How was the bombing of Nagasaki not a war crime? Hiroshima can

And we probably saved millions of lives by forcing surrender so in the end justifiable but still unpleasant to say the least

>>1528001
yeah but russia was going to join the war effort. truman knew this but he ordered the bomb to be dropped anyway.

the shit even missed its fucking target by a mile

>>1527998
>How was the bombing of Nagasaki not a war crime?

The victors of war are immune to prosecution.

>>1528009
>yeah but russia was going to join the war effort
If anything that only adds value to choosing to bomb away and get the entirety of Japan as a puppet state.

If they waited for USSR they would've gained nothing and lost parts of Japan as they did with half of Europe.

>>1528009

Russia joining the effort was a reason to drop the bomb. We'd have North Japan and South Japan right now if he didn't.

>>1528009
so lots more Russians and Japanese and Americans and Brits/ANZACs would have died, and who the hell knows what the loses would've been, also preventing the soviets from pulling an east germany in japan sounds like a valid reason to do what he did as an auxillery reason

>>1528009
>>1528020

not to mention we got to flex our muscle at the USSR, which I think proved valuable in the Cold War. there's something psychological about an arms race against the only country to use nuclear weapons.

>>1528020
>>1528026
>>1528028
>>1528037

Sure yes, you would be right I suppose. But why would nuking a civilian city be the best course of action for that?

>>1528001
>>1528028
>bodycount mattering
>in a fucking war
>anyone caring about saving lives
Stop.

Leave this board and never return.

>>1528040
To show their power. That they can level a city if needed.

So that the whole world would know that not only is the boom big, it also wrecks shit up.

File: shelbyfoote.jpg (155KB, 256x400px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 256x400px

>>1528040
To end it quickly and on American terms before Russia could play any factor whatsoever.

>>1528046
Okay cool but once again why a civilian city?

Wouldn't it be better to hit a major military installation or whatever remained of the Japanese fleet instead of a civilian city? Wouldn't it have been better to show that "our weapons can destroy your weapons" instead of "our weapons can kill lots of people heehee XD"

>>1527998
Because they won the war, had the germans or japs bombed an allied country then it would be a war crime.

>>1528042
>Implying the allies weren't interested in preventing more boys from coming home in boxes
Anon, I......

>>1528058
the germans were already beaten, the japanese has basically lost the war at this point. what were they going to do? think about surrendering just a little bit longer?

>>1528056
No military installation in the whole fucking world is as big as a city. City is the best target if you want to show how destructive something is. Any bomber can render an airport unusable, or a ship useless, but how many bombs have the potential of leveling the capital of a country? How many would want to wage a war under this prospect?

Jesus this isn't rocket science. It's just logic.

>>1528059
No they weren't rofl. Leave this board and never return, simpleton.

>>1528063
Did you not read the thread?

It's not even over 20 replies. Jesus put some effort into understanding something you're at least pretending being interested in.

>>1528067
>>1528042
of course they were. No because they were humanitarians but because public opinion matters.

>>1528079
Public opinion is malleable.

If it weren't the US wouldn't have joined WWII in the first place.

>>1528067
Right but one nuke was already dropped three days beforehand. How is three days enough to consider surrender?

>>1528088
so? In this case the public already knew about the bomb. No way they would rather send 1 million americans to death instead of using the bomb again.

>>1528009
>wanting half of Japan to become a shithole like N Korea

>>1528091
That, I do not know. I have no idea why they wanted two bombs instead of one.

Maybe to hammer the message home just a little bit harder.

>>1528096
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make.

>>1528103
Bomb One: Conditional surrender offered.

Bomb Two: Unconditional surrender offered.

>>1528103
the point I'm making is "yes, policy-makers cared for (american) body count".

>>1528107
Was that so?

>>1528108
Only as a side bonus. Body count doesn't matter for shit if there's anything to be gained at the cost of lives.

>>1528078
Did you not read the thread?

It's not even over 30 replies. Jesus put some effort into understanding what you are bitching about.

>>1528116
Your previous question was answered ITT already.

>>1528107
So why not wait until you had gotten the first terms of surrender before making that choice? Like really, three fucking days? On a civilian city?

>>1528040
> But why would nuking a civilian city be the best course of action for that?
Because both cities were major industrial centers. They were legit targets like any other industrial center that got bombed during the war.
What military targets would they hit? The target in question would have to be far away from civilians to avoid casualties, and it would have to be massive enough to justify the use of one of the only two nukes in existence.

>>1528110
>Only as a side bonus. Body count doesn't matter for shit if there's anything to be gained at the cost of lives.
And? There was nothing to be gained by spending millions of lives in this instance. It's a total non sequitur.

>>1528009
Implying Truman made the call to drop the bomb. He barely knew anything. His staff were the real shot callers.

>>1528125
Had the USSR already began their invasion, you think a peace between the US and Japan would've stopped them? Nothing would've stopped them from advancing and pushing until the they would've gained whatever concessions they wanted from Japan.

But since the US ended the war before the rooskies had the chance to enter it properly, and sent their armies allover nipponland, they were left dry.

Jesus if you guys were the leaders of a country...god help you.

>>1528125
>Really, three days?
The Japanese already had our terms. What difference would more time make? They were told outright that they would be bombed again in short order if they didn't capitulate.

>>1528142
???

I think you're confused or something. What exactly do you think you're trying to prove to me? That a leader would choose to not spend millions of lives for nothing if given the chance? Did I leave an impression I would disagree with that?

What I said was that if spending those millions of lives actually amounted to something, a gain, influence, whatever, then they would've been spent. There's no moral quarrel when it comes to geopolitics and spending people on goals.

>>1528144

Not him, but had the USSR begun its invasion, they'd be needing enormous logistical support from the United States, since they had a grand total of eleven landing craft in the Pacific. (For comparison, Overlord used over 4,000, and Olympic was calling to land over twice as many men at once)

Japanese surrender would make an enormous difference in whether or not the U.S. is actually going to provide said assistance.

>>1528153
Nobody said anything about morals. You fabricated that in your brain when you read "They wanted to avoid more deaths"

The nuclear bombings were not as worse as the fire bombings.

Because you could have only one bomb, and they aren't surrendering.

But two bombs means you may have enough to do the same to the entirety of Japan

>>1528156
>Not him, but had the USSR begun its invasion, they'd be needing enormous logistical support from the United States
Which is exactly why they couldn't and didn't begin their invasion. They weren't prepared. And US wasn't going to sit around waiting for that to change. They dropped the bombs and sealed the deal while USSR was caught with its cock outside and pubes stuck in the zipper, unable to do anything but watch and weep.

>>1528160
Yes, I fabricated that in my brain only because I overestimated you. You see, if you weren't arguing for morals, then saying they wanted to save lives would be superfluous, because obviously everything else being equal, losing less > losing more.

So either you admit you had morals in your mind when you started this shit, or you just said stupid self explanatory shit for the sake of it. You pick.

>>1527998
After Hiroshima we sent them a message telling them to surrender, and they said they were still thinking it over. So we helped them decide.

>>1528174
>You see, if you weren't arguing for morals, then saying they wanted to save lives would be superfluous
How the fuck does that make any sense?

>So either you admit you had morals in your mind when you started this shit, or you just said stupid self explanatory shit for the sake of it. You pick.
I think you have some kind of mental disorder. You may want to consider seeing a shrink.

File: boi.png (928KB, 1477x1600px) Image search: [Google]

928KB, 1477x1600px

>WAR CRIME
>WARFARE
>CRIMES

>>1528174

> They weren't prepared. And US wasn't going to sit around waiting for that to change. They dropped the bombs and sealed the deal while USSR was caught with its cock outside and pubes stuck in the zipper, unable to do anything but watch and weep.

I think you're enormously underestimating how much time it would take for the Soviets to assemble an invasion fleet in Vladivostok sans U.S. assistance.

The question isn't

>Bomb vs Let the soviets invade

It's

>Bomb vs Invade on our own.

The Soviets were only coming to that party if the U.S. wanted them there, and if you hold that the Americans nuked Nagasaki to keep the Soviets out, they could have gone with the much simpler method of telling them to fuck off when they wanted more boats from Hula.

>>1528188
>bruh just rape and kill them all xD

File: THERIDEISON2.jpg (67KB, 417x599px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 417x599px

>>1528193
>what is the history of warfare

>>1528179
They weren't thinking it over, they sent a message with "no comment" because the greedy nips wanted to hold onto their Asian conquests

>>1528183
Wow I really overestimated your thinking capacity.

You see we were talking about geopolitics and actual tangible motivations with clear pros and cons about dropping the bombs, and then you barged in with your "BECAUSE DUH GUBBMIND DIDN WAN TO SEE MORE PEBUL DIE :((((((" and when I, justifiably so, pointed you out on your bullshit and how the lives don't matter for shit in the decision making of wars, you basically agreed. Now the question remains - what was the fucking point of your initial post?

That everything else being equal small loss of life > big loss of life? Really? You needed to type that out to make it clear? Are you sure you're not underage?

>>1528190
>The question isn't...
That makes sense.

At what point did the US invade Korea? Was it before or after dropping the bombs?

Could it have been that they nuked the Japs just to get them off the to-do list quicker so they could proceed to mainland Asia faster?

>>1528202

>At what point did the US invade Korea? Was it before or after dropping the bombs?

>Could it have been that they nuked the Japs just to get them off the to-do list quicker so they could proceed to mainland Asia faster?

I'm agreeing with the other anon. You are completely retarded. The U.S. wasn't bombing Japan to "get them out of the way" to get to mainland Asia quicker. If the Chinese Civil War had gone the other way (Good luck), they'd never be going to Korea at all. There was little interest in that part of the world unless and until the Communists started their designs on it.

In any case, while Downfall's casualties would almost certainly have been horrific, it would have secured Japan well in time to make any counter-moves against whatever the Soviets and Communist Chinese would have been up to.

>>1528110
Yes.

>>1528125
All wars are fought against civilians.

>>1528200
Those are the same in Japanese.

>>1528216
>I'm agreeing with the other anon. You are completely retarded.
Except that he also agreed with me? Okay then, are we all retarded then?

>There was little interest in that part of the world unless and until the Communists started their designs on it.
Which was what, exactly after WWII ended? Oh wait, it was actually occurring way before the WWII. So that would mean...?

>>1528231

>Except that he also agreed with me? Okay then, are we all retarded then?

No, he hasn't. He's been calling you out for being an imbecile for all-but-stating-explicitly that the United States dind't care about its own casualties, which is hilariously wrong.

>Which was what, exactly after WWII ended?

Try, 4 years at the earliest after WW2 ended, when the KMT collapsed as a power on mainland China.

>Oh wait, it was actually occurring way before the WWII.

[citation needed]

>>1528231
you've been discussing with another guy since >>1528142
just so you know

t. anon from the initial posts

>>1528202
>"BECAUSE DUH GUBBMIND DIDN WAN TO SEE MORE PEBUL DIE :(((((("
No, this is just how your tiny mind interpreted a very simple statement.

>>1528238
>that the United States dind't care about its own casualties
Ugh, anon. I explicitly said more than once that everything else being equal of fucking course anyone would opt for the less casualty option. What the fuck.

Especially so when it gives you the dickwaving opportunity the nukes did.

>Try, 4 years at the earliest after WW2 ended, when the KMT collapsed as a power on mainland China.
So you're telling me the US just gave China away and had no interest in stopping the Commies before they had a flag waving in every off the maps shithole village there?

>>1528253
>i can read minds and know with full 110% certainty that the original posters did not mean what easily could be concluded from their posts

>>1527998

1. Total war
2. We provided notice and stipulated terms of surrender prior to dropping any bombs.

>>1528254
>Ugh, anon. I explicitly said more than once that everything else being equal of fucking course anyone would opt for the less casualty option. What the fuck.
So why the hell are you even arguing about it in the first place? Are you such a sperg that you just HAD to get pissed off because you imagined that someone was saying something about government officials having compassion?

>>1528264
>So why the hell are you even arguing about it in the first place?
Because I was left with two conclusions

>assume the guy made a stupid argument
Or
>assume the retard said something self explanatory for no reason whatsoever, because there's never any reason for saying anything self explanatory

I guess I gave him too much benefit of the doubt.

>you imagined that someone was saying something about government officials having compassion?
Again, that would've made his post relevant and logical, albeit stupid and naive. But instead it's literally nothing.

Let me have a go at literally nothing:
>hey guise did you know if the generals had an option of wasting a lot of fuel versus not doing it if they could help it, they would pick the latter
>am i contributing yet?

IT was about making Japan our bitch and destroying their culture

>>1528278
I think you are seriously overestimating the intellect/knowledge of people who typically ask the "Why they dun gone and dropped da nukes?!?" question.

>>1528291
More like the people answering the question.

>>1528056
Honestly, because any city that was remotely a military target had already been firebombed out of existence. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen in part because they had not been targeted previously.

Aside from that, it's not like those two cities were good boys who dindu nuffin. They were making guns and uniforms, growing food, and sending men to the front. They supported the war. Given the totality of world war 2, that made them a valid target.

>>1527998
>applying winners of the war can be accused of war crimes
Are you retarded?

>>1528451
The word is implying.

File: 1469012417267.jpg (61KB, 500x329px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x329px

>>1527998
>>>>>>Death toll mattering in a war of attrition

wow you really fight the conformist western ideals xDD

>>1527998
>Nagasaki wasn't a major part of the war effort.
Yes it was.

>>1527998
It was no different from any other serious bombing against military targets with lots of civilians present. There are no innocents in total war

File: the fuck am I reading.jpg (26KB, 534x444px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 534x444px

>>1527998
>Nagasaki wasn't a major part of the war effort

It held the biggest military shipyard in Japan you fuckstick.

>I can't believe that bad things happen in war!

t. OP

File: 1466547718132.jpg (7KB, 226x250px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 226x250px

>>1529218

File: fatrell.jpg (49KB, 400x588px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 400x588px

>>1527998
>>1528451

Nagasaki was a military target, but a secondary one. The original target was Kokura, but was cloud covered. That said, even if Nagasaki had no military industry, you're still trying to explain a historic event with modern thinking. Nor is it a matter of victors being absolved of their crimes. German terror bombing of England would be considered a war crime by those standards, but not a single German was ever indicted at Nuremberg for it.

Must modern concepts of "war crimes" only solidified during/after the Nuremberg trials.

>>1527998
"The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest seaports in southern Japan, and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The four largest companies in the city were Mitsubishi Shipyards, Electrical Shipyards, Arms Plant, and Steel and Arms Works, which employed about 90% of the city's labor force, and accounted for 90% of the city's industry."