.html

But as stated, even a limited nuclear war would end civilization as we know it. It would cause nuclear winter, causing crops to fail, billions would suffer the effects of radioactive fallout, international trade would be disrupted to the point that a lot of American companies that depend on Chinese components would stop production.

International trade would be disrupted as result of any type of China-American war (nuclear or conventional - no difference). Nonsense about "end of civilisation" is just another part of environmentalistic mythology.
Actually question is simple - what is better:
1) to kill 500 millions of Chinese (may be Indonesian, too) civilians or
2) to loose one million of American soldiers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"The record is quite clear: From the perspective of an overwhelming number of key contemporary leaders in the US military, the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not a matter of military necessity. American intelligence had broken the Japanese codes, knew the Japanese government was trying to negotiate surrender through Moscow, and had long advised that the expected early August Russian declaration of war, along with assurances that Japan’s Emperor would be allowed to stay as a powerless figurehead, would bring surrender long before the first step in a November US invasion, three months later, could begin. "

We have the intercepts from Japan to their delegate in Moscow, all that was offered was a end to hostilities a return to 1941 lines and NO concessions in China.

No dumb shit. By summer 1945 the only conditions they asked was not to harm the emperor. Truman agreed to that after he cold bloodedly massacred Japanese women and children at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Try learning for once grunt.

Look you blazing MORON we have both the intercepts AND the meeting notes of the Government of Japan all they offered was a stop to hostilities a return to 41 start lines and no concessions in China.

 

[Levant]

Ok, guys. Year 2025. China (already annexed Taiwan in 2022) invade Australia (for their Uranium), attack US Forces and we have to eliminate them. There are two basic ways:
1) Long conventional war in Australia without attack against continental China.
It will cost at least one million lives of American soldiers and twenty millions lives of Chinese soldiers, almost without civilian loses.
2) Short but cruel nuclear attack against continental China. It will cost near 500 nuclear warheads and 200 millions of Chinese lives (most of them - civilians) and only then - elimination of almost unarmed PNA's forces in Australia with minimal losses.

What should we choose? Why?

If we get into a war with China, the first thing we need to do is to eliminate their nuclear capability even if that requires use of nukes to do it. China has no morals and no scruples. Their use of the Wuhan virus against the world shows that they don't care a bit about human life outside of China.