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

AnimeGirlConnoisseur

kiwifarms.net
This is one of the most ulitarian decisions ever made. Sacrifice the few to save the many.
But the ones we sacrificed were mainly women and children, and some died in extreme pain and agony. Was this a justifiable action by the US Goverment?
1. If Japan was invaded by the US then everybody would have been forced to fight them. Look at what happened in Saipan and Okinawa. They would have made stuff like the Volkstrum or Basij look like a joke. Women and children would not have been spared if America didn't drop the bombs.
2. Not dropping the bombs would have meant that the conventional bombing of Japan would have continued to kill indiscriminately. In our timeline many more Japanese peopled were killed by conventional bombs than from the two atomic bombs.
3. If Japan was invaded then many American servicemen would have died along with the Japanese. The Japanese were entrenched and willing to fight to the last man and the last bullet to defend their home. Once again, look at the Japanese defense of Saipan or Okinawa and extrapolate that to the entirety of Japan.
4. Nuclear doctrine did not exist in 1945 and nobody else had nukes at the time. The Americans were just throwing something at the wall to see if it would stick. Do you think that the doctrine around nuclear arms would have evolved in a similar way if the first time we used nukes was at a later point in history when the USSR also had nukes? I think that, if that happened, there would be a greater chance that nuclear weapons would be seen as just bigger bomb instead of how we see them today.
 

Mr. ShadowCreek

kiwifarms.net
Bert.jpg
 

Bassomatic

True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I'm not trying to be edgy but not only was it OK it was GOOD.

Now the firebombing based Curtis called killed way more, but it showed US did not give a FUCK we will nuke things, thank god after 2 they gave up because really, we were out.

We moved from ww2 to cold war, Russia was behind and saw we literally did not give a fuck using nukes. It scared em, and LeMays plans were if Warsaw Pact did traditional war we'd just vomit nukes.

Honestly, I legit think, while Japan suffered, it saved the world, build MAD. If not we'd have nuked ourselves out of a planet in the early 50s.
 

MrJokerRager

Breasts are always great lol and Trump 2024 MAGA
kiwifarms.net
It hardly mattered one way or the other. More people died in the Tokyo firebombing than the individual nukes in japan (not including people who died years later from long term side effects). It didn't matter if a city was destroyed in 1 night by a thousand bombs or 1 minute with a single bomb, the outcome was practically identical. It was the fear of the Soviet invasion which made them surrender (which happened to begin the same day as the first blast).

But it was still useful to set the stakes for the cold war. If a nuke wasn't tested on a major city, then it would be harder to imagine the damage done to people. Kinda like how WW2 leaders who served in WW1, would refuse to use poison gas bombs later on. Because the bombs were tested on Japan everyone knew what the stakes were.
There was a plan to clear the beaches of Japan with nukes and have US Marines land on the beaches.
 

MrJokerRager

Breasts are always great lol and Trump 2024 MAGA
kiwifarms.net
The whole Eastern Front seemed like a nuclear wasteland at the time.

If Hitler was more selective in his Jew hate, the Nazis would have gotten the bomb.

The concept of a single bomb destroying a whole city existed at the time.

Whoever got the bomb, would have used it inevitably.
 

potato in mah painus

X reddit faggitory
kiwifarms.net
The whole Eastern Front seemed like a nuclear wasteland at the time.

If Hitler was more selective in his Jew hate, the Nazis would have gotten the bomb.

The concept of a single bomb destroying a whole city existed at the time.

Whoever got the bomb, would have used it inevitably.
A lucky torpedo strike that took most of Germany's uranium with it is probably the only reason they didn't end up with them anyway. Its frightening how many butterfly effects could have swung the outcome one way or another.

On topic WWII was ugly for all sides involved, If you want to criticize nuking two cities you need to criticize the thousands of towns and cities that were equally leveled in the years prior. The nukings were literally a drop in the bucket compared to how many were killed in those bombing campaigns.
 

Pokemonquistador2

Electric Boogaloo
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.
Nothing would have stopped America from entering the war and shoving their boot far up Japan's ass. Those men who died at Pearl harbor were husbands, brothers and fathers. Japan may have been goaded into attacking the US, but they also believed that an overwhelming strike would crush the US for far longer than it wound up doing. Japan made the decision to sucker punch a country filled with the world's most hotheaded immigrants, and it paid dearly.

One could argue that the world is better off for the bombs being dropped. Seeing what the bombs did to a civillian population - seeing body horror inflicted on living beings that defies anything Junji Ito could conjure up - that was a big incentive for military men in the US and USSR to cool their heels and not throw nukes at each other willy nilly. Just like how the movies "Threads" and "The Day After" convinced Gorbachev that maybe both sides having a twitchy finger perpetually hovering above the Doom Button wasn't such a good idea after all, causing him to call for disarmament treaties.
 

Elwood P. Dowd

kiwifarms.net
MacArthur thought Japan could have been beaten in an invasion fairly quickly, and opposed the use of atomic weapons. Of course since he expected to lead the invasion and was addicted to huffing his own farts, who knows if he was right or wrong.

I think if the US high brass from Marshall on down had doubts about using atomic weapons, the clusterfuck that was Okinawa convinced them otherwise, that a different approach was needed. Yes, the US (inevitably) won, but at the cost of something like 20,000 US/70,000 Japanese casualties and turning the southern half of the island into a moonscape. To say nothing of random pictures of mothers throwing children off cliffs to avoid American capture, though I guess that was more common on islands like Saipan. Upscale that outcome to the entirety of Japan's five main islands and you get something pretty unpalatable politically.

I think MacArthur thought the Japanese would have been helpless once American armor was rolled out in force, with far more room to maneuver and generally fewer hills than an Okinawa. We'll never know.

FWIW, I remain skeptical to the extent a Soviet invasion of Japan would have been possible, at least on any kind of scale in a reasonable timeframe. There remained a massive Japanese Army presence in Manchuria everybody forgets about, that they'd have had to get through first. Plus a lack of seaborne transport to get the troops in. Soviet occupation of Manchuria and the Korean peninsula, OTOH? That I guess could have happened. Hell, to a certain extent it did, I think.
 

capitalBBustard

Who is this man?
kiwifarms.net
Morals are gay, the interesting question is "were the nukes necessary?". Conventional plebbit takes on display say yes, absolutely. Like most reddit tier history takes, they are parroting the loudes opinion no matter how retarded.

Japan was holding out for a conditional surrender via soviet mediation. (Yes, their plan was to surrender. Not "the divine power of the emperor will sharpen our blades against the ganjin when he invades".) Eg, no occupation, prosecuting their own war criminals(lol), retain the emperor etc. They had a non-aggression pact they signed years prior, which they thought gave them some pull with the USSR. Then the soviets invaded Manchuria and all their hopes died. Only unconditional surrender was left on the table, well nothing else was ever on the table, but nobody really told them that. At that point they would rather get occupied by the allies. Politically the nukes meant little, the soviet entry against Japan was what changed things.

The US bombed other cities even worse via conventional means, so the bombs were just a flashy way of destroying a couple of them. At that point they bombed like 60 cities. Strategically, the situation didn't change either. US had a scary new weapon they could use to do what they have been doing the entire summer and level cities. Big whoop.

Reality is a lot more boring than 'japan savage samurai country that gonna death war, need big boom to scurr stupid nip into submission'. That's a also the mantra to justify smoking those people for no tangible benefit. Or saving face, or deriding the USA, rr whatever, a bunch of this comes from post WW2 narratives.

Now, how in the fuck the US was supposed to know that Stalin was gonna go gamer on Manchuria the same time as they were dropping the first nuke? They couldn't. But they didn't have to drop the second one that soon. That might actually just be a pure war crime all things considered.
 

Traummaschine

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.
Part of the reason to drop the bombs was to test them. That is why it was important to drop them on untouched cities, and why they immediately sent in people to measure the destruction when possible.
 

Schlong song

kiwifarms.net
No it wasn't Moral.

The men who signed up to fight (those who's lives were being spared) signed up to fight. Those women and children didn't sign up to get turned to dust in a second, one August morning.

It's harsh to hear, but Millions were lost in the European campaigns of both world wars. We shed a tear for them, but we know as well as they do, that they signed up for it.

America wanted to scare the ruskies, declare themselves the best in the world and didn't want to enter a campaign that they would have probably lost.
 

HeyYou

YOU BETTER RUN!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
No it wasn't Moral.

The men who signed up to fight (those who's lives were being spared) signed up to fight. Those women and children didn't sign up to get turned to dust in a second, one August morning.

It's harsh to hear, but Millions were lost in the European campaigns of both world wars. We shed a tear for them, but we know as well as they do, that they signed up for it.

America wanted to scare the ruskies, declare themselves the best in the world and didn't want to enter a campaign that they would have probably lost.
lmao we would have won even if we had gone with Operation Downfall
 
Top