Was the atomic bombing of Japan justified?

[Bobbyk]

Yes it totally ended the WW2, but was it worth it? Yes it cost a lot of lives of innocent people. Japan wouldn't have given up without it. What do you think?

[The nameless Gamer]

Originally posted by Apollo702:

And then there are those who's minds are made of teflon.

If you want something to stick to a wall, you have to throw it first. And nobody here tried to justify a horrific crime against humanity in THEIR OWN WORDS but rather deflected me to external sources. I am curious about the opinions and takes of the PARTICIPANTS of this particular discussion first and foremost.

[Riddley Walker]

Originally posted by Apollo702:

Originally posted by Riddley Walker:

He didn't fake having WMD's, he had them for decades and used them multiple times against his own people, and against Iranian soldiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program#List_of_known_Iraqi_CW_uses

That is mostly true.

He did have chemical weapons in the 1980s and used them on Iran from 1983 to 1988 and for the last time on the Kurds in 1991.

However, as the Wikipedia article correctly states: by the 1990's he no longer could produce them.

Now, go reread my upper post. It said that he faked them for decades and do the math. The first Gulf war was in 1991 and the second was in 2003.

The first war expelled Iraq from Kuwait. The second was a full invasion of Iraq- in which no WMDs were ever found. They were no longer there.

Iraq didn't fully comply with UN inspections for most of the decade between the wars. It was widely believed they still had stockpiles of chemical weapons hidden in various locations. Bush didn't invent it, he was told as such by his intelligence. The war was a mistake but there is no evidence to suggest the Bush admin invented the WMD issue.

[Spencer]

No, Japan was goaded into the war by people who wanted it for nefarious reasons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p8z1A3TsxU

The dog didn't bite for no reason, the US as usual kicks a dog until it gets pretext for invasion.

The modern mythology around that war is all lies.

The bombs were dropped to scare the Russians, and because the US was too cowardly to fight the war on land.

These people are dangerous clowns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhaHsoajfqA

[The nameless Gamer]

Originally posted by Spencer:

No, Japan was goaded into the war by people who wanted it for nefarious reasons.

The dog didn't bite for no reason, the US as usual kicks a dog until it gets pretext for invasion.

The modern mythology around that war is all lies.

The bombs were dropped to scare the Russians, and because the US was too cowardly to fight the war on land.

These people are dangerous clowns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhaHsoajfqA

Of course they are. And many posters here seem to think that manslaughter with nuclear weapons is a funny thing. Says quite a lot about them.

[Spencer]

Originally posted by Riddley Walker:

Originally posted by Apollo702:

That is mostly true.

He did have chemical weapons in the 1980s and used them on Iran from 1983 to 1988 and for the last time on the Kurds in 1991.

However, as the Wikipedia article correctly states: by the 1990's he no longer could produce them.

Now, go reread my upper post. It said that he faked them for decades and do the math. The first Gulf war was in 1991 and the second was in 2003.

The first war expelled Iraq from Kuwait. The second was a full invasion of Iraq- in which no WMDs were ever found. They were no longer there.

Iraq didn't fully comply with UN inspections for most of the decade between the wars. It was widely believed they still had stockpiles of chemical weapons hidden in various locations. Bush didn't invent it, he was told as such by his intelligence. The war was a mistake but there is no evidence to suggest the Bush admin invented the WMD issue.

Ah yes the "experts" with zero credibility, they were all lying, and have been ever since, the false flag chemical attacks in Syria to justify US bombing and occupation, same claims in Libya, and even recently "17 intelligence agencies agree", just bogus lies leaving humanitarian disaster in their wake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfGRWe-Oi9M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yK2kc0eOGS4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oud5q95GSII
https://youtu.be/MWeCsRyQWso

[Birds]

Nagasaki bomb landed on the seat of the antiwar movement, who happened to have been the organizing force behind the 1917 grain buyout which caused the UK to crash the global grain market.

Once that effort failed the fascists staged a coup and sought military power.

It's impossible to frame either bombing as necessary and justified without also framing The Blitz as necessary and justified.

[Pocahawtness]

There are more ridiculous conspiracy theories in this thread than in the thread that's specifically about conspiracy theories.

[sleeps]

well, it ended so it doesn't matter

[☎need4naiim☎]

Yes, dropping two A-bombs on Japan was indeed a War Crime that can not be excused.

But,

PRC's current policy and implementations over Xinjiang (ancient home of Uyghurs who have been Muslims for more than a thousand years) is even worse than those two A-bombs dropped in Japan. More than 3 million people (mostly Muslim from Turkic descent) are kept inside those concrete walled camps since 2016 mark. CCP even dismissed those camps' existence until USA showed their place via satellite images. Not only that, but numerous mosques, uyghur cemeteries and ancient stony houses got demolished by same authority there. All are proven by comparing old and new satellite imagery. An ancient civilization is being erased from Earth scene before our eyes.

As i wrote above, crime is a crime regardless of bringing via A-bomb or slow eradication of a minority from a different race, demolishing centuries of buildings and cemeteries, eradicating their culture in the process.

[Birds]

The reasoning behind the V3 rockets was that a land invasion of an island nation like the UK would be extremely costly in terms of manpower and would inevitably lead to a certain number of civilian casualties and a certain amount of infrastructure damage, to the point that bombing it to the ground was a necessary pre-step in the case of a land invasion and potentially a route to coerce a surrender without one.

England encouraged this line of thinking, and encouraged development of the V3 in general believing it to be a waste of resources which would not achieve the desired strategic goal even if implemented. At this point the UK was operating under the assumption that bombing civliian targets only worsened resistance and created more dedicated fighters, something they had observed during colonial pacification wars and which was only reinforced by peoples reaction to The Blitz as it happened. As well as a variety of other civilian targeting campaigns during Germany's sweep through central europe.



The irony of the destruction of the Nagasaki headquarters is that it set the stage for the fascist powers to go to ground and to fill in the industrial and supply gaps left by the destruction, as many if not most of Japan's most influential and connected businessmen and industrialists had been centered into that group. Indeed, they were instrumental in ensuring that Japan's limited civilian supplies found their way to the most-needy of the domestic population and had been the sole force preventing systemic starvation to that point.

Owing to their belief in lean industry when those individuals died their companies and associations died with them. Their skills and abilities were what those companies were built on and operated around, and without them they'd fold. They simply lacked other resources, hadn't invested in unnecessary redundancies, and ultimately were the product of one-man companies acting in concert to foster cooperative distributed businesses.

The reconstruction era saw what was left of these businesses conglomerated into zaibatsu and a return to feudalistic economics.


Meanwhile the Hiroshima bomb completely whiffed any and all nazis, merely destroying hapless civilians.

Frankly both bombs contributed to the rise of fascist ideology in Japan, particularly given how the Tokyo trials managed to scapegoat predominantly useless figureheads.

[tomk1]

Originally posted by Ronny:

Yes it totally ended the WW2, but was it worth it? Yes it cost a lot of lives of innocent people. Japan wouldn't have given up without it. What do you think?

Why not listen from someone who was there, in the documentary "A DOCTOR'S SWORD" (amazon prime video and PBS) an Irish doctor prisoner of war while digging his grave, in Nagasaki, the bomb dropped, after he helped in treating the injured. After the prisoners were bathed and feed rather than shot, latter with the Japanese agreement to surrender, the Japanese work camp guards lay down weapons and official gave control of camp to the prisoners.

After the first bomb the Japanese command believed the Americans wouldn't of had enough material for a second bomb, as the Japanese were working on their own Nuclear bomb project albeit small after getting material and research papers delivered by German U-boat. With the second bomb in rapid deployment meant they knew they were beat, a third bomb was already in preparation to be dropped.

3/4 of Japan was fire bombed for years, some areas not as much, some say it was to see the effect of the bomb on not previous bombed areas, which would suggest that Japan was always the prime target, mainly in retaliation for Perl harbor in (American occupied Hawaii) "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve"

Most (all) of the damage done to Japan were due to the fire bomb raids, most all of the deaths in Japan were due to the fire bomb raids. Though normally leaflets would be dropped for the standard Napalm bomb runs, non for the lone bomber and spotter plane.

Did the second bomb stop the war in its tracks?
Did the dropping of the bomb save Dr. Aidan MacCarthy life and thousands of other POWs?
Did the dropping of the bomb save countless lives?

[Birds]

Originally posted by tomk1:

After the first bomb the Japanese command believed the Americans wouldn't of had enough material for a second bomb, as the Japanese were working on their own Nuclear bomb project albeit small after getting material and research papers delivered by German U-boat. With the second bomb in rapid deployment meant they knew they were beat, a third bomb was already in preparation to be dropped.

They surrendered 3 days before the second bomb was dropped.

Did the second bomb stop the war in its tracks?
Did the dropping of the bomb save Dr. Aidan MacCarthy life and thousands of other POWs?
Did the dropping of the bomb save countless lives?

No, the dissolution and capture of the Imperial Navy did.

Doubtful, and the Nagasaki camp was saved by the bomb landing dozens of miles away in a secluded nowhere, given that the Nagasaki headqaurters was built in an area which was uncharacteristically clear from weather patterns and away from the population center.
Hiroshima also had POW camps, and many POWs living and working in the city. The disunified nature of the fascist oligarchy meant that individual commanders were free to handle POWs as they wished, and it was awfully rare for them to be mistreated. In the Nagasaki case the most-extreme faction had taken command away from the provincial heads owing to their opposition to the war, and were purposefully mistreating POWs in order to blame them for it after the fact. This is the only recorded case in mainland Japan, although it was quite common in China and Korea owing to those being the primary operating theaters of the fascist element.

Yes, and it destroyed the country anyway.

[Q-T_3.14.exe]

Wasn't the nuclear bombing of Japan just the USA showing it's dong to the USSR?
News flash: The Soviets didn't ♥♥♥♥ their pants.
Americans... They got weird ways to flex.

[Xero_Daxter]

It was tragic. War is hell. Should it been dropped tho? Me personally I cannot say but if I had to choose I would take the “utilitarianism ethical perspective” and say the moral choice is that which generate the “greatest good for the greatest number”. It is said that more lives would of been lost if they didn’t and was forced to do a land invasion.

[steven1mac]

Yes, it shortened the war by at least 6 months if not a couple years, and potentially saved millions of lives from. Russia was making quick progress against the Japanese, and the politicians of that Era knew Russia would be the next major potential conflict and wanted to prevent them having access to more territory.