Was it really necessary for the U.S To drop the Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the U.S losing that bad? I mean japan didn't deserve to get their shit pushed in like that. There could have been another way.
The Japanese would not stop. They were taking territories in the Pacific left and right, and brutally. The entire nation was ready to die for the honor of the Emperor. The first bomb just pissed them off more, but also made some of them think a little. The second bomb finally stopped them. There's notes from the time in which US officials noted that the second bomb was a gamble -- we only had two bombs and if the second didn't work we had no plan "b".
IOW: we could be fighting Islam in the name of the Emperor.
>>591461651 The Japanese were warned way ahead of time that they will be nuked and urged the people to beg the emperor to surrender, but he didn't care hell it took him 2 days to even realize that they were nuked
The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prevented "Operation Downfall", a massive ally invasion of Japan that would have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and would have worsened the war. Operation Downfall was D-Day on steroids. The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were basically a moral imperative to prevent further death.
>>591461651 i think we could have not dropped them on their cities and done bombing raids an airstrikes easily enough and won by doing the same damage and not making their cities unlivable for decades to come, however, that was a flex for the US. we are now a super power because of that and other nations are afraid of us which is good and bad. It was needed but it definitely ended it sooner that the other options and we have gotten more of a name for ourselves do to that and the cold war. so its good and bad, but no we didnt have to do it, we just wanted(needed) to in order to make our country better. makes a good story though. and also this is an old test video not the fimliming of the drop. they didnt film it... they couldnt during the mission, it was top secret.
Downfall was a unilateral plan by the US with something like 500,000 estimated US casualties alone. massive civilian casualties in a sustained conflict would surely dwarf the numbers lost in the two bombings
The first is not even justifiable, but comes close to it. No matter how many bullshit excuses the US came up with, it was an evil and horrid thing to do.
The second one was a fucking war crime. Everybody involved should have been put to death, as they only dropped it as a science experiment. Japan was already in the motions of surrender when they fucking dropped it and they knew.
Just another example of America being the shittest country in the world, one of the most disgusting massacres in history to date
>>591464366 wrong. They could have dropped a bomb in the ocean/countryside to show what they were capable of. Even if the government (which, by the way, was already collapsing and about to surrender due to public revolution or voluntary submission) had chosen to keep fighting after a demonstration, their people would have destroyed them.
>>591464492 actually even with the 2nd atomic bomb only like 50% of the generals wanted to surrender, only until like a finance minister urged them to stop due to how crippling any more bombs would of been did they finally decide to surrender
FDR was only going to use the bombs as a last resort and never told the then Vice President Harry S. Truman and when FDR died Truman was just like yo lets nuke these fucks and it was a mistake and shouldnt have happened fuck all ya'll niggers
>>591461651 it was the US had taken countless casualties in the island hopping warfare they had been doing. Those were smaller islands and the Japanese refused to surrender. Since that was the case a full scale invasion of the main island would have lost a lot of american lives. They used the bomb so that american lives wouldn't be lost and to show the rest of the world (USSR) what they had.
If they would have surrendered after the first one, there wouldn't have been a second bomb dropped. Japan probably would not have surrendered any other way. At least not without another million people dying.
To give you an idea of how many casualties invading the mainland of Japan would have required, every single purple heart medal awarded since WW2 was produced in preparation for the invasion.
An invasion would have cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives. It would have likely made the Japanese civilian population suffer even more deaths than those two bombings, as we would have continued to bomb their cities (think Dresden, etc).
...and that's without even considering the Bushido code and the suicide attacks civilians would have likely been forced to take part in.
>>591465168 Brittany got their ass kicked left and right in ww1 by the Germans. The US joined in 1941, just after the world war became "world wide" and beat the Japanese single handedly. Also brought down the Germans with the help of the Russians. Britain was inconsequential both times. The UK still technically owes the us war debts
Basically the US could have either dropped the bombs or fight through a nation willing to die and lose half a million more soldiers (estimated by a U.S. general) or take out Japan and crush it's resistance while at the same time discouraging attacks from Russia and preventing the spread of communism to Japan.
Truman knew that if we didnt drop bombs then we would have to invade, and the casualties were predicted at over a million he decided hed rather kill 200,000 japs than an equal or greater number of americans in an invasion
An American life is worth everything and a japanese life was worth nothing. I would have fire bombed the entire nation into ash if it ment saving just 1 american life. Thats the mentality, just how they would have all died on that island fighting til the last man to kill just 1 american and live in japan 1 second longer.
>>591466208 Truman was against using the nukes, but he tried to use them later against Korea, and long story short ended up getting fired for it. No fear apparently staring into the face of mutually assured destruction policies
>>591461651 The Japanese had made it quite clear that the US would have to genocide the Japanese in order to force them to surrender.
Doing that manually would have cost a lot of American lives so they picked the easy way out. Genocide was inevitable, whether it was gonna cost American lives was the questions. On top of that, manual genocide would have prolonged the war, and in every single scenario: Longer war = worse war. Even for the Japanese, who likely would have thrown even more of their lives away due to a faint hope of victory or at least an honorable death. Nuking them was to send a soul crushing message, that no, you will not make a defiant last stand, no you will not die honorably, no you cannot win, yes you will surrender or be annihilated. Further more, the decision maker had the choice between saving an estimated several 100.000 of his countrymen's lives or try to spare an enemy that even at that point had earned themselves a reputation and a bunch of war criminals and psychos. That is not a hard choice.
The Japs were the ones who waited around for a second nuke before quitting even though they knew they had lost before the first bomb.
>>591461651 This is simply one of those scenarios where no one wins at all. It was a choice between hundreds of thousands of people dying and millions of people dying.
I've thought about it a lot, and I can't really say which one I'd choose. Looking back, it must have been one of the hardest decisions President Truman has ever had to make. I often wonder if President Roosevelt would have gone through with the bombing if he had survived all the way through the war. I've seen pictures of the devastation left by the two bombs, and it's nightmarish. No one should ever have go suffer that much. No one.
How do you choose between killing hundreds of thousands of people and sending millions of soldiers to their deaths to invade a country where the soldiers would fight tooth and nail for every inch of land? It was an impossible choice. I can't even say that it was the lesser of two evils.
In the end though, the bombing did save millions of lives. It was a gamble, as another anon pointed out, because we did not have the resources to make a third bomb for a very long time. If I remember correctly, it would have taken many months, maybe even a year or more to have any more bombs ready to use. If the Japanese didn't surrender after we dropped the second one, we would impaled ourselves on our own sword, having to send our soldiers into a country where their hatred of them had just increased hundred-fold. Not to mention the fact that at some point we'd have had to send troops into areas possibly irradiated, which would mean even more horrible deaths.
When it comes right down to it, it seems like a simple choice. Looking more closely, it isn't so black and white. If the bombs had simply killed those people, I'd be inclined to say that it was the right thing to do. No suffering, no long lasting effects, no radiation. But the side effects make me and a lot of other people stop twice and think.
>This guy gets it. They were already for a conditional surrender, keeping their precious emperor on the throne was the only condition. They get nuked, give an unconditional surrender, and america was like w/e and let the emperor rule anyways. America saw a new threat in Russia, and wanted to demonstrate their newfound power. Most feats of technology are just there to let the enemy know how smart and capable you are. NASA springs to mind. Even the bunker busters used in afghanistan were really just a message to Russia "Yo bitches we gots the bomb that can penetrate yo military bunkers, nigga!"
>>591462830 The Japs were getting shit on at that point in the war. Japanese offensive capability was castrated at Midway, but the time of the Battle of the Phillipines it was fucking game over for Japan. The US had more carriers and could build more carriers, the Japanese were struggling to build any at all.
Kamikaze? Desperation. Banzai charges? Desperation. Even Pearl Harbour was a desperate gamble, and it didn't pay off.
>>591467460 Yes the japs were inhuman in many ways. Its why they are still hated in the countries they colonised. However a warning and a demonstration could or would have caused a surrender. If no surrender tokyo would be next. But that did not happen did it
The way i see it if their wasn't any nukes dropped on Japan, WW3 would have started right after WW2 ended. Think about the USSR, and how nukes kept the cold war from ever escalating into large-scale combat.
>>591461651 Militaryfag here. No it was not necessary but it was a lot cheaper and faster way to win the war. The USA was ready to bask in a post war boom and they were tired of waiting...could you blame them?
I have read a lot about the development of the bomb, and what I have noticed about most of the guys who have been interviewed working on it is that they all seemed to have a hard on for dropping it on Berlin
that was their thing, they wanted to shove that fucker right up hitler's ass
but the Russians took berlin 3 months before it was ready
Ignorant muthafuckers think Pearl Harbor was the only bad thing the Japs did. Like it all just started with that and we simply reacted by dropping nukes. Those fucking Japs were causing MASS destruction and suffering with their ambitions to take over the whole Pacific.
>>591461651 >Was it really necessary to nuke the poor innocent Japan Yes it was you fucking Nancy. They would have never surrendered if we didn't nuke them, dropping the bomb saved more lives on both sides in the long run. Now fuck off with your shitty bait you humongous faggot.
>>591461651 Hahaha you so know Americans treated the Japanese survivors better than Japan, hell most of the survivors were ostracized shortly after because they thought they would die from being near them
It wasn't until very recently that the Japanese government even gave a shit about them
It ended up saving far more lives than the alternative. The Japanese were completely FANATICAL. They would have dug in and fought tooth and nail for every square metre. They had started handing out weapons to school children to defend their homeland with their lives. The only way was to fully demolish their will. Destroy any notion of them fighting back. It was awful and horrific, but it was probably the best outcome. Millions would have died on all sides if they had kept up the fight.
>>591470001 I just read about this, the survivor's were basically treated as demons or someone with a highly contagious disease and were for a long time viewed as non Japanese people because of the burns
Exactly. Just look at the Casualty rates on IWO Jima, Peleliu, Guadalcanal, Okinawa, etc. They fought almost to the last man, taking well over 90% casualties each time.
Those are not the statistics of someone who surrenders. In fact, I'm not sure if such consistent, fanatical devotion has appeared anywhere else in history... but I must admit I lack the spectrum of knowledge to say for certain.
>>591468217 lol >tfw a third wave of bombers at pearl harbor would have recked shit of our pacific fleet but that's true, end of war japan was teaching their peasants to fight with sharpened bamboo stakes
>>591471299 The entire population would have died for their Emperor. It's difficult to imagine just how much they would have done. They would never be beaten through attrition. Not before a long, bloody decade of pointless death.
Please support this website by donating Bitcoins to 16mKtbZiwW52BLkibtCr8jUg2KVUMTxVQ5 If a post contains copyrighted or illegal content, please click on that post's [Report] button and fill out a post removal request
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows an archive of their content. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.