Why were the Americans so concerned with the possible casualties

>>1803106

Because you don't measure acceptability of casualties on a basis of how many of your population base is killed.

You measure it on a basis of how much the cost is compared to what the objective is and what your alternatives.

Eliminating a mostly beaten enemy at that cost isn't a great idea, especially when you have alternatives available.

>>1803106
is this really a question? Japanese civilians were seen to commit mass suicide after the Japanese soldiers occupying the island were defeated, they displayed an utter disregard for their personal lives that of course the US was worried

>>1803106

Because "yeah, we could have ended the war months earlier with this new bomb we built, but we decided to get an 200,000 of your sons and husbands killed fighting the japs up close instead" probably isn't the best campaign slogan.

Was it autism?

File: Ivy.jpg (420KB, 1280x1599px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 1280x1599px

>>1803106

>So, 100,000 of our boys dead in a bloody invasion or 0 of our boys dead in two bombings, how do you wish to win the war?

Is this an actual fucking question?

Is this an ACTUAL fucking question???

The US population in 1945 was not 200-300 million, it was 140 million.

some casualty estimates run up to several hundred thousand deaths; others, assuming full Japanese participation, reach many hundreds of thousands. If we take an estimate of 300,000, and a male American population of 70 million, that's say .4% losses, which isn't a negligible loss since that's as a fraction of the entire US male population; .2% as a percentage of the whole isn't either. Its roughly equivalent to losing a Detroit or El Paso sized section of the US population in modern parlance.

And yet one could instead avoid that all through the atomic bomb, for a couple of American casualties at most…

>>1803106
It was an excuse to use the bombs. Jap military was pathetic and they had no means to transport men or supplies from different parts of their really long country. It would have been the easiest invasion of a major country in the history of warfare since the Glorious Revolution.

File: In Japan, this is actually a strip of a guy who is mad and then becomes calm..jpg (57KB, 384x221px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 384x221px

>>1803239

>Not one but TWO General Army Groups just for the four main islands of Japan

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Why waste 200,000 lives when you can just naval blockade the island and starve them into submission

>>1803291
>Not on but TWO General Army Groups without tanks, guns, or ammunition
Banzai charge can be easily defeated by pressing V at the right time.

>>1803106
The US didn't have 200 million people by WWII idiot

>>1803106
>why were Americans concerned about casualties
Is there really a nation that's completely unconcerned with casualties sustained? even the USSR was concerned with the churning meat grinder that was killing an entire generation of men.

but to put in the right context, after 6 years of constant war and 60 million dead, all the atrocities committed by all sides are exposed and known, and every city on the European Continent and Asian coastline is now destroyed. Why the fuck would anyone go forward with dragging this bloodbath on for another year when the alternative can end it in 2 weeks?

File: Chi-Nu_4th_Tank_Division.jpg (170KB, 1198x943px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 1198x943px

>>1803353

>without tanks

On that point you're wrong as fuck

The Japanese were specifically saving their tanks for the defense of the home islands

Why do you think their best tanks never saw combat? Because they were saving them for the Big One, fag.

>>1803330
The US didn't have that kind of time to starve out the whole island. The Russians were coming, and they would have gladly fought their way across the island to take it, possibly leading to Korea 2.0 (even though korea 1.0 hadn't happened yet.)

File: article-0-0D713D9900000578-669_634x405.jpg (25KB, 634x405px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 634x405px

>>1803449

>Korea 2.0

You mean Germany 2.0

File: AlternateHistoryJapan_RingofRed.jpg (72KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 640x480px

>>1803449
just like my japanese videogames

>>1803449

And the Russians plan was based on the Americans giving them ships to do the invasion.

If America doesn't want the Soviets to invade, they can simply, oh, I don't know, discontinue Hula and not let them invade.

>>1803421
>shiba inu tank
>number built - 144 to 166

File: 1466541760777.png (429KB, 726x723px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 726x723px

>>1803484
>Democratic of Japan
What was meant by this?

>>1803489

>Implying the Soviets were doing amphibious landings during their liberation of Korea

You think they'd just lose that capability when it came to Japan?

>>1803900

[citation needed] on Soviet amphibious actions in Korea.

There were the Kurils, but that's not Korea. And given what a massive clusterfuck the Kuril invasion was (loss of 31% of total landing craft they possessed in the Pacific), that makes me very, very pessimistic as to their ability to land even on Hokkaido without a lot more stuff from the U.S.

>>1803484
What vidya

>>1803910
It's in the picture name - Ring of Red, an alternate history mecha tactical RPG for the PS2.

If your an American policy maker, you should have the view that losing 200k Japanese lives is better than losing one American life. It was a war after all, and they were the ones who started it.