Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?

In a military tactical sense yes

In a moral sense no but that's total war for you

yes
winners_write_history/10

>>78485
Compared to the alternative, yes.

Not this thread again mate

And yes

>>78485

Was any aspect of the World Wars justified?

Of course not.

>people horrified about the atomic bombs
>never heard of Unit 731
the japanese made auschwitz-birkenau look like a daycare center

Fuck Japan
Japan is cocaroach
You drop bomb on cocaroach it still live, coincidence? No.
Why only two america?

>A few hundred thousand dead, with Japan becoming a huge economic success in the future
vs.
>North Korea: Japan Edition
I'd argue Nagasaki was done too early, and could have been unnecessary if Japan were given more time to surrender, but overall it was good for Japan no matter how horrifying and gruesome it was

File: wutface.jpg (12KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x400px

>>78569
>subjects were deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death; placed into high-pressure chambers until death; experimented upon to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival; placed into centrifuges and spun until death; injected with animal blood; exposed to lethal doses of x-rays; subjected to various chemical weapons inside gas chambers; injected with sea water to determine if it could be a substitute for saline solution; and burned or buried alive.

WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK WHAT THE FUCK

>>78569
>two wrongs make a right
The bombings were justified because it was the only way to get the nips to surrender real quick, and get the USSR to fuck off from conquering half of Japan.

No, we should have declared war on Russia and bombed Moscow directly, and we would not have had the cold war shit.

Using an atomic weapon in war to make an example of them was stupid, especially when you see so much of nuclear strategy is about first-strike and second-trike capability. We could have just hit them first when they had no second-strike capability.

Please no implications that the bombs had anything to do about Japan. They were warning shots aimed at Russia.

>>78569
You don't drop bombs to get revenge, idiot. You do it to shorten the length of war, cripple industrial power, or in this case, just fucking end the whole shebang.

>>78485
>Were the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified?
No. Even Eisenhower said it was completely unnecessary. He told Truman not to do it.

>>78623
nukes kill for generations

>>78644
The thing is that we actually didn't have a way to nuke Moscow at the time, and the nukes themselves were very primitive, and weren't guaranteed to go off.

>>78569
There were some Japanese units that ate their captive POWs. There is evidence to suggest this sometimes occurred despite there not being a shortage of food for that particular Japanese units.

>>78650

>You don't drop bombs to get revenge

The entire point of maintaining a nuclear arsenal is mass retaliation.

>>78662
No they don't, people currently live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and have lived there for decades.

>>78521
>>78538
VAE VICTIS

>>78561
EVERY DAY UNTIL YOU LIKE IT
atomic bomb is garanteed to be the board's meme instead of Hitler (like some redditors "fear")

>>78671
But they did go off. Or at the very least, we should have started trying to nuke Moscow and Petersburg and everything as soon as possible before they could develop a bomb.

>>78699
Deterrence.

>>78714
with a more than high rate of tumors/infertility/down children

>>78499
>In a military tactical sense yes

No
Japan was about to surrender to both America and Russia
But the US wanted all Japan for themselves so...

>>78699

Ahhhh, actually no. It depends on the nuclear doctrine of the nation.

In regards to the US, or rather NATO:

MAD has been out of favour for a good while now.

We NUTS now

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_utilization_target_selection

File: 1445916121414.png (153KB, 333x254px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 333x254px

>>78785
>Japan was about to surrender to both America and Russia

>>78761

Deterrence relies on your willingness drag the whole world down in oblivion for the sake of pure revenge. Without that bloodlust, nobody would be willing to press the button.

>>78785
>But the US wanted all Japan for themselves so
then yes, in a military/political sense it was justified

>>78798

Regardless of what it is called, retaliatory nuclear strikes are still standard expected procedure.

>>78807

Deterrence actually relies on your willingness to get a very bloody nose for whatever you are wanting to achieve against another nuclear power.

You clearly don't seem to be aware of the fact that nuclear weapons can be used in a limited way.

>>78485

These threads need to be bannable.

two bombs wasn't enough

>>78785

Well maybe they should've surrendered faster. This wasn't the Bronze Age. The Japanese had telephones.

>>78882
yes.

/his/ is only for circlejerks over dead communists and nothing else

>>78875

>You clearly don't seem to be aware of the fact that nuclear weapons can be used in a limited way.

The Soviet Union maintained a policy of "All Against One" meaning that all nuclear forces would be deployed to their fullest potential in response to even a single nuke.

If you poke the bear, the bear will show no mercy once it awakens.

>>78807
That's not the point of deterrence. It's the mechanism deterrence utilizes.

>>78851

Expected but not necessary as tactical / non-strategic nuclear weapons would have not become a thing past the planning stage.

>>78956

As I said, I wasn't speaking from the Russia perspective. Only a US one.

>>78904
>Well maybe they should've surrendered faster. This wasn't the Bronze Age. The Japanese had telephones.
>japanese TELEGRAPH declaration of war to japanese embassy in usa
>japanese zeros are so fast that japan bombas the fuck out of pearl harbor before the ambassador can deliver the message

>>78785
According to a book titled Hirohito, he was less inclined to surrender than he was ordering the attack on Pearl Harbour.
And I mean reallyif the bombs were never dropped the Japanese had lost the war way before anyway and they kept fighting and dying anyway. Would have seemed shitty to just end it. The book also explained that it gave a great justification for him to say, we are not surrendering but doIng it for the people.

>>78485
If anyone is interested and 15 minutes to spare, this guy gives a good explanation of the pro-bombing argument.

http://www.pjtv.com/series/afterburner-with-bill-whittle-56/from-the-archives-jon-stewarts-stupid-nuclear-commentary-1808/

>>79564
Based Bill "liberals can't shill" whittle.
Absolutly destroys people.

I take a different position, we had no reason to get into foreign wars and FDR ruined the American republic