Support NeoGAF

[Yaphett Kotto]

You need to retake history if you ask why there was a second nuclear strike on Japan.

 

[Mendrox]

well one edge firebombings have over nukes is the lack of radiation.

You know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are god damn beautiful nowadays? And that the bombs were exploded in the air? There is more radiation on New York than in Hiroshima.

People shouldn't discuss a "What if", but rather think how we can manage that something like this won't happen ever again and tell everyone of the horrors of such a weapon. Even when I was in Hiroshima and read through all the accounts and books or saw the videos...there was no grudge on their side or really in the minority. They don't even think about "WOW YOU ASSHOLES BOMBED US WITH THAT!" but they think more about "People of the earth...let us handle this together and let us never let that happen again!" which is the correct way.

 

[Frankfurter]

I feel like it's very much up for debate whether or not the two nukes (and all the firebombing) really was necessary, but it certainly was a war crime no matter how you spin it. Just because your enemy is evil doesn't mean that you can be evil too and just pretend like it's his fault. Acknowledging that would be a good first step.

 

[Welfare]

I can.

Are you factoring in everything else I said, as I didn't just type "Like, I don't understand how someone can suggest not to drop the bombs?"

You need context to this kind of situation. This wasn't something done out of the blue just because the US wanted to nuke Japan for the hell of it. When the alternatives are either starving out the country as fast as you can or a ground invasion, how are those better than what happened in reality?

 

[Alo0oy]

Then that's not an argument. If you're not arguing in favor of preventing civilian deaths, what is your point?

You're giving me two options, if both involve deliberately killing civillians, then fuck those options. There is a huge difference between collateral damage and intentionally decimating entire towns.

Tell that to the people that started the war.

Why do people assume that not being okay with this war crime means I'll be okay with war crimes from someone else?

You're right, we have all of these smart tomahawk missiles with laser and satellite targeting, we should have just sniped the Japanese leadership. Thanks for your important hindsight insights.

We're talking about intentional genocide, the discourse keeps going back to the assumption that it was some military installation.

Those bombs targeted civillians, families, not military.

 

[Ardenyal]

You can go ask all the dead Asians who were murdered, raped, tortured, experimented on, and conquered, what they think are war crimes. It was not only necessary but to suggest it is a war crime on any level compared to what the imperial Japanese army did is insulting.

The civilians deserved the punishment for the war crimes of their army?

 

[Agent Gibbs]

I found it! It was from the 70 year thread. It was better than I remembered.

Originally Posted by typist

I would have started by dropping supplies and information on Germany. Food for the hungry. Dollars, francs and pounds - about 130 billion marks worth. Photos of families. Pictures drawn by children. Photos of children playing together, with captions like: "two of these are Jewish, can you tell which ones?" Leaflets too, questioning the futility of war, promoting compassion and so on. I would drop all my guns, without bullets, and broken fragments of artillery equipment. Books from the greatest authors, art from the greatest painters, and music from the greatest composers. All the treasures of my people.

Then I would write a letter and make sure everyone read it. It would tell the Germans that me and my people were coming over the border, unarmed and well-fed, to march on Berlin and put the leaders of the Nazi party on trial for their crimes. It would ask the people of Germany for their support in this. The letter would predict the possible massacre that the German military would inflict on foreign protesters. It would also beg the common soldier to wake up, and refuse to follow such mad orders. But the letter would emphasise, massacre or not, the protest would go on to the last man, woman and child. Some things are worth dying for

That would be the gist of it anyway. There was something like 20 million combat deaths in WW2, estimates vary. That's like three and a half Holocausts. Better to die a misguided idealist than have that much blood on your hands. If the protesters were all killed and the Nazi party kept its power, then it's better to be dead than a member of the human race anyway. Just my preference though, would probably be carted off to an asylum for even suggesting it

I still find it utterly abhorrent how instead of targeting military targets, the US decided to hit the softest of targets and wipe out entire cities, man, woman , child & all other life, there is no justification, people who mitigate it disgust me, and are no doubt the same people who absolutely hate terrorists who hit soft targets to win their war, not seeing how this is the same thing on a greater scale

RIP to those innocents

 

[legend166]

The problem with this line of thinking is that there's no reason it can't be used against them in the future with chemical or nuclear warfare. The winner writes the books so any horrific attempt at ending war will be deemed 'necessary'. The U.S had every option available to them at that point in the war and bombing civilian cities is what they chose to do; I understand their reasons for not wanting to sacrifice their troops in an extended campaign, but it makes the act no less deplorable. Either way what's done is done.

As much as I'd like to think the human race has learned something about the conflict, it doesn't look like we have learned nearly enough. As usual we learn too little, too late and all of a sudden we have another page of history.

Why do people just ignore the context of Japan starting a war of aggression and conquest which killed tens of millions? People don't say the bombs were justified because they ended a war, they say they were justified because they ended that war.

 

[Alo0oy]

The civilians deserved the punishment for the war crimes of their army?

Where do you think today's drone culture comes from?

 

[elrechazado]

I feel like it's very much up for debate whether or not the two nukes (and all the firebombing) really was necessary, but it certainly was a war crime no matter how you spin it. Just because your enemy is evil doesn't mean that you can be evil too and just pretend like it's his fault. Acknowledging that would be a good first step.

What would acknowledging it entail? Perhaps never using nuclear weapons again in the last 70 years?
Perhaps continued development of weapons designed to minimize civilian casualties?
Development of convention of war around the same?
Massive investments in developing a former enemy into a partner in economics and mutual defense?
The loss of life was horrific, taught the world lessons about hopefully never having it happen again. People in this thread who want to argue about whether it was necessary or a war crime - to what end, given where we have arrived, and the fact that total unrestrained war is rare when compared with ww1 and 2. What is it you want, other than to signal your retroactive displeasure at a horrific and complicated series of events that cannot be changed? I'd understand the effort of anyone in this thread were cheering for the bombs and using the situation as done go-forward guide on what we should continue to do. Since nobody is doing that here, whoyouyalkingto.gif?

 

[cwmartin]

Imperial Japan committed some of the most heinous actions this world has ever seen. With no intention of stopping, seeing no flaw, and their divine right to conquer.

The world would have taken any action to stop this. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Conditional surrender was not on the table at any point.

 

[dramatis]

The civilians deserved the punishment for the war crimes of their army?

No.

The implication here is that elsewhere in the Pacific rim, many other innocent civilians were suffering war crimes daily under the subjugation of the Japanese military. In other words, there seems to be inordinate value placed on Japanese civilian lives and no consideration for the suffering of others in Asia, who undoubtedly got faster reprieve via this method compared to a conventional land invasion.

 

[fireflame]

Which brings a question, why do our history books not insist on crimes made by Japan Army? I have the feeling that in a tragic way, what Hitler did drains the focus and that what Staline did gets less attention for example.

 

[Alo0oy]

Imperial Japan committed some of the most heinous actions this world has ever seen. With no intention of stopping, seeing no flaw, and their divine right to conquer.

The world would have taken any action to stop this. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Conditional surrender was not on the table at any point.

"Imperial America committed some of the most heinous actions this world has ever seen. With no intention of stopping, seeing no flaw, and their divine right to conquer.

The world will never take any action to stop this. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Conditional surrender was not on the table at any point."

Just as accurate, and bombing American civillians is just as bad too.

 

[cwmartin]

"Imperial America committed some of the most heinous actions this world has ever seen. With no intention of stopping, seeing no flaw, and their divine right to conquer.

The world will never take any action to stop this. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Conditional surrender was not on the table at any point."

Just as accurate, and bombing American civillians is just as bad too.

Sick burn!

I recognize context is not a part of your intention to discuss anything, and hope you do so in the future.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Killing innocent people is never ever a necessity.

There's no functional difference between killing them directly and allowing them to be killed through secondary and indirect means in equal or greater numbers. Not just Japanese civilians, who seem to be the only ones people care about, but the civilians (and soldiers) from the other countries Japan was, as of August 1945, still attacking, raping and pillaging.

The source of this disagreement is meta-ethical. The argument for the bombing relies on the use of teleological theories (e.g. the outcome is the most important thing) while your argument relies on deontological ones (e.g. there are hard and fast rules that shouldn't be violated regardless of consequences). You're never going to agree because you are operating from a fundamentally difference place.

We should probably take this into account when we say an invasion would have killed many more innocents. The bomb was supposed to kill and destroy much, much more than it did.

The text you've described there is misleading - it was never believed that 100% of the fissile material would convert into "pure energy" because that's not how fission reactions work. Nobody expected that this was some kind of multi-megatonne bomb. The destructive effects were within the anticipated range.

I feel like it's very much up for debate whether or not the two nukes (and all the firebombing) really was necessary, but it certainly was a war crime no matter how you spin it. Just because your enemy is evil doesn't mean that you can be evil too and just pretend like it's his fault. Acknowledging that would be a good first step.

It would be a war crime today, in the same way that the use of chemical weapons would be a war crime today but was not considered as such in the first world war. Since all major belligerents were willing to employ these tactics, this line of prosecution was not sought. The treaties signed prior to WWII have various loopholes e.g. if a city is "defended" then it is a valid target under the international law of the day. It would be up to specific judges to decide whether various bombing strategies were war crimes based on agreed legal principles of the time.

 

[Frankfurter]

What would acknowledging it entail? Perhaps never using nuclear weapons again in the last 70 years?
Perhaps continued development of weapons designed to minimize civilian casualties?
Development of convention of war around the same?
Massive investments in developing a former enemy into a partner in economics and mutual defense?
The loss of life was horrific, taught the world lessons about hopefully never having it happen again. People in this thread who want to argue about whether it was necessary or a war crime - to what end, given where we have arrived, and the fact that total unrestrained war is rare when compared with ww1 and 2. What is it you want, other than to signal your retroactive displeasure at a horrific and complicated series of events that cannot be changed? I'd understand the effort of anyone in this thread were cheering for the bombs and using the situation as done go-forward guide on what we should continue to do. Since nobody is doing that here, whoyouyalkingto.gif?

There are many users in this thread that pretty much say "It was necessary, so we did it, end of the story." That's not acknowledging that it was a war crime and pure evil at all.

Acknowledging that it was wrong, on the political side, would include that you'd actually and actively work on a world with no weapons of mass destruction, instead of cementing a status quo that favors a couple countries with nuclear weapons while it bans all the others from pursuing them.

 

[elrechazado]

No.

The implication here is that elsewhere in the Pacific rim, many other innocent civilians were suffering war crimes daily under the subjugation of the Japanese military. In other words, there seems to be inordinate value placed on Japanese civilian lives and no consideration for the suffering of others in Asia, who undoubtedly got faster reprieve via this method compared to a conventional land invasion.

The thing about these captain hindsight warriors is that they have no alternative to any of the realities. I mean, we literally have someone suggesting on this page that the way to defeat Germany was to bombard them with children's drawings and March into Germany unarmed. It's not to be taken seriously.

 

[FyreWulff]

Imperial Japan committed some of the most heinous actions this world has ever seen. With no intention of stopping, seeing no flaw, and their divine right to conquer.

The world would have taken any action to stop this. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Conditional surrender was not on the table at any point.

I don't think anyone is saying anyone came out clean from WW2. Even high ranking military from that era said from that time that the US upper government and military would have all been tried for war crimes.


Even MacArthur, seen by many as a tough guy man's man, said this about the later Korean war:

MacArthur subsequently testified at joint hearings before the Senate's Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations to discuss his dismissal and the ”Military Situation in the Far East."

”I shrink—I shrink with a horror that I cannot express in words—at this continuous slaughter of men in Korea," MacArthur lamented during the hearings.

”The war in Korea has already almost destroyed that nation of 20,000,000 people. I have never seen such devastation. I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man, and it just curdled my stomach the last time I was there. After I looked at the wreckage and those thousands of women and children and everything, I vomited ... If you go on indefinitely, you are perpetuating a slaughter such as I have never heard of in the history of mankind."

LeMay, who led the firebombings of Tokyo:

”We burned down just about every city in North Korea and South Korea both," recalled Gen. Curtis LeMay. ”We killed off over a million civilian Koreans and drove several million more from their homes, with the inevitable additional tragedies bound to ensue."

 

[Plum]

"Imperial America committed some of the most heinous actions this world has ever seen. With no intention of stopping, seeing no flaw, and their divine right to conquer.

The world will never take any action to stop this. You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. Conditional surrender was not on the table at any point."

Just as accurate, and bombing American civillians is just as bad too.

Try going up to a Holocaust or Rape of Nanking survivor (or just a survivor of Germany and Japan's countless other atrocities) and say how America's actions in helping to liberate them were actually just as bad.

 

[Alo0oy]

Sick burn!

I recognize context is not a part of your intention to discuss anything, and hope you do so in the future.

My country was under British Colonial power until we gained independence in 1970, the British forces were murdering anyone that protested the colony.

On their way out, they oversaw a democratic election...who am I kidding, they left a dictator in their place, with all of their previous torture chambers and culture of anti-protests, that dictatorship is still in power today.

That's the story of one small country that suffered and still suffering from British Colonialism.

And I would never say carpet bombing British civillians is okay. Even though the fall of the UK (and the US) would make democracy here significantly easier.

 

[Alo0oy]

Try going up to a Holocaust or Rape of Nanking survivor (or just a survivor of Germany and Japan's countless other atrocities) and say how America's actions in helping to liberate them were actually just as bad.

I'm talking about recent America (Vietnam, Iraq, Handorus, Afghanistan, Lybia, Yemen..etc)

 

[Hexa]

There are many users in this thread that pretty much say "It was necessary, so we did it, end of the story." That's not acknowledging that it was a war crime and pure evil at all.

Acknowledging that it was wrong, on the political side, would include that you'd actually and actively work on a world with no weapons of mass destruction, instead of cementing a status quo that favors a couple countries with nuclear weapons while it bans all the others from pursuing them.

Every innocent death is a tragedy and every killing of one is an act of evil. The capabilities of nuclear weapons to do so much more quickly hence makes them more evil, but beyond that there's nothing special about them. Within the context of a war plagaued by death and destruction at massive scale for everyone involved, its not anymore evil than the rest of the war.
On that note, I would love to live in a world where everyone gets along and there is no war through mutual understanding. I'm all for a world without weapons of mass destruction, but I see that more as an effect of having gotten to the point where humanity is no longer in conflict rather than something that will actually push humanity towards such a state. The status quo with nuclear weapons at least prevents a war on the scale of WWII. Even with globalization and such, I don't think such peace would be maintained as the world exists now without MAD.

 

[UltimaPooh]

That's not a defense.

Yes it is.

 

[elrechazado]

I'm talking about recent America (Vietnam, Iraq, Handorus, Afghanistan, Lybia, Yemen..etc)

We were talking about ww2, which you continue to ignore and have no answer for how to stop the Axis' ongoing atrocities beyond continually repeating platitudes.

 

[Plum]

I'm talking about recent America (Vietnam, Iraq, Handorus, Afghanistan, Lybia, Yemen..etc)

And we're talking about World War 2. American Imperialism both before and after WW2 has been disgusting in many, many ways, but it's irrelevant to the discussion surrounding WW2. I'd say it's highly disrespectful to co-opt that discussion into an agenda-driven one based on the tragedies of American Imperialism, there's plenty of other places to discuss such a thing that don't make light of some of the worst atrocities the world has ever seen.

 

[Alo0oy]

We were talking about ww2, which you continue to ignore and have no answer for how to stop the Axis' ongoing atrocities beyond continually repeating platitudes.

I was responding to someone that used this logic to justify bombing civillians, I replaced a few words and made it reflect the reality of today's America to make the civillians more relatable.

 

[slit]

You're giving me two options, if both involve deliberately killing civillians, then fuck those options. There is a huge difference between collateral damage and intentionally decimating entire towns.

No there isn't. Thousands were burned alive in Toyko, was that somehow better? I dare you to come up with a 3rd option that doesn't involve Japanese civilians suffering greatly. We had two countries that wanted world domination in Japan and Germany and weapons that were not precise like you have today. Anything less than total surrender by the Japanese would have guaranteed attempts at retribution down the line by the Japanese.

 

[Frankfurter]

Every innocent death is a tragedy and every killing of one is an act of evil. The capabilities of nuclear weapons to do so much more quickly hence makes them more evil, but beyond that there's nothing special about them. Within the context of a war plagaued by death and destruction at massive scale for everyone involved, its not anymore evil than the rest of the war.
On that note, I would love to live in a world where everyone gets along and there is no war through mutual understanding. I'm all for a world without weapons of mass destruction, but I see that more as an effect of having gotten to the point where humanity is no longer in conflict rather than something that will actually push humanity towards such a state. The status quo with nuclear weapons at least prevents a war on the scale of WWII. Even with globalization and such, I don't think such peace would be maintained as the world exists now without MAD.

?

Sure it's more "evil". Firebombing and nuclear weapons were specfically used to kill as many civilians as possible... War is terrible anyway, but there is a difference between, say, trying to bomb a factory for warplanes on the one hand and just bombing a whole city to ashes on the other.

I also don't think the status quo prevents massive wars. To a certain extent it's luck that we are still living on this planet (watch "Fog of War" with McNamara for instance). The status quo also makes it much more likely that more and more nations develop nuclear weapons.

 

[UltimaPooh]

?

Sure it's more "evil". Firebombing and nuclear weapons were specfically used to kill as many civilians as possible... War is terrible anyway, but there is a difference between, say, trying to bomb a factory for warplanes on the one hand and just bombing a whole city to ashes on the other.

I also don't think the status quo prevents massive wars. To a certain extent it's luck that we are still living on this planet (watch "Fog of War" with McNamara for instance). The status quo also makes it much more likely that more and more nations develop nuclear weapons.

No one is saying there isn't a difference...

What they are arguing is within the context of WWII at the time and whether or not it was the most effective decision in bringing about the end of the war as quickly as possible.

 

[LionPride]

Damn, some people needed a better high school world history/US history course

 

[Alo0oy]

No there isn't. Thousands were burned alive in Toyko, was that somehow better? I dare you to come up with a 3rd option that doesn't involve Japanese civilians suffering greatly. We had two countries that wanted world domination in Japan and Germany and weapons that were not precise like you have today. Anything less than total surrender by the Japanese would have guaranteed attempts at retribution down the line by the Japanese.

I want an option that doesn't deliberately target innocent people so that in the future people don't say "this act of genocide is for the greater good".

Collateral damage is stomach-turning too, but there's a massive difference between that and leveling entire cities.

 

[slit]

I want an option that doesn't deliberately target innocent people so that in the future people don't say "this act of genocide is for the greater good".

Collateral damage is stomach-turning too, but there's a massive difference between that and leveling entire cities.

What you can't seem to get through your head is that there were no such options.

 

[UltimaPooh]

What you can't seem to get through your head is that there were none.

We learn in Kingdom Hearts that theres always another way tho.

Always.

 

[Ferr986]

At that time there were no options that didn't involve civilians death, it sucks but such was war.

The only option not involving the death of japanese civilians would be let them be, and that would be even worse, considering Japan was pretty much aiming to be Nazi 2.0. It would translate in even more innocent deaths (and raping, and experimenting...)

We just have to hope something as horrible as WW2 never happens again.

 

[Alo0oy]

What you can't seem to get through your head is that there were no such options.

Head to head war doesn't involve targeting civilians on purpose. Japan was getting weaker and losing its allies at the time.

 

[Blue Submarine No. 6]

I still find it utterly abhorrent how instead of targeting military targets, the US decided to hit the softest of targets and wipe out entire cities, man, woman , child & all other life, there is no justification, people who mitigate it disgust me, and are no doubt the same people who absolutely hate terrorists who hit soft targets to win their war, not seeing how this is the same thing on a greater scale

RIP to those innocents

Welcome to TOTAL WAR. This is what 20th Century Warfare is. How many German civilians died in the fire bombing of Dresden? How many died in the Blitz? Entire cities burned for days in Europe... The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than either of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki...

More than 50,000,000 people died in World War II...maybe closer to 70,000,000... MOST - as in the vast majority - of those casualties were "civilians"...

Head to head war doesn't involve targeting civilians on purpose. Japan was getting weaker and losing its allies at the time.

Bullshit. We made noises like we weren't targeting civilians on purpose, but the military leaders of every nation knew damned well that the war was won or lost as much on the Home Front as on the battlefield. Factories, ports, infrastructure were all primary targets and civilian casualties weren't just expected, they were hoped for... Nighttime bombing raids by the RAF were pretty much consigned to terrorize and murder civilians; what else could they hope to do at night?

When I was in grade school, we had duck and cover drills... we learned to get low against a wall when the air raid sirens started sounding (ya, we had freaking air raid sirens... in small town Western Canada)... we were taught what to do to survive a nuclear strike and minimize radiation risks... Our parents had food and water supplies stored in the basement... that was life... because 20th Century warfare was total war...

it's all very, very different today...

 

[UltimaPooh]

Head to head war doesn't involve targeting civilians on purpose. Japan was getting weaker and losing its allies at the time.

Again that doesn't mean they were ready to surrender.

 

[Hexa]

?

Sure it's more "evil". Firebombing and nuclear weapons were specfically used to kill as many civilians as possible... War is terrible anyway, but there is a difference between, say, trying to bomb a factory for warplanes on the one hand and just bombing a whole city to ashes on the other.

I also don't think the status quo prevents massive wars. To a certain extent it's luck that we are still living on this planet (watch "Fog of War" with McNamara for instance). The status quo also makes it much more likely that more and more nations develop nuclear weapons.

Within the context of WWII, everyone including civilians were affected even outside the nuclear weapons. Firebombings is one example, but famine, disease, and many other things were also issues that affected the civilian population of Japan. The deaths caused there are just as "evil" as those caused by nuclear weapons. That's what I'm trying to say.
I'll look into fog of war, but for the most part as long as rational actors are the ones with nukes, a World War III isn't possible. Situations like the Cuban missile crisis seem to come close, but I don't see it happening. No sane person is going to end humanity. The proliferations of nuclear weapons, especially into the hands of non rational actors is an issue I acknowledge, especially in light of recent events, but even then I don't think things will ever get as bad as WWIII.

 

[slit]

Head to head war doesn't involve targeting civilians on purpose. Japan was getting weaker and losing its allies at the time.

Those atomic bombs were destroying industry and military installations as well or did you not know that? Japan getting weaker and them surrendering are not the same thing. As they got weaker more and more would have suffered and they would have done so gladly in the name of the emperor. Your moral arbitrary line in the sand of how they parish is what is cruel. You want them to starve to death and be decimated by famine just because you don't like one method even though the other is just as cruel and probably even moreso.

 

[Dopus]

You need to retake history if you ask why there was a second nuclear strike on Japan.

Revisionists are not of the same opinion and frankly it says more about the version of events you were taught.

Others saying "they had three days to surrender" is equally as preposterous when we know Japanese scientists were only able to report back on the same day the second bomb dropped. Which also just happened to be the same day of a far more convincing reason for surrender - the Soviet invasion.

 

[Alo0oy]

I think this is going nowhere, I won't be able to convince you and you won't be able to convince me.

 

[QuantumZebra]

It was horrific, but ultimately hundreds of thousands or more could have been potentially killed due to war.

Actually Japan was on the brink of surrender before we dropped the bombs. We didn't know it, granted, but they were.

The firebombing of Tokyo was horrific and what forced their hand before the nukes were ever dropped. Totally unnecessary.

Got the proof there?

I think we've been through this countless times before and the proof just isnt there that they were on the verge of surrender... and the surrender that was discussed wasn't even unconditional surrender. Which was the only way to end the war.

I have seen it in a History channel show on it and reading over a few articles - but like I said, we didn't know it. Also, there is no way to truly confirm it (the notion they were on the verge of surrender was from insiders in the Japanese gov't, but no one knows if they were being honest).

 

[UltimaPooh]

Actually Japan was on the brink of surrender before we dropped the bombs. We didn't know it, granted, but they were.

The firebombing of Tokyo was horrific and what forced their hand before the nukes were ever dropped. Totally unnecessary.

Got the proof there?

I think we've been through this countless times before and the proof just isnt there that they were on the verge of surrender... and the surrender that was discussed wasn't even unconditional surrender. Which was the only way to end the war.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I think this is going nowhere, I won't be able to convince you and you won't be able to convince me.

It's because you are failing to understand the use of the bomb in the context of it's time in history. If you don't want to understand it, you won't be convinced.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Head to head war doesn't involve targeting civilians on purpose. Japan was getting weaker and losing its allies at the time.

This was total war, every industry was supporting the military, civil defense was being organized so every Japanese person was being directed to fight the allies when they landed, with spears if they didn't have guns. Imperial Japan's refusal for unconditional surrender was a greater threat to civilian lives due to starvation from the naval blockade.

The A-bombs were categorically the least bad option of what remained to end the war. Again Op: Downfall called for A-bombs to be used on beach heads and then allied troops to rally where they were dropped. We didn't understand the long and short term effects of radiation, it would've been a complete disaster to go any other path.

 

[Dopus]

Got the proof there?

I think we've been through this countless times before and the proof just isnt there that they were on the verge of surrender... and the surrender that was discussed wasn't even unconditional surrender. Which was the only way to end the war.

The Soviet invasion on the 9th was tipping point. There wasn't enough time to understand what had happened at Hiroshima before the second bomb dropped. Had they had time to examine and then discuss the nuclear bombings then sure. There is some consensus on this from historians.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I have seen it in a History channel show on it and reading over a few articles - but like I said, we didn't know it. Also, there is no way to truly confirm it (the notion they were on the verge of surrender was from insiders in the Japanese gov't, but no one knows if they were being honest).

They wanted conditional surrender where their land holdings in Manchuria and China were recognized, their government would remain intact, and they would be excluded from war crimes. This was unacceptable in order to move on from the war.

Also the military attempted a coup even as the emperor was going to declare unconditional surrender. So I seriously doubt they would've done so without.

 

[Zevenberge]

This holiday I have been to the Nagasaki Memorial Museum. Hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians died because of one bomb. Teachers and their class full of children, a mother with her newborn doing the grocery shopping, annihilated in a flash. Without warning or time to capitulate, the US destroyed another city. I cannot even attempt to comprehend that people are so indoctrinated by US propaganda that they can even start to think that is was a good thing. Hiroshima was understandable (even that is stretching), but Nagasaki was unforgivable.
And yet, what did the world learn from that? As exposed in the second of two rooms, nothing. Nuclear tests and military dick waving contests are more important than millions (or even billions) of civilian lives.

 

[Redd]

Head to head war doesn't involve targeting civilians on purpose. Japan was getting weaker and losing its allies at the time.

They were preparing for a land invasion. Scared/brainwashed their population into committing mass suicide instead of being captured. They were willing to fight until the end just to keep their conquered lands. Then even after both bombs dropped the leaders in japan were still split on surrender. It took the emperor's vote to break the split and even then they STILL tried to kill the emperor to keep the war going long enough to get better terms.