America remains the only country to actually use Nuclear weapons, against civilians no less.
Frankly, anything that saps American power is good.
A discussion on the nuking of Japan
- Thread starter Realm
- Start date
America remains the only country to actually use Nuclear weapons, against civilians no less.
Frankly, anything that saps American power is good.
So what? That's an emotional argument, not a logical one. It also has nothing to do with anything I've said.
I disagree. America isn't perfect, and its actions have caused deaths, but a world with a weakened America would be an objectively shittier one. Like it or not, American hegemony keeps a LOT of very evil genies bottled up.
Once again you post without actually taking in context into account. We were in a all out 'total war' with Japan. We are not in that situation now. The Nuclear bombs we dropped on Hrioshima and Nagasaki killed less people than what a full on invasion of the Japanese islands would have entailed.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Plus, the Japanese had some insane sort of determination and fanatacism
Even if they were losing so much, I think they’d execute their own commanders before surrendering
The concept of the nuclear strike on Japan as integral to Japanese surrender is historically extremely contentious, and the continued defense of it as an obvious good is basically a perfect example of why America as constituted can't be trusted with power.
Cool, I also disagree, American intervention destroys nations and creates it's own justification.
Its only contentious to those who dont understand history. Such as yourself. The Japanese were prepared to make America bleed rivers of blood for every inche of ground we took. They were preparing Civilian partisan and Kamikazes, all in an effort to bleed the invasion force.
Projected casualties were so horrific that it likely would have bled the Army and Marines dry. Infact all the Purples Hearts we have issued since WW2 were infact created in expectation of the massed casualties we were expected to take. And we still haven't put a dent in those numbers. No, the Nukes were what forced Japan to the table. When we showed we could destroy their cities with minimal casualties in turn that's when they knew the game was over. Japan freely admits it. Why leftists such as yourself continue to try and rewrite history proves you're ignoring basic reality.
Wait, let me get this straight. Because historians (not all of whom are american in either camp) disagree on whether the nukes were necessary or not, Americans shouldn't be trusted as a power.
Mate, historians disagree on a lot of things. This isn't the first nor the last thing they'll disagree with each other over something. Hell, as an example that comes to mind, they can't even agree on whether Sicily during the same period of time was a poor and awful place to be or rich and on par with northern Italy in terms population and living standards. It isn't something you should be taking to make moral judgements about entire countries.
By leftists you mean "main stream academics who disagree with American Hagiography" I suppose.
The use of nuclear weapons as justified is still up to debate to this day and to say that there is one is utter jingoistic ignorance
The fact that there is no nuance in wiping innocent civilians off the map, that it was inherently justified for America to do so means Americans don't have enough ability to be critical on the topic of mass murder does mean they shouldn't have the ability to commit mass murder, yes.
To be fair I've met some on the right who would also disagree. But by and large these are people who long after the fact try to deconstruct an event and add their own spin to it. But when Japan admits it then that more or less settled the matter.
I suspect it'll still be up for debate long after our bones turn to dust. Could we have won without the Bomb? Yes. Would it have been far bloodier for us and for the Japanese civilian population? Most definitely yes. Remember Realm, this is a total war setting. While we didnt go out of our way to inflict Civilian casualties we didnt exactly worry too much about ot either. And in such a war setting it's more about killing the enemy, breaking his stuff and ending them as a threat. The bombs did that and cost us far less blood on all sides to do it. Let people debate that all they want.
Quickdraw101
Beware My Power-Green Lantern's Light
Not to the level of Imperial Japan had. Seriously, I made an entire presentation in junior year why the atomic bomb was necessary to end the second world war, lest we invade Japan proper, drag the war on for another year at minimum, and add a million more dead allied soldiers and tens of millions of Japanese citizens and soldiers.
Not to put a point too fine here but America had been wiping civilians off the map for a while now thanks to the fire bombing raids and other general bombings which from what I'm aware did more damage overall and on individual raids on par with the damage from the atomic bombings. Even in the best case scenario they were going to have to carry out more raids so you were still going to see mass death no matter how the Allies decided to bring the war to a close.
Like you can argue over which move might have gotten less people killed overall but at the end of the day you didn't have a route to bring the war to a close that wouldn't have involved people dying and I for one, as a non American, can't really fault the Americans for trying for the option which at a minimum would lead to less of their own men dying and potentially saved some Japanese lives.
I think Realm is in the camp who think the Japanese only surrendered because the Russians entered the war against them after the bombs dropped.
Whether the Russians entering the war or the bombs caused Japan to surrender will always be an issue of contention. I've found that those who support it being the Russian entry tend to also be those who have general anti-American or at least America-skeptical attitudes and views.
Honestly, it's such a minor footnote that it had completely slipped my mind.
It's not really up for seriously contentious debate. The only other major reason separate from the United States that could compel Japan to suddenly surrender was the Russian Declaration of War but their threat to the Home Islands has never been substantiated by serious scholars. Outside of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa scholars like DM Giangreco, David Glantz and Richard Frank have written articles and books on the subject of why the Atomic Bombs were the compelling reason for Japanese surrender.
Frank and others would admit the Soviet decision to join the war was a compulsion as well but I doubt few would argue the corollary, only a Soviet declaration devoid of the Atomic Bombs would result in Japanese surrender.
In regards to Atomic diplomacy and the Soviet red (snigger) herring I'd recommend reading Hell to Pay by DM Giangreco, Downfall by Richard B. Frank and Retribution by Max Hastings. It'll provide more insight then your wikpedia scholarship.
"It's up for debate" you say, followed by declaring that the factors justifying your perspective as inherently true. 10/10
I also do quite like this anti-intellectual condescension. It's a good change of pace from the intellectual version.
I do always love going back to work after posting here, I can always trust that I'll come back to everyone sucking each other off.
It's very Greco-Roman of you all. Western civ will live on.
Completely understandable, given how short a time it was before the surrender happened.
Nothing really came of it except the whole Kuril Islands dispute between Japan and Russia, but that's a nothingburger in terms of it's real world affects.
The Soviets made a few landings in the Kuril Islands and smashed the Japanese army in Manchuria, but by that point Japan had almost nothing to seriously fight back with except kamikaze units.
Yes but that's very different from an invasion of the main islands.
The Kuril's were to be stepping stones for a full Soviet invasion of the Home Islands, but Japan surrendered before it could be undertaken or seriously organized.
The theory most nuke-naysayers go by is that the threat of the invasion by the Russians, and the splitting of Japan into US and Russian zones (like what happened to Germany) if that occurred, plus the smashing of the Japanese army in Manchuria, was what forced the surrender.
It's not a theory I subscribe to, but it is one I'm familiar with.
Harlock
I should have expected that really
in 1945 Soviet amphibious forces consisted of 30 of these
That the USN gave them. The LCI(L) carries up to 200 men up to about 200 miles. No space for tanks or anything as you can see
Nobody is conquering Japan with 30 LCI, especially as the Soviets lost 5 of them to shore based guns when taking the Kurils. The notion of the Soviets being an invasion threat to Japan is absurd
EDIT-
To offer perspective, the US invasion force required nearly 1,400 Landing ships. Not Landing craft like these, Landing Ships displacing at least 20 to 30 times more than these things, often a lot more.
Not to mention the largest armada of warships in history to support them, and thousands of aircraft stationed on nearby Islands. Compare that to less than 200 Destroyer escorts and corvettes the Soviets had available. No carriers, no battleships, nothing.
The Soviets had a hell of an army, but a few thousand guys with no air support, no naval support, no tanks, no artillery, no food... vs all of Northern Japan? The US was expecting a slaughter with all they had on the table, the Soviets? Maybe by the mid 1950s
That the USN gave them. The LCI(L) carries up to 200 men up to about 200 miles. No space for tanks or anything as you can see
Nobody is conquering Japan with 30 LCI, especially as the Soviets lost 5 of them to shore based guns when taking the Kurils. The notion of the Soviets being an invasion threat to Japan is absurd
EDIT-
To offer perspective, the US invasion force required nearly 1,400 Landing ships. Not Landing craft like these, Landing Ships displacing at least 20 to 30 times more than these things, often a lot more.
Not to mention the largest armada of warships in history to support them, and thousands of aircraft stationed on nearby Islands. Compare that to less than 200 Destroyer escorts and corvettes the Soviets had available. No carriers, no battleships, nothing.
The Soviets had a hell of an army, but a few thousand guys with no air support, no naval support, no tanks, no artillery, no food... vs all of Northern Japan? The US was expecting a slaughter with all they had on the table, the Soviets? Maybe by the mid 1950s
Last edited:
Counter argument???
It's hard to respond to arguments which consist of a single Wikipedia link and homophobia.