Was the nuclear destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima morally correct? -

  • We are being DDoS attacked still and 12,000 people are reading about incest. Expect weird errors. Most should go away by refreshing. Emails (registration / password reset) appear to be working; be sure to check spam.

    THE MERGE IS ON.

Thomas Highway

My job is to keep you men alive, now let's move on
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It wasn't morally correct, but it was tactically correct at the time.
 

Johan Schmidt

kiwifarms.net
America playing big daddy, tossing their hat in the ring to start with and attempting to starve out Japan for starting shit half a world away was immoral. Dropping two cans of instant sunshine on the Japanese is just another spoon of immorality.
 

DumbDude42

kiwifarms.net
Japan was no longer a threat to anyone by that point.
pretty much, yeah
their navy and air force were done for, their economy was in shambles, and their land armies in china/manchukuo were mass surrendering to the invading soviets

anyway, the nuclear bombings werent any more or less 'morally correct' than the large scale bombardment of enemy cities that had been going on for years before already, on both sides of the war. when war is waged, people die, that's just the nature of it. no point in singling out any one country or event in particular for it.

the more interesting question is whether the US was morally justified in diplomatically and politically antagonizing japan all those years before, which led to pearl harbor in the first place. american leadership really disliked the idea of japan gaining control over china, but i don't know what their reasoning or rationale behind that position was.
 
Last edited:

The Real Me

Me likes to observe freaks.
kiwifarms.net
I’m no historian but the US greatly underestimated the size and strength of an atomic blast; they didn’t intend or anticipate the sheer level of destruction that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would face.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that they decided to drop a never before used (in actual conflict) weapon on two cities filled with civilians.

They probably should’ve just performed standard air-raids, akin to the Germans.
 

Cabelaz

Hang ‘Em High.
kiwifarms.net
I don't even think that's the right question to ask. There's nothing moral about nukes. What you should be asking is, was it cool?

Yes, it was very cool. Besides, we wouldn't have anime without it happening.
I guess I should have rephrased it as a lesser of two evils question.
I've recently been reading the memoirs of Okinawan veterans and the accounts of Japanese brutality and ruthlessness shocked me. The slaughter of all civilians once a position became untenable, Japanese soliders hiding in bunkers for weeks without any water just so they could kill one unlucky American who thought they were in a secure area, the suicide charges, etc.
After realizing the immense loss of life that was inevitable with an invasion of the home islands, the difficult choice to drop the nuclear weapons to save both Japanese and American lives interested me. This type of situation had never been made and hasn't been made since.
 

Forgetful Gynn

They also serve who only stand and wait
kiwifarms.net
pretty much, yeah
their navy and air force were done for, their economy was in shambles, and their land armies in china/manchukuo were mass surrendering to the invading soviets

anyway, the nuclear bombings werent any more or less 'morally correct' than the large scale bombardment of enemy cities that had been going on for years before already, on both sides of the war. when war is waged, people die, that's just the nature of it. no point in singling out any one country or event in particular for it.

the more interesting question is whether the US was morally justified in diplomatically and politically antagonizing japan all those years before, which led to pearl harbor in the first place. american leadership really disliked the idea of japan gaining control over china, but i don't know what their reasoning or rationale behind that position was.
The allies had a much larger civilian kill count by far. They firebombed and atomic bombed civilians like it was going out of style.
 

HeyYou

YOU BETTER RUN!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The allies had a much larger civilian kill count by far. They firebombed and atomic bombed civilians like it was going out of style.
lol no they didn't. Fucking hell. If we're comparing just the US and Japan, the US killed around 250,000 civilians if you combine the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombs. Japan killed at least 3.7 million civilians in China alone. And what we did to Germany with Dresden and such fucking pales compared to what they did in Poland.
 

Forgetful Gynn

They also serve who only stand and wait
kiwifarms.net
lol no they didn't. Fucking hell. If we're comparing just the US and Japan, the US killed around 250,000 civilians if you combine the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombs. Japan killed at least 3.7 million civilians in China alone.
Then you've conveniently forgot Dresden, where another 200K+ civilians were killed. Chinamen don't count, they'll eat each other at the drop of a hat.
 

HeyYou

YOU BETTER RUN!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Dresden was at least 200K. Germany didn't declare war on Britain, they asked for it.
Nobody seriously considers Dresden's death toll to be 200K. You're going off of 40s German propaganda. The only modern scholar who suggested that number is Irving, and even he eventually said it's probably closer to 20-30K. Moving the goalposts from "Allies killed more civilians" to "Britain asked for it" is pretty funny, though.
 

Forgetful Gynn

They also serve who only stand and wait
kiwifarms.net
Nobody seriously considers Dresden's death toll to be 200K. You're going off of 40s German propaganda. The only modern scholars who suggested that number is Irving, and even he eventually said it's probably closer to 20-30K.
So my choices are to go off loser propaganda or victor propaganda, and victor propaganda is always more trustworthy? Lol, nah.
 

draggs

Kyle Avgvstvs, Antifvs Maximvs. AVE KYLE
kiwifarms.net
Of course it was, total war is total war. Japan waged total war, Germany and its handful of puppets waged total war, the Allies waged total war. Loser bitches be mad that the Allies were better at it than the Axis in the end. Even then the civilian casualties are like 20% Axis/80% Allies.

Japan was on the brink of mass starvation and a breakdown in public order, an invasion that would have added a ton of chaos even if Japan gave in almost instantly = nuking them saved at least several millions of lives.
 

Forgetful Gynn

They also serve who only stand and wait
kiwifarms.net
Of course it was, total war is total war. Japan waged total war, Germany and its handful of puppets waged total war, the Allies waged total war. Loser bitches be mad that the Allies were better at it than the Axis in the end. Even then the civilian casualties are like 20% Axis/80% Allies.

Japan was on the brink of mass starvation and a breakdown in public order, an invasion that would have added a ton of chaos even if Japan gave in almost instantly = nuking them saved at least several millions of lives.
The allies weren't better at war so much as they were better at having more resources.
 

The best and greatest

Staring into your soul
kiwifarms.net
Of course it was, total war is total war. Japan waged total war, Germany and its handful of puppets waged total war, the Allies waged total war. Loser bitches be mad that the Allies were better at it than the Axis in the end. Even then the civilian casualties are like 20% Axis/80% Allies.

Japan was on the brink of mass starvation and a breakdown in public order, an invasion that would have added a ton of chaos even if Japan gave in almost instantly = nuking them saved at least several millions of lives.
I dont disagree with you. Strategically it is wise to do what will win right now rather than expend the men and resources to fight the Japanese at thier worst on the mainland and maybe not even win conclusively for several years if ever. With that said it was still a total bitch move to just delete two cities and win by default rather than play it out to the end. No honor. Just lame gay science victory.
 
Top