Do you think the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings were justified?

>>2077197
Everything is justified in war if it helps you win

Both towns were legitimate military targets anyway

People need to stop being autistic about this

Nuking a city and fire bombing it makes hardly any difference.

yes
although who literally gives a shit outside of baby boomers who were all "wtf i hate America now???" when they found out WW2 was sorta unpleasant

File: 1471032755711.jpg (111KB, 803x688px)

111KB, 803x688px

>justified

>>2077197
No. The destruction of the cities could have been achieved through fire bombing without the fallout caused by radiation (something that had never been encountered by many providing medical aid AFTER the war).

It's like starvation in that the primary damage is not immediate.

I also don't believe they helped end the war as the Japanese were preparing to surrender as the first bomb was dropped and had already committed to surrendering when the second was dropped. Most Japanese did not know what a nuclear weapon was so the psychological impact of nuclear weapons was lost on them.

File: 1480110506818.jpg (281KB, 850x1236px)

281KB, 850x1236px

>>2077197
Literally a publicity stunt James Byrnes and Truman pulled to cower the Russians into backing out of the Balkans and accepting U.S. supremacy.

At the time Groves believed the U.S. had collected all the potential weapons grade uranium in the Congo and Scandinavia, so the Russians couldn't make a nuke if they wanted to

The targeting committe literally said Hiroshima and Nagasaki were prime targets because they would provide a stronger psychological impact on the world stage

Knowing all that, I'd say the only mistake was believing we could actually cower the Russians to our accept U.S. supremacy. If nuking the two cities could honestly have provided this then I'd say go ahead and bomb a couple more for good measure, but obviously this just spurned the Russians all the more against U.S.

>>2077256
Stirner shitting is a spook

>>2077962
It probably didn't help that Stalin already knew about the bomb due to British and American spies in both nations respective nuclear weapons programmes

I've heard that while most of the general public accepts the claim that not bombing would've necessitated an invasion that would've caused even more casualties, historians are much more skeptical of this claim and genery doubt or disagree with the necessity of the bombing.

Not entirely sure how true this is but I wouldn't be surprised given how meme-tier the typical justification is.

>>2077989
*generally

>>2077457
When you strap a bomb onto a baby and then give it to its mother and tell the mother to walk into a group of marines you don't get the dignity of the pleasant option.

>>2077457
Let me put it into retard-terms.
nukes=1 bomb, 1 plane
firebombing=thousands of bombs, thousands of planes

>>2077197
>stopped communism from spreading to Japan from because even though the war would have been ended either way, it would have been the USSR who went in taking Japan on foot if not for the nukes.
So, yes, very justified.