Current Events > The war was all but won when America dropped the a-bomb

(+) Yeah! (+)

Was it really necessary

Was this topic?
---

DarkRoast posted...

Was this topic?

Necessary for discussion. Why else would I make it

It was not "all but won." It was anything but. See US invasion of Okinawa. Today's PC crowd has no idea the extent the entirety of Japan was willing to go. While this younger generation may find the A bomb unnecessary it saved millions of lives.

A large scale invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for both sides.
---

I don't know about the necessity of dropping the a-bomb but the war with Japan was hardly "all but won"
---

BigDD67 posted...

It was not "all but won." It was anything but. See US invasion of Okinawa. Today's PC crowd has no idea the extent the entirety of Japan was willing to go. While this generation may find the A bomb unnecessary it saved millions of lives.

A large scale invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for both sides.

Yeah, would have been a lot bloodier than Vietnam. Lots of "kamikaze" minded Japanese soldiers would be fighting to the death for honour.

A-Bombs were a definite message. Like "Surrender right the fuck now or we'll turn all your cities to ashes in the blink of an eye" type of deal.
---

BigDD67 posted...

It was not "all but won." It was anything but. See US invasion of Okinawa. Today's PC crowd has no idea the extent the entirety of Japan was willing to go. While this generation may find the A bomb unnecessary it saved millions of lives.

A large scale invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for both sides.

Actually I created this topic after seeing a video from 70s where one guy asked "where would we be if not for the a bomb" other dude answered "well the war was all but won"

It's not like they had to nuke a major population center.

---

The notion that American high command uniformly believed that the war was almost over is an after the fact invention. Most policy planners actively believed that Japan was going to fight to the bitter end given their experiences in Okinawa and the Philippines, even if said beliefs were built upon falsehoods. Not to mention that a junior officer putsch did try to overthrow the Japanese high command to prevent the surrender even after Nagasaki.

They were mass producing Purple Hearts by the hundreds of thousands for a reason.
---

The war was not won. Japanese were still in Korea, Manchuria etc etc. An invasion would of cost the lives of hundreds of thousands more and if you're on the winning side, would you just rather drop a bomb on a city as a message or invade the entire country and fight every step of the way? Easy choice for a president to make.
---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Cliff

Suicide cliff. Just one example of how the Japanese were brainwashed by their government. Commit suicide rather than surrender. This also includes civilians.

Tell me again we shouldn't have dropped the bombs? Although horrifying, it still saved millions of lives for both sides. Yes, civilians died. War is horrible, people die. Especially in industrial areas.
---

That's what thought. I was under the assumption that Japan wasn't backing down until the bomb hit.

But now i wonder why drop two bombs then

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

That's what thought. I was under the assumption that Japan wasn't backing down until the bomb hit.

But now i wonder why drop two bombs then

A) They didn't surrender after the first one,

B) Essentially a bluff to make it seem like we had more where that came from.
---

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

That's what thought. I was under the assumption that Japan wasn't backing down until the bomb hit.

But now i wonder why drop two bombs then

Japan refused to surrender after the first
---

Yeah, I read an interview of a Japanese guy who saw the aftermath of the first bomb and he said when he reported the entire city was destroyed they didnt even believe him
---

Damn. Tony Stark was right. The best weapon is the one you once have to fire once.

So the a bomb isn't the best weapon yet.

From a humanitarian view, the Hiroshima bombings were inexcusable and anyone who says otherwise dont understand the full impact of a nuclear bombing.
---

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

Damn. Tony Stark was right. The best weapon is the one you once have to fire once.

So the a bomb isn't the best weapon yet.

Let me introduce you to MIRV'd ICBMs.
---

BigDD67 posted...

It was not "all but won." It was anything but. See US invasion of Okinawa. Today's PC crowd has no idea the extent the entirety of Japan was willing to go. While this younger generation may find the A bomb unnecessary it saved millions of lives.

A large scale invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for both sides.

There was a naval blockade which cut off Japan's raw war materials, the Soviet forces were set to join the rest of the Allies in the war against Japan, and had the U.S compromised on "unconditional surrender" they more than likely would have surrendered anyway (let them keep the Emperor, he was a figurehead anyway). Even if one bomb was necessary, two was certainly not.

If you think the bombs were dropped for any other reason than to flex at the Soviet Union, then you are just fooling yourself.
---

Oh hey, it's this topic again. Time to reread the exact same arguments that have been made for 70 years.
---

Duncanwii posted...

The Hiroshima bombings were inexcusable and anyone who says otherwise dont understand the full impact of a nuclear bombing.

Traditional firebombings caused more casualties (a single raid on Tokyo killed almost as many as both nukes combined) and the reality of fallout wasn't fully understood at the time.
---

K181 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

The Hiroshima bombings were inexcusable and anyone who says otherwise dont understand the full impact of a nuclear bombing.

Traditional firebombings caused more casualties (a single raid on Tokyo killed almost as many as both nukes combined) and the reality of fallout wasn't fully understood at the time.

So someone unleashed a weapon with unknown consequences.

justaguy3492 posted...

BigDD67 posted...

It was not "all but won." It was anything but. See US invasion of Okinawa. Today's PC crowd has no idea the extent the entirety of Japan was willing to go. While this younger generation may find the A bomb unnecessary it saved millions of lives.

A large scale invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for both sides.

There was a naval blockade which cut off Japan's raw war materials, the Soviet forces were set to join the rest of the Allies in the war against Japan, and had the U.S compromised on "unconditional surrender" they more than likely would have surrendered anyway (let them keep the Emperor, he was a figurehead anyway). Even if one bomb was necessary, two was certainly not.

If you think the bombs were dropped for any other reason than to flex at the Soviet Union, then you are just fooling yourself.

You say that like s it's a bad thing. Had the Soviets gotten more skin in the game, Japan would've been divided, too.
---

The concept that America, in that situation, should take due consideration as to what was necessary is the height of a lot of things. Among them are: 70 years of hindsight, no consideration for facts, anti-American bias, being a douchy teenager with hippie tendencies living in one of the richest countries in the world that allows him to ask such moronic questions

---

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

K181 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

The Hiroshima bombings were inexcusable and anyone who says otherwise dont understand the full impact of a nuclear bombing.

Traditional firebombings caused more casualties (a single raid on Tokyo killed almost as many as both nukes combined) and the reality of fallout wasn't fully understood at the time.

So someone unleashed a weapon with unknown consequences.

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

K181 posted...

Duncanwii posted...

The Hiroshima bombings were inexcusable and anyone who says otherwise dont understand the full impact of a nuclear bombing.

Traditional firebombings caused more casualties (a single raid on Tokyo killed almost as many as both nukes combined) and the reality of fallout wasn't fully understood at the time.

So someone unleashed a weapon with unknown consequences.

Oh they knew the consequences. Its just Americans were conditioned by years of constant propaganda to see Japanese as less than human so they didnt care that two cities full of people were reduced to ashes.
---

K181 posted...

justaguy3492 posted...

BigDD67 posted...

It was not "all but won." It was anything but. See US invasion of Okinawa. Today's PC crowd has no idea the extent the entirety of Japan was willing to go. While this younger generation may find the A bomb unnecessary it saved millions of lives.

A large scale invasion of Japan would have been a bloodbath for both sides.

There was a naval blockade which cut off Japan's raw war materials, the Soviet forces were set to join the rest of the Allies in the war against Japan, and had the U.S compromised on "unconditional surrender" they more than likely would have surrendered anyway (let them keep the Emperor, he was a figurehead anyway). Even if one bomb was necessary, two was certainly not.

If you think the bombs were dropped for any other reason than to flex at the Soviet Union, then you are just fooling yourself.

You say that like s it's a bad thing. Had the Soviets gotten more skin in the game, Japan would've been divided, too.

Soviets couldnt even invade the island
---

How many times do we need to have this conversation? I've seen this topic so many times on here.

---

mattnd2007 posted...

How many times do we need to have this conversation? I've seen this topic so many times on here.

Shit my bad. Should just leave this board to the daily vegy topics.

Lmao "all but won"

Yeah the a-bomb mightve been too much, but so was Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night. I find it hard to sympathize with Japan

HerpToTheDerp posted...

Lmao "all but won"

Yeah the a-bomb mightve been too much, but so was Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night. I find it hard to sympathize with Japan

The fact nuclear weapons are the single biggest threat to the continued existence of mankind and Polio is pretty much nonexistent now shows otherwise.
---

Duncanwii posted...

HerpToTheDerp posted...

Lmao "all but won"

Yeah the a-bomb mightve been too much, but so was Operation Cherry Blossoms at Night. I find it hard to sympathize with Japan

The fact nuclear weapons are the single biggest threat to the continued existence of mankind and Polio is not shows otherwise.

"Disease isn't as lethal today so therefore it's never been a widespread threat or lethal in the past"

U fucking wot?

Do you not understand the context of time or what war crimes are or are you intentionally being obtuse?

While the Japanese people were ready to die for their Emperor, all of them, the higher ranks did realize that they were fucked. They had signed a nonaggression pact with Russia and hoped that they might be intermediaries in negotiating an end to the war.
The problem was that Japan wanted an Emperor Clause in their capitulation, Emperor Hirohito should not be treated as a war criminal simply because he was the last thing that would hold the land together after a capitulation.
President Franklin Roosevelt demanded an unconditional surrender.
That said, two nukes later they had no problems in accepting the Emperor Clause...
Watching the loss of Hiroshima was a shock, but from Japans point of view it was a bigger shock that Russia broke their pact and joined the war two days later, one day before Nagasaki. This was when they realized that they had to do an unconditional surrender.

As for alternatives...
An invasion would have caused deaths, but not the half a million number that is often cited. The U.S. Joint War Plans Committee predicted in mid-June 1945 that the invasion of Japan, set to begin Nov. 1, would result in 193,000 U.S. casualties, including 40,000 deaths. But President Truman knew that if he had had a working nuke that he didnt used and sent American soldiers to die in an invasion, he would be eaten alive by the American people.
He could have accepted a surrender with the Emperor Clause, which he did anyway, but then he would have a superweapon that never got demonstrated.
He could have done a demonstration of the atomic bomb prior to or instead of its military use, exploding the bomb on an uninhabited island or in the desert, in front of invited observers from Japan and other countries, or using it to blow the top off Mount Fuji, outside Tokyo. But they only had two bombs and were not even sure if one of them would turn out to be a dud.
---

Why do people put so much focus on the nukes, when we were firebombing the shit out of them before that and caused just as much death? Because the nukes were faster?

---

Middle hope posted...

Why do people put so much focus on the nukes, when we were firebombing the shit out of them before that and caused just as much death? Because the nukes were faster?

Because nukes have a scary image helped along by decades of cold war hysteria.

---

DeadBankerDream posted...

Middle hope posted...

Why do people put so much focus on the nukes, when we were firebombing the shit out of them before that and caused just as much death? Because the nukes were faster?

Because nukes have a scary image helped along by decades of cold war hysteria.

"Hysteria." Let me tell you something. A full on nuclear war would not only kill off all plant and animal life via radiation, fireballs, and blackout, the sheer heat from the explosions would burn away the atmosphere anf would allow untold amounts of solar and cosmic radiation to bombard the planet's surface causing it to become further uninhabitable. Being terrified of nuclear warfare is everything other then hysteria.
---

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Was this topic?

Necessary for discussion. Why else would I make it

Read a history book
Stop trolling
---

Shitting your pants about nuclear weapons is not an argument for why using them on Japan was wrong.

---

Hanky_Bannister posted...

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

DarkRoast posted...

Was this topic?

Necessary for discussion. Why else would I make it

Read a history book
Stop trolling

I already apologized for taking attention away from vegy's multiple "would you FUCK" topics. No one seems to complain about those.

I can't believe people still regurgitate that Emperor nonsense. The Potsdam Declaration made no mention of the Emperor.

Japan was controlled by militant nationalist who did not consider any form of surrender acceptable. They spent the last months of the war in contact with the USSR hoping their intervention and the potential casualties of a mainland invasion would force the US to accept peace on terms favorable to Japan.

DeadBankerDream posted...

Shitting your pants about nuclear weapons is not an argument for why using them on Japan was wrong.

You dont see why opening Pandora's Box on the thing most likely to lead to human extinction was a bad decision?
---

The A-bombs were merciful compared to the shit the Japanese committed in China and Korea.

---

Good ol Duncan "this bad thing isn't bad because this bad thing is worse" wii. Never change.

Duncanwii posted...

You dont see why opening Pandora's Box on the thing most likely to lead to human extinction was a bad decision?

oh man if the US hadn't developed nuclear weapons no one ever would have, why didn't they think of that??????

Duncanwii posted...

You dont see why opening Pandora's Box on the thing most likely to lead to human extinction was a bad decision?

I dont see how future associations people have with nuclear weapons is something the US should have taken into consideration before using them to end a war the Japanese started, at a point in time where these associations did not yet exist.

The reason I don't see that is because I'm not insane.

---

Someone else would've developed the A-Bomb, the Germans were researching it (even if they self sabotaged the project by deporting any Jewish scientists and discounting scientific work by Jewish physicists). The Soviets had their own project going on, even without their spies in the Manhattan project they would've eventually figured it out.

---

Alot of people today in this generation of peace dont know anymore that in a serious war you fight either to completely annihilate the opposing force or force a surrander on YOUR countrys terms. Amercians then wouldnt have settled for less, period, esepcially the man who fought, and died for nothing short of a definitive (unconditional surrander) Victory.
---

Prismsblade posted...

Alot of people today in this generation of peace dont know anymore that in a serious war you fight either to completely annihilate the opposing force or force a surrander on YOUR countrys terms. Amercians then wouldnt have settled for less, period, esepcially the man who fought, and died for nothing short of a definitive (unconditional surrander) Victory.

Yes people in olden times were often sociopaths. What is your point.
---

Prismsblade posted...

Alot of people today in this generation of peace dont know anymore that in a serious war you fight either to completely annihilate the opposing force or force a surrander on YOUR countrys terms. Amercians then wouldnt have settled for less, period, esepcially the man who fought, and died for nothing short of a definitive (unconditional surrander) Victory.

This. The last direct clash between major powers the world saw was in Korea.

---

Duncanwii posted...

Yes people in olden times were often sociopaths. What is your point.

Was this a question?
---

Can someone explain something to me?

I keep hearing that in the event of invasion, the Japanese were fully prepared to fight to the last man, woman and child. To use the corpses of hundreds of thousands of their own people as sandbags, if need be. To keep resisting until no Japanese city had one brick left on top of another.

So then, I have to ask: Why the fuck didn't they? Why did they surrender after the bombs were dropped, causing roughly 185,000 fatalities?
---