To be honest, the incendiary bombings of Tokyo were far more lethal to the Japanese spirit, but because of Imperial propaganda didn't have as much impact on the population at the time.
Also, not trying to justify 'muricans or anything, but these were designed to be specifically deployed on areas with low population density. It was more of a display of Western power to the Soviets than anything else.
This topic has been beaten to death. It's pointless to give answers because every war is a tragedy. Every violent death inflicted upon innocents is a disgrace.
>inb4 edgelords come in here and start whining
Everyone has bloodlust, everyone wants to feel like a big man by pushing the button or shooting a gun. But it's futile. We'll never find happiness except in the arms of our family and loved ones. Everything else is a waste of time and breath.
In the years leading up to the taking of the home islands themselves, there were two different institutional hierarchies fighting about how to deal with the homeland. The Army and the Navy.
The Navy thought that casualties were more important to morale than the length of the war. The Army thought the opposite.
The Navy plan amounted to starving the islands out, which would be easy to do, considering that Japan wasn't self sufficient in food, and the combination of American submarine commerce raiders (eat your heart out, U-boats) and air dropped mines, as part of the aptly named Operation Starvation had destroyed their merchant shipping. Millions would most certainly have died. The status quo before the bombings would have caused wholesale famine in a matter of months.
The Army plan was Operation Downfall, also aptly named. The casualty estimates for an invasion of the home islands were so high that the initial run of Purple Hearts that the Army ordered for the invasion was enough to cover every US war up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. These estimates, as it turns out, were too low, as the Japanese general staff had correctly predicted landing points and general strategy.
Both sides are incredibly lucky that neither of these plans came into effect, and a new bureaucracy, the USAAF (soon to become the Air Force) was able to put an end to the war before Japan was completely annihilated.
>>55790 >>55790 It's already been verified that the bombings were unnecessary. Japan had already been reaching out to Russia and Europe for negotiating options.
We wanted to show off our nuclear capability. And it could be argued that it was a good thing, as we now know what hell itself looks like. Nothing compares to the immeasurable suffering of nuclear fallout and radiation poisoning.
>>55790 your question is inherently biased OP. in a perfect world it would be a cut and dried choice between the two options, however at the time things weren't that simple.
in short it was both. the bombings were objectively horrible, and everyone involved had serious moral reservations, the people saying america did it to feel tough are edgelords who don't understand the meaning of difficult decisions. the Japanese were tenacious and simply refused to surrender, every time the Americans conquered an island the death toll (particularly civillian casualties) was skyrocketing. the plan for the invasion of the mainland had total casualties estimated in the 8 digits. the bombings were horrible, but put yourself in the same position and ask yourself what would you do? commit a warcrime and erase 2 cities from the map? or give the order that sends millions of people to their deaths?
>>58101 It boggles my mind that people can so harshly judge Japan for what it did in SE Asia, but the second anybody mentions the genocide of the native peoples of the Americas, everyone falls silent. Or the torture of enemy militants in the present.
But nah, fuck dem japs cuz they beheaded or soldiers wahhhh.
All because they didn't conform to some bullshit 'rules of war' enacted by countries halfway around the world.
There are no rules in war. Kill everyone and take everything. That is war. And the Japanese were damn fine at it.
What progress came from actually nuking the cities? The Alamogordo test (Trinity) had already occurred. We knew one type of bomb would work, and were so certain about the other that we dropped it untested.
But it wasn't just that Japan was reaching out. They were also already defeated. The USSBS claimed that air power had done this. The Navy claimed it was the blockade. After the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, even the Japanese militarists realized how fucked they were (as did Truman, who said "Japs fini when that happens" in his diary, referring to the invasion). Either way, their production was down to zero and Hirohito had already decided on surrender after the May 1945 firebombing of Tokyo. The question was just "what terms?" and the US refused to accept the terms wherein Hirohito was guaranteed the throne. Nonetheless, they ended up giving him those terms AFTER he unconditionally surrendered.
Also the "I am become death" quote from the Veda is probably not something Oppie said at the time of the tests.
Truman and Stimson would later claim that the invasion saved 500,000 American lives. A cursory examination of the actual military estimates as presented to Truman (including by MacArthur, who Truman said told him 500k) were a maximum of 40k dead and 250k total wounded/dead/mia if the full invasion of Kyushu and the Tokyo plains became necessary. As noted, Japan would have collapsed anyway, so it's a moot point. They'd already been firebombed though, which killed way more people than the two nukes. Out of the 62 largest Jap cities, 58 had already been bombed to shit. The last 4 were the target list the Interim Committee recommended to Groves. (Except for Kyoto, which Stimson struck off the list because of its religious value or maybe because that was where he honeymooned)
TL;DR 100% unnecessary, didn't even prevent the Soviets from invading Manchuria, didn't even prevent US from having to invade mainland
>>55790 See this is what I hate about /his/. You guy's spend all this time trying to validate whether some act was right or wrong due to some universal moral code. What you're truly arguing over is ethics. The United States was at war and killed civilians, like, a ton of them, expediting the end of the war. If you agree that killing civilians led to a positive outcome, don't be surprised when it happens to us! We made the rules when we dropped that bomb and because we dropped that bomb, we inherently advocated that degree of force.
So sick of this dipshit argument. Wartime is wartime.
>>58192 >But nah, fuck dem japs cuz they beheaded or soldiers wahhhh. But nah, fuck dem yankiez cuz they mass raped german women wahhhh.. >There are no rules in war. Kill everyone and take everything. That is war. And the Japanese were damn fine at it. So why do you judge germans then?
The subsequent nuclear arms race accelerated nuclear research, materials science, rocketry, space exploration and a lot of other fields. It would have been slowly if there wasn't an impetus like them already being used in wartime.
>>58215 >the US refused to accept the terms wherein Hirohito was guaranteed the throne. Nonetheless, they ended up giving him those terms AFTER he unconditionally surrendered. I don't know if the real-life events behind the surrender were anything like in the movie Emperor, but I don't think Hirohito would've lost the throne if he had surrendered unconditionally after just the firebombs. The militarists probably would've just had a stronger coup since their morale wouldn't be as squashed as it would be in the face of nukes.
I think the important point is whether nukes were first used at the right time in history against the right kind of target.
>>55790 in hindsight I wouldn't go back in time to stop the bombings the world needed to know these weren't just ordinary weapons these things lived up to the name weapon of mass destruction and not something they can just throw at a problem. basically we played with a small fire and got a small burn its better it happened with these nukes then the more powerful ones that were developed later on.
1. No one should ever try to make moral judgement on the acts of a country in wartime. The winner should not try to frame their win in some BS moral argument. It is simply "you lost, you die"
2. Justifying the murder of millions of people 'because they done bad' is bullshit. Those who've read the letters, articles, and diaries of those involved know exactly why we dropped the bombs. And it had absolutely nothing to do with US soldiers getting their heads lopped off.
3. Nothing Japan did during wwII was better or worse, morally speaking, than anything any of the other nations did, and yet they are the only ones' whose NATIONAL suffering is justified because of 'moral reasons.'
Germany tried to genocide an entire people, but we didn't agree with allowing Russia to just rape and pillage the fuck out of East Germany following the war.
Not true. Read "Stalin and the Bomb." Project ENORMOZ meant the Soviets were already well aware of the bomb. Basically as soon as Stalin learned about it, he started shitting bricks. After the Potsdam conference he ordered all available resources to go into bomb-building. That occurred prior to the dropping of either bomb, obviously.
Hirohito already decided upon surrender, and the firebombing had already killed more people than anything else. The casualty estimates for operation downfall are wrong, and the Japs had only predicted a few of the landing zones iirc. Allow me to quote. Source is Martin J. Sherwin, "A World Destroyed," page 337. Original source is Joint Secretaries, Memorandum for the President, "The Campaign Against Japan" 15 June 1945 (J.W.P.C. 369/1) >Southern Kyushu - Northwestern Kyushu - Tokyo Plain >Killed in Action 46,000 >Wounded in Action 170,000 >Missing in Action 4,000 >Total 220,000
The coup was bound to fail imo, it basically died out because General Anami told them he wouldn't join. I don't think he did that because of nukes, but because of honor.
They should have just nuked some island off the coast if they needed to prove something.
Also, consider that >1. Japanese media control meant a lot of people didn't know what happened, and this is why nobody in Nagasaki gave a fuck about the US pamphlets dropped before the bombing >2. Firebombings already killed more people and destroyed more shit and they knew they'd continue, US air force ran a few hundred sorties between August 6 and August 15 >A lot of the Jap military assumed there were no more bombs (correct) >The bombs came too close together to give the anti-coup or pro-coup elements time to even organize correctly
>>58403 "Want war? Okay, you can't use these kinds of weapons, or these kinds of tactics, or this or that. But subversively we'll both use them and the winner will try and play the moral high ground when we enact our reparations on the loser."
Every fucking war of the 20th century you fucking troglodyte.
After Hiroshima there was a sizable portion of the Japanese cabinet who argued that it was impossible a single bomb had done this, or that if it had then there was no way the US could produce another one. Surrender was not inevitable after Hiroshima; millions were prepared to die repelling an invasion. After Nagasaki they changed their attitude and realized that surrender was necessary, but were still not prepared to do so unconditionally.
After Nagasaki Japan's military chiefs wanted three conditions to surrender: no occupation, to disarm themselves, and to prosecute their own war criminals. They expressed no intention of submitting to an unconditional surrender. The Japanese Cabinet had only one condition: they wanted to know what would happen to the emperor. Even still they debated over surrender until Hirohito broke the deadlocked cabinet HIMSELF on Aug 14 and prepared a surrender statement. Korechika Anami was vehemently against surrender until Hirohito came out in favor of it, and ended up committing suicide after halting an attempted coup against the emperor by a group that wanted to continue fighting (the Kyūjō Incident).
>>55790 The Emperor's surrender speech >We have ordered Our Government to communicate to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that Our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration. >.... >Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization. The Big Man straight up said "The Bomb is why we surrendered"
Apart from the casualties of a land war in Japan, the nukes had a sobering effect on the USSR's plans for post-war colonization. It was a show of force that the whole world could understand, and once the war was over the tenuous alliance of the West and Russia would no longer hold sway. The 20th century was full of proxy wars between the US and Soviets/Russia, and even to this day we still have them. But Japan is still essentially a US protectorate and has reaped a tremendous boon while those under the Soviet umbrella still struggle to recover.
>>58665 Japs had inferior technology and got their shit slammed so hard anime became a reality. Now, 70 years later some hoser on the web draws a weak connection to the American genocide of natives to the dropping of the nukes.
But after reading your argument more thoroughly I think we ultimately agree.
>>58192 I don't understand this post. It is basically saying that there are no rules to war, but dropping a bomb is bad. If no rules to war then why worry about the Japs, or the Indians, or torture, all part of this no rules war you support for the Japs.
>>58830 They had the most advanced Navy the world had ever seen. Literally outshined anything the West had until later in the war, and only because the West could outproduce Japan faster than Japan could enslave the natives of indochina.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.