• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iran passes redline, has enough U235 for Bomb

I bolded this part. For emphasis. Who determines these "circumstances", the U.S.? Gimme a break.

The team that started the war, for one.

Japan started in a dishonorable fashion, continued dishonorably, and had no grounds for complaint when we honorably nuked their asses to end the war.

The fact is you are for killing civilians as long as it approves YOUR agenda, but then you say others are not allowed to have the same agenda.

Other NATIONS may have that as a legimate agenda. Other NATIONS can be eradicated in less than an hour.

You're confusing the criminal groups you approve of, like al qaeda, to a legitimate nation state. And no, criminal groups do not have the legal authority to commit mass murder.
 
Surrender was on the table; there was no need for either nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki or for any such invasion.

The japs had a deadline. The japs failed to meet the deadline. Tough **** for them. By any standard they had already lost the war. Their navy was sunk, their air force was reduced to suicide missions, their armies were hollow, their industries were non-existent. The enemy had total control of their skies, and were massing to invade their shores, and they were reduced to using women, old men, and children to repel the enemy.

They lacked the courage to surrender honorably when given the chance. We killed the fewest people by nuking them, and saved the lives of our own men in the process. It was the right thing to do.

The Potsdam Declaration was initially rejected on the grounds that it was unconditional, but this did not mean that the Japanese were not willing to discuss the terms of surrender; it meant that the allies (particularly the US) were not interested in pursuing that as an option.

They had their chance. They didn't take it. We were under no obligation to tell them about Fat Man and Little Boy.

In fact, Japan was in discussions with the USSR about possible conditions of surrender,

Russia hadn't kicked their asses all they way across the Pacific and Russia wasn't the nation they needed to talk to.

and Tōgō even openly expressed a willful desire to surrender by the emperor, but just that they could not accept surrender unconditionally. In the end, the only condition that they required in order to accept the Potsdam Declaration was retaining the emperor.

Yeah, funny how that came out after their emperor surrendered.

To us, not the Russians.

The main fault for the gap in intelligence is due to failures on the part of the NSA to pass information they had on to other groups (the CIA and FBI). This failure prevented them from being able to "connect the dots".

Ah, the Gorelick Memo, a little gem from the Clinton Gang that stopped the evil CIA from talking to the baby-barbequers in the FBI.

Your contempt for innocent civilians is pretty disgusting.

Your ignorance of the meaning of the word "innocent" is expected.

What's the alternative, guilty civillians?

In times of real war "guilt" and "innocence" aren't matters of military importance.
 
Are you against deliberate targeting of civilian services?

Because that's what we did against Milosevic. We bombed Serbia back to the stone age by destroying bridges, water, communications, electricity, power plants, transformers, many things a society views as necessary to living a civilized life.

Clinton did all that, so it's a-okay with those guys.
 
Hmmm, me thinks you don't understand( or purposely downplay) how divided the Japanese leaders were about surrender.

I think you're making an ASSumption.

A coup against the emperor was attempted to ensure surrender was not an option.

So what?

And remember it didn't take 1 bomb, it took two.

What did, surrender? As I've already stated, it could have been done with zero, if the Japanese were actually negotiated with. Their one singular demand wasn't really that outrageous.

I was under the impression that when you are winning you dictate your terms to the enemy, not the other way around. Perhaps you are confused on the goals of the US during WW2?

Does this in any way justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?

Of course not, no matter how much you want it to.

yes, yes. The leaders had talks about surrender. Whoop-de-****in-do. Talk is cheap.

Yeah, the mass murder of civilians, whoop-de-****in-do.:doh

The team that started the war, for one.

Japan started in a dishonorable fashion, continued dishonorably, and had no grounds for complaint when we honorably nuked their asses to end the war.

Yet another pitiful attempt to justify mass murder.

The japs had a deadline. The japs failed to meet the deadline. Tough **** for them. By any standard they had already lost the war. Their navy was sunk, their air force was reduced to suicide missions, their armies were hollow, their industries were non-existent. The enemy had total control of their skies, and were massing to invade their shores, and they were reduced to using women, old men, and children to repel the enemy.

They lacked the courage to surrender honorably when given the chance. We killed the fewest people by nuking them, and saved the lives of our own men in the process. It was the right thing to do.

This is probably the most hypocritical thing I've read on here.

"They were weak, and we offered surrender to them, but they rejected and in order to prevent millions of deaths due to invading such a weak enemy (????) we just nuked them instead."

That makes absolutely no sense. You've discredited yourself.

It's quite clear here that your interests lie not with any notion of freedom but rather with US economic and political interests. You would give yourself much more credibility by admitting that much.
 
Does this in any way justify the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?

1) It was war. Therefore it wasn't murder.

2) It was war. Therefore "innocence" and "guilt" have no bearing, since those states are determined in a court of law, not a battlefield.

3) It was war. You wouldn't be this upset if we'd not dropped the bomb and slaughtered three or four million japs on their beaches instead?

4) It was war. I just don't hear you complaining about the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 that killed 100,000 people. Why is that?

5) It was war. The lives of the enemy weren't our concern. If the enemy wanted to live, all they had to do was surrender. It's not complicated.


"They were weak, and we offered surrender to them, but they rejected and in order to prevent millions of deaths due to invading such a weak enemy (????) we just nuked them instead."

That makes absolutely no sense. You've discredited yourself.

It makes perfect sense.

Your hatred of the US makes it impossible for you to gain the wisdom to see that.

Not my problem.

It's quite clear here that your interests lie not with any notion of freedom but rather with US economic and political interests. You would give yourself much more credibility by admitting that much.


There's something wrong with wanting to see the greatest nation the world has ever seen recover the greatness the socialists have stolen from it these last twenty years?

Nope.

That have anything to do with the fact that the United States was not only perfectly justified in nuking Japan as many times as it took to force them to surrender, but that those nukes were the most honorable and most effective means of saving the lives of people on both sides of the conflict?

Nope. That's a fact you can't refute.

You can't even address the bombing of Tokyo. Come on, I want to see you say we shouldn't have bombed the capital city of Japan, that'll be funny.
 
Last edited:
1) It was war. Therefore it wasn't murder.

2) It was war. Therefore "innocence" and "guilt" have no bearing, since those states are determined in a court of law, not a battlefield.

3) It was war. You wouldn't be this upset if we'd not dropped the bomb and slaughtered three or four million japs on their beaches instead?

4) It was war. I just don't hear you complaining about the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 that killed 100,000 people. Why is that?

5) It was war. The lives of the enemy weren't our concern. If the enemy wanted to live, all they had to do was surrender. It's not complicated.



You should be a spokesperson for Al-Qaeda. You got it down well.
 
Last edited:
1) It was war. Therefore it wasn't murder.

2) It was war. Therefore "innocence" and "guilt" have no bearing, since those states are determined in a court of law, not a battlefield.

3) It was war. You wouldn't be this upset if we'd not dropped the bomb and slaughtered three or four million japs on their beaches instead?

4) It was war. I just don't hear you complaining about the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945 that killed 100,000 people. Why is that?

5) It was war. The lives of the enemy weren't our concern. If the enemy wanted to live, all they had to do was surrender. It's not complicated.

I wasn't referring to legalities. The fact is that you consider it acceptable to kill civilians in such an instance, to which I don't even need to respond. Your statement says pretty much everything about you that needs to be said.

And as for the firebombing of Tokyo, of course I haven't commented on it, as we were discussing the validity of dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was irrelevant to the discussion of those actions.

It makes perfect sense.

Your hatred of the US makes it impossible for you to gain the wisdom to see that.

It only "makes perfect sense" if you are implying that the Allies were absolutely terrible at war, as you have said that it would cost millions of casualties for them to defeat such an impotent enemy. It seems that you are the anti-American one here.:lol:
 
I wasn't referring to legalities. The fact is that you consider it acceptable to kill civilians in such an instance, to which I don't even need to respond. Your statement says pretty much everything about you that needs to be said.

And as for the firebombing of Tokyo, of course I haven't commented on it, as we were discussing the validity of dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was irrelevant to the discussion of those actions.



It only "makes perfect sense" if you are implying that the Allies were absolutely terrible at war, as you have said that it would cost millions of casualties for them to defeat such an impotent enemy. It seems that you are the anti-American one here.:lol:

What are you trying to say? That the use of atomic weapons by the US wasn't justified or that killing civilians in war to save your own is unacceptable? What is your point?

We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of US servicemen by dropping those bombs. I suppose, in your strategic brilliance, you would have sent our Marines into the jaws of an entrenched and suicidal enemy just to assuage your conscience? You can't even fathom the absolute hell the Japanese put our Marines through during the "Island-Hopping-Campaign", so my sympathy for them is in short supply. Dropping those bombs was the best move we ever made.
 
What are you trying to say? That the use of atomic weapons by the US wasn't justified or that killing civilians in war to save your own is unacceptable? What is your point?

I am arguing the former. The latter really isn't a valid question, as I do not distinguish between whether or not a civilian is "one of my own," which is a completely arbitrary distinction. Anyone that makes such a distinction is inherently anti-humanitarian.

We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of US servicemen by dropping those bombs.

How so? Clarify this.

I suppose, in your strategic brilliance, you would have sent our Marines into the jaws of an entrenched and suicidal enemy just to assuage your conscience?

First, my comments regarding AS's posts were pointing out his hypocrisy in asserting first that the Japanese were incredibly weak and impotent and second that it would have cost millions of lives.

Second, in case you haven't read any of my posts here (which is apparent by your supposition), I am stating that instead of nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians or "killing 15 million" in an invasion, that they could have just negotiated terms of surrender with the Japanese, whose conditions were not really that difficult.

Third, I am asserting that the allied powers and especially the US were not interested in achieving surrender from the Japanese prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.

You can't even fathom the absolute hell the Japanese put our Marines through during the "Island-Hopping-Campaign", so my sympathy for them is in short supply.

Really? Please explain what "hell" the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put "your" Marines through during the 'Island-Hopping-Campaign.'
 
Surrender was on the table; there was no need for either nuking Hiroshima/Nagasaki or for any such invasion.

Surrender was being discussed; however, Japan was unwilling to part with their emporer. This was their main reservation for accepting the terms of the treaty.

Then there was also the fact that the allies had to weigh the cost of taking Japan by military force. Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties (including allies, axis, and civilians).

Kyushi is the southermost island in the chain. There are many islands in this chain, which means the estimated casulaties on the side of the allies alone would be astronomical.

The allied commanders knew they didn't have the man power to take the islands one at a time. Another solution was required. Japan had to know that the allies were NOT going to be stopped. A show of force was required.

President Truman was left with little choice. It occurrs to me that the allies didn't want the Russians to seize control of Japan like they did in Germany after Berlin fell. The Russians were our allies but we, the allies, knew that Stalin was an unstable lunatic.

Whether it was the casulty estimates or a need to keep Russia from controlling Japan or possibly both will never be known. It will continue to be a topic of debate.

The atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings.

Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II.

These bombings were seen by the Truman Administration as the lesser of two evils.

Should the allies invade and watch as countless thousands die on both sides or should the allies, specifically the United States bomb two kep cities in Japan, and kill thousands?

In war there are no easy options and there is no such thing as "the right choice"; however, a decision was required and Truman undoubtedly opted for the choice that would cost the fewest lives.

In any event, to say that the attack was uneccesary is not factually correct. There was a war going on and there was more at stake than two cities.

The allies were not in the war to kill civilians. The United States wasn't even in the war until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. It was not the allies who ran concentration camps and conducted experiments on living beings. We were not using slave labor to build bombs and load shells.

Germany did all of those things.

Japan stuck to the scientific portion and used innocent civilians to conduct biological warfare experiments on; often infecting them with small pox, and various other diseases.

Japan was out of control and had to be stopped. The allies had to make certain that Japan was never capable of casuing trouble on a global scale ever again.

While I recognize the loss of civilian lives in World War II was horrible; I also realize that bad things happen in war. War is hell.

Japan was guilty of serious war crimes and had to be stopped. For further details on this read about Japanase atrocities in Manchuria.

Your contempt for innocent civilians is pretty disgusting.

Your contempt for the United States and her Allies is pretty disgusting.

Please try to control your bias.
 
I think the world at large would prefer that Iran not be allowed nuclear technology.

I'm in favour of any nation that wants to reduce its dependence on oil by using nuclear energy.
 
Surrender was being discussed; however, Japan was unwilling to part with their emporer. This was their main reservation for accepting the terms of the treaty.

Japan was nuked first and foremost to intimidate the Russians, and to give the U.S. more bargaining power in the reconstruction of Europe. This allowed the U.S. to include aspects in the Marshall plan which would repel Communism from the rest of Europe. It also allowed the U.S. to rise unquestionably to hegemony over the rest of the world.

The nuking of Japan had benefits though... such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Geneva Conventions. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered in Japan in an instant. Such an atrocity must be prevented in the future.
 
I'm in favour of any nation that wants to reduce its dependence on oil by using nuclear energy.

Iran doesn't want energy it wants weapons.

Iran is run by a group of terrorists and their supreme ****bag ... the Ayetoiletbowl.

Religious zealots who stone rape victims to death as a matter of due course are not wise enough to have nuclear technology.
 
Japan was nuked first and foremost to intimidate the Russians, and to give the U.S. more bargaining power in the reconstruction of Europe. This allowed the U.S. to include aspects in the Marshall plan which would repel Communism from the rest of Europe. It also allowed the U.S. to rise unquestionably to hegemony over the rest of the world.

This is pure speculation. Moreover, the U.S. never sought nor had Hegemony. This is bull**** anti-American rhetoric.

The nuking of Japan had benefits though... such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and the Geneva Conventions. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were murdered in Japan in an instant. Such an atrocity must be prevented in the future.

To start with, the US did not "Nuke" anybody. We dropped Atomic bombs on two cities in Japan. There is a HUGE difference between those weapons and a cold-war era nuclear weapon.

The Geneva convention was created in 1854 and it delt mostly with the treatment of wounded soldiers. It was later expanded to address many other issues.

Nobody was murdered.... stop with your bull**** rhetoric and go find a tree to hug. It was a war... a war that Japan started. The use of those weapons was the lesser of two evils. Moreover, both of those cities were considered valid military targets at that time.

I'm sure the use of those weapons was not something that Truman wanted to consider; however, what choice did he have? Would you have the balls to make this decision?

Looking at the decision; given the options Truman had available to him at the time; I believe I would have made the same call.

Should we cause 300,000 casualties or make a move that limits the loss of life to around 149,000 casualties?
 
Surrender was being discussed; however, Japan was unwilling to part with their emporer. This was their main reservation for accepting the terms of the treaty.

Then there was also the fact that the allies had to weigh the cost of taking Japan by military force. Brig. Gen. Guy Denit, estimated that a 120-day campaign to invade and occupy only the island of Kyushu would result in 395,000 casualties (including allies, axis, and civilians).

Kyushi is the southermost island in the chain. There are many islands in this chain, which means the estimated casulaties on the side of the allies alone would be astronomical.

The allied commanders knew they didn't have the man power to take the islands one at a time. Another solution was required. Japan had to know that the allies were NOT going to be stopped. A show of force was required.

President Truman was left with little choice. It occurrs to me that the allies didn't want the Russians to seize control of Japan like they did in Germany after Berlin fell. The Russians were our allies but we, the allies, knew that Stalin was an unstable lunatic.

Whether it was the casulty estimates or a need to keep Russia from controlling Japan or possibly both will never be known. It will continue to be a topic of debate.

The atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan killed as many as 140,000 people in Hiroshima and 80,000 in Nagasaki by the end of 1945, roughly half on the days of the bombings.

Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II.

These bombings were seen by the Truman Administration as the lesser of two evils.

United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War)
There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.


Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

PS - The people directly involved in this conflict (ie - General MacArthur or the Chief of Staff to the President) found the atomic bombings militarily unnecessary:
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials), and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion , and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children." Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

I suggest reading some of what General MacArthur wrote about the atomic bombings.

Also, the atomic bombing of Nagasaki was completely wrong. The destruction method the United States possessed only needed a few extra days to reach through the hierarchy of Japan. If Hiroshima served to show what was at stake to Japan (as Truman apologists always do), then the Nagasaki bombings only showed the inane lunacy of Truman.
 
I
First, my comments regarding AS's posts were pointing out his hypocrisy in asserting first that the Japanese were incredibly weak and impotent and second that it would have cost millions of lives.

Second, in case you haven't read any of my posts here (which is apparent by your supposition), I am stating that instead of nuking hundreds of thousands of civilians or "killing 15 million" in an invasion, that they could have just negotiated terms of surrender with the Japanese, whose conditions were not really that difficult.

Third, I am asserting that the allied powers and especially the US were not interested in achieving surrender from the Japanese prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs.

First, The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man. They had 1 million trained troops availabe on the mainland, and, like the Germans, they were getting childern, elderly, and women ready to fight. On Okinawa, women had jumped off cliffs with their childern to save them from dishonor. That was the Japanese mentality.

Secondly, most military commanders opposed the idea of surrendering after the atom bombs were dropped. The Supreme Council had been divided on whether to surrender, and that's why the decision went to the emperor. After his decision had become final and war hawks had failed to convince him otherwise, several high ranking officers were determined to get to him before he could the radio broadcast to the people telling them to surrender and instead have him announce that Japan would fight to the death. The Kyūjō Incident was an attempted Coup d'état taking place in Japan from August 12-15. The Coup d'état was unsuccessful because of a string of failed assassinations and the ultimately unsuccessful assault on the palace, when the Eastern District Army decided to subdue and told the rebels to surrender...

So much for your easy surrender...

http://warhistorian.org/grimsley-coup-what-if.pdf

Lastly, on july 26, the United States, Britain, and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay."

The Japanese had no intent on surrendering, they believed the United States was bluffing about possessing an atom bomb and if the US did have one, they surely did not have multiple. Actually, the US had 2 and if the Japanese had not surrendered after the dropping of both, an invasion would be imminent(It would have taken several months to develop another). Millions of Japanese and Allied troops would be killed, Japan would be a crater and would not be able to recover for at least a half century.
 
Last edited:
First, The Japanese were prepared to fight to the last man. They had 1 million trained troops availabe on the mainland, and, like the Germans, they were getting childern, elderly, and women ready to fight. On Okinawa, women had jumped off cliffs with their childern to save them from dishonor. That was the Japanese mentality.

Secondly, most military commanders opposed the idea of surrendering after the atom bombs were dropped. The Supreme Council had been divided on whether to surrender, and that's why the decision went to the emperor. After his decision had become final and war hawks had failed to convince him otherwise, several high ranking officers were determined to get to him before he could the radio broadcast to the people telling them to surrender and instead have him announce that Japan would fight to the death. The Kyūjō Incident was an attempted Coup d'état taking place in Japan from August 12-15. The Coup d'état was unsuccessful because of a string of failed assassinations and the ultimately unsuccessful assault on the palace, when the Eastern District Army decided to subdue and told the rebels to surrender...

What is your point? I never denied any of this. Your post was pointless.

Lastly, on july 26, the United States, Britain, and China released the Potsdam Declaration announcing the terms for Japan's surrender, with the warning, "We will not deviate from them. There are no alternatives. We shall brook no delay."

Again, I've already acknowledged this fact, so you are not saying anything new or substantial here.

The Japanese had no intent on surrendering

No, they had no intent on unconditionally surrendering; they were more than willing to surrender if one could be negotiated, which owing to their conditions would not have been hard at all.
 
What is your point? I never denied any of this. Your post was pointless.



Again, I've already acknowledged this fact, so you are not saying anything new or substantial here.



No, they had no intent on unconditionally surrendering; they were more than willing to surrender if one could be negotiated, which owing to their conditions would not have been hard at all.

What the hell was the point of this post? You just argued that Japan would have surrendered if given the oppurtunity, which they were and they did not surrender. Now your arguing they didn't want unconditional surrender, show me one gesture they made to try and negotiate... You also claimed an invasion would not have been costly, utter nonsense. It's all the same with commies, history is whatever fits your view of it. It doesn't matter what really happened, everything is distorted so it's aligned with your ideaology. F***ing reds....
 
United States Strategic Bombing Survey: Summary Report (Pacific War)


PS - The people directly involved in this conflict (ie - General MacArthur or the Chief of Staff to the President) found the atomic bombings militarily unnecessary:


I suggest reading some of what General MacArthur wrote about the atomic bombings.

Also, the atomic bombing of Nagasaki was completely wrong. The destruction method the United States possessed only needed a few extra days to reach through the hierarchy of Japan. If Hiroshima served to show what was at stake to Japan (as Truman apologists always do), then the Nagasaki bombings only showed the inane lunacy of Truman.


Too bad that McArthur wanted to nuke China during the Korean war. So much for McArthur finding the atom bomb unnecessary or too inhumane to use in war. The Japanese had ample time, after Hiroshima commanders that had doubted the United States could possess an atomb bomb now said there was no possibility we had a second. After Nagusaki, these people were completely discredited. Your idea is that the US should've been unbelievably cautious and should've expected the Japanese to be willing to surrender or even willing to bend their policy... Imperial Japan was unmerciful and arrogant, they massacred hundreds of thousands in China and commited similar attrocities in the pacific islands, specifically the philipinnes. If they ever were in possession of an atom bomb, they would not hesistate for half a second to drop it on a US industrial city. They were fighting before we entered, they attacked US... they made the nature of the Pacific Theatre the way it was, we didn't.

So just because your enemy is ruthless and animalistic, does that justify you to be the same way? No, but your not going to risk victory and potentially hundreds of thousands of your own men just so the Japanese could have a couple more days to think it over. The entire argument assumes Imperial Japan was not a militaristic and ritualistic society, when it was exactly the opposite. Japanese officers sent their men on bonzai charges right into machine fire, they themselves carried samurai swords and in the event of defeat or imminent defeat, they commited suicide. Again, Japanese women in Okinawa jumped off cliffs with their children as to save their honor... what makes you think Japan would suddenly reverse course and want to negotiate out of the blue? No, they had to pummeled before they would negotiate, and Truman played it as he knew he had to, as the conditions existed, not as he would ideally hope reality to be.

“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."
-William T. Sherman
 
Back
Top Bottom