eys mgsb

There was a surrender offer, but the US wanted inconditionnal surrender, a thing Japan didn't wanted as it was a threat to the imperial institution and Japan's integrity. And I don't think that they wanted to test the A-bomb in Japan, they knew it worked, was more of a sign of strengh to the world that America was the big boss there. But as a matter of efficiency, it was a waste of money. Conventional bombings did more damage with a bigger kill rate without the need of a billionaire research program and more to manufacture the first bombs.

THAT`S pretty MUCH of WHAT I SAID, yo´thief....referring to Team Guns.

Hmmmm, I'm pretty sure I didn't intended to steal "your idea". As a matter of fact I barely read every person's post, I ignore a lot and I read very fast. I guess you should be proud to have reached the same conclusions I did ;)

Why sacrifice any American lives when you can finish them off with 2 destructive bombs?

The bombings were justified. It secured unconditional victory, showed the world the power of the bomb, and saved American lives.

Only a idiot would think to judge tough decisions from hindsight.

Why sacrifice any American lives when you can finish them off with 2 destructive bombs?

You wouldn't have had to, just blockade them and wait for the talks to finish, and occupy.

It secured unconditional victory

Which was useless because the one Japanese demand was for the emperor to retain his titles, which the Americans were ok with anyway.

showed the world the power of the bomb

Showing your hand needlessly is dumb. Even from your immoral stance I could think of a few ways that using the bomb in a different way would have produced better results for America, especially with a non-Nuclear Soviet Union.

Only a idiot would think to judge tough decisions from hindsight.

It wasn't a tough decision if pretty much all the generals were telling you not to do it and that it was awful and unneeded. It's just you deciding to do it to show off. And if you're trolling fine then, but you don't judge decisions from hindsight? We should invade Iraq, Canada, Iran and Saudi Arabia then, there's nothing to tell us it would go badly.

I bet you wish for a nuclear weapons clear world too MGSB...

You shouldn't judge decisions after the results are made. You need to go back to the mindset of the decision being made before the results was shown.

I recall that the military advised JFK to nuke the soviets during the missile crisis. Sometimes you need to disobey the advice of counsel.

The enemy deserved no shots of negotiating after Pearl Harbor. You get what you get or you are bombed.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/pacific-operation-downfall/

Edited 7/23/2016 00:36:07

You shouldn't judge decisions after the results are made. You need to go back to the mindset of the decision being made before the results was shown.

"In 1945 ... , Secretary of War Stimson visited my headquarters in Germany, [and] informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act.... During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and second because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face.' The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reasons I gave for my quick conclusions."

My opinion stands even without the results.

The enemy deserved no shots of negotiating after Pearl Harbor. You get what you get or you are bombed.

Go to hell. What the fuck did tens of thousands of civilians do for that? Oh, they're within a certain geographic area, they deserve to die because you can't accept one term, or you can't wait a few fucking months for some prick miles away to sign some papers to stop your conflict.

Let's say that after Midway, the Japanese wanted to sign a treaty, but had the terms of retreating just from American and European territory gotten. Using your logic, tens of thousands of folk on both sides should fight and die, because they "deserve no shots of negotiation".

They supported a government that caused the deaths of millions, it's as much as a war crime as the soldier who did the actual killing.

You support a government that has caused millions of deaths. Don't you deserve to die then?

Also, what did all those children deserve for it?


Note, this means me and X are the most morally virtuous by far, and therefore we should decide what happens in regards to laws and actions, as we are the most righteous. Also, we should run local courts.

Edited 7/23/2016 03:10:14

I recall that the military advised JFK to nuke the soviets during the missile crisis. Sometimes you need to disobey the advice of counsel.

Yes, sometimes, not all the time, especially when the facts line up with them, as I have shown.

At least four different opinions emerged about potential casualties. These estimates for U.S. losses on Kyushu ranged from as low as 31,000 for just the first thirty days, to a total of about 280,000

US casualties are unacceptable. Drop 2 bombs on the country and you get what you want.

Blockade assumes there would be no negatives associated with the blockade.

Gideon Rose, the editor of the journal Foreign Affairs, estimated that during every month of 1945 in which the war continued, Japanese forces were causing the deaths of between 100,000 and 250,000 noncombatants.

The question also assumes the Japanese no longer had the ability to harm others. Japan had a very active and successful bacteriological warfare program - they had killed an estimated 300,000 civilians in China - and were planning on using their balloon delivery systems to send disease (plague, anthrax, etc.) to the US. See wikipedia: Unit 731: Germ Warfare Attacks

That's the cost of continuing your hypothetical blockade. It was much more effective to get it done with by dropping the bombs. Plus you are also starving the Japanese out.

Given that people would continue to die if we just waited around it was wise of Truman to drop the bomb. A quick finish to a tiresome war.

There's also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

Continuing the war meant them using the submarines to attack the mainland.

The Japanese were not our friends during that time. Fuck waiting a few months. They sure as hell didn't wait to strike Pearl Harbor. Accept the terms or get bombed. America and Truman who ran it had the duty to save American lives. America looks at America's interests. Not to care about Japanese lives but care about American lives. Japanese lives didn't matter at that time. And, that was a good thing.

Go to hell. What the fuck did tens of thousands of civilians do for that? Oh, they're within a certain geographic area, they deserve to die because you can't accept one term, or you can't wait a few fucking months for some prick miles away to sign some papers to stop your conflict.

It's called collateral damage. You even had suicidal citizens who killed themselves and their children because they were ordered to by the Japanese government.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/13/national/majority-see-no-need-for-obama-to-apologize-for-atomic-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-japan-times-poll/

80% of Japan sees America favorably. They hold no resentment over us and has forgiven us.

Edited 7/23/2016 07:22:47

US casualties are unacceptable.

If you actually believed this, you'd be an anti-interventionist like me and not a fucking retarded warmonger who advocates keeping up war because you can't accept one term.

That's the cost of continuing your hypothetical blockade. It was much more effective to get it done with by dropping the bombs.

The blockade would continue for about a week until the Japanese surrender (as all evidence points to.)

The question also assumes the Japanese no longer had the ability to harm others. Japan had a very active and successful bacteriological warfare program - they had killed an estimated 300,000 civilians in China - and were planning on using their balloon delivery systems to send disease

This assumes that the Japanese could get several submarines past the blockade and all away across the Pacific Ocean and that the operation would be able to take place and finish before the peace is done. And this is also implausible because the IJN didn't even want to go through with US casualties are unacceptable.

If you actually believed this, you'd be an anti-interventionist like me and not a fucking retarded warmonger who advocates keeping up war because you can't accept one term.

That's the cost of continuing your hypothetical blockade. It was much more effective to get it done with by dropping the bombs.

The blockade would continue for about a week until the Japanese surrender (as all evidence points to.)

The question also assumes the Japanese no longer had the ability to harm others. Japan had a very active and successful bacteriological warfare program - they had killed an estimated 300,000 civilians in China - and were planning on using their balloon delivery systems to send disease

This assumes that the Japanese could get several submarines past the blockade and all away across the Pacific Ocean and would begin before peace was signed. This also assumes that the IJN would let this plan go forward, which it wasn't showing any signs of actually committing to.

The a-bomb saved American lives. If they tried to go across the blockade there would have been a naval battle of some sort. You also risk the ships slipping out as well.

You risk a attack on the mainland. The bio warfare program of theirs could have been used anywhere and killed more people. Screw all of that.

How would you know talks would only last a week? It could have lasted weeks and months. More people dying.

Their retarded Bushido concept led them to attack people after they surrendered. This happened a bunch of times during the war when they pretended to surrender. This is something they could have done.

And, who the fuck said I'm not anti-interventionist?

Edited 7/23/2016 07:31:22

It's called collateral damage. You even had suicidal citizens who killed themselves and their children because they were ordered to by the Japanese government.

Hiroshima was a civilian city, and the bomb was targeted at the center, away from the factories at the periphery of the city. That's not collateral damage, you fucking Neo nazi bastard, that was what Truman intended.

And the Okinawans killed themselves in droves because the US soldiers were raping and pillaging across Okinawa. The Japanese told them that the US were just as bad, and guess what, they were right.

80% of Japan sees America favorably. They hold no resentment over us and has forgiven us.

Guess what, this is irrelevant.

Sometime there will be civilian casualties in war. It's called war. That's what happens in war.

It's relevant because even the Japanese don't blame us for dropping the bomb.

Edited 7/23/2016 07:34:23

The a-bomb saved American lives. If they tried to go across the blockade there would have been a naval battle of some sort. You also risk the ships slipping out as well.

The A-Bomb didn't save jack. Frankly, most folk involved agreed upon this. If they tried to go across, they'd be destroyed pretty quickly, what's a few submarines to more than half of the American navy?

You risk a attack on the mainland. The bio warfare program of theirs could have been used anywhere and killed more people. Screw all of that.

You take a few southern islands with minimal casualties, and the Japanese government is brought to the negotiating table without two destroyed cities.

How would you know talks would only last a week? It could have lasted weeks and months. More people dying.

How would you know they would last longer when all evidence points to Japan being completely exhausted and surrender inevitable?

You know what? You're probably right here. We probably could have taken different actions. Perhaps, there was a better way of doing things.

I ran out of arguments and slowly realized that perhaps there was a better way of doing things. Thanks for changing my perspective on this issue. Unless, someone else can provide a better argument on why the drops were a optimal way of ending the war.

Edited 7/23/2016 07:39:41

Sometime there will be civilian casualties in war. It's called war. That's what happens in war.

There's collateral damage, and then there's civilians being the main target of the attack. Civilians were the main target.


It's relevant because even the Japanese don't blame us for dropping the bomb.

99.9% of these folk weren't alive back then. They weren't victims of this. Their parents and grandparents might have been, but they were not.

I really have no idea what to say.

Well, I'm proud of myself. Bye, and good day.