# Was the nuclear destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima morally correct?



## Cabelaz (May 1, 2021)

This is one of the most ulitarian decisions ever made. Sacrifice the few to save the many. 
But the ones we sacrificed were mainly women and children, and some died in extreme pain and agony. Was this a justifiable action by the US Goverment?


----------



## HeyYou (May 1, 2021)

Yes, the other option was subject Japan to the USSR. They'd have been begging for the atomic bombs.


----------



## Just Another Apocalypse (May 1, 2021)

Cabelaz said:


> This is one of the most ulitarian decisions ever made. Sacrifice the few to save the many.
> But the ones we sacrificed were mainly women and children, and some died in extreme pain and agony. Was this a justifiable action by the US Goverment?


before the bombs the nips were happy to believe they were decended from God. If it takes a couple of atom bombs to disabuse you of that kind of fuckwittery... So be it.

Anyway, they built back better didn't they?


----------



## WeWuzFinns (May 1, 2021)

No because Japan's retaliation was worse than the bombs. They inventing anime and now people in west have mutated from chads into horrible beasts.


----------



## Niggernerd (May 1, 2021)

Yes, hirohito and his goverment minions would of pulled a russia and threw bodies of civvies to fight off US troops had we set foot on Japan soil. It's a tough spot but a "kill enough to save the many"


----------



## Big Ruski (May 1, 2021)

Could you imagine a world where we get Soviet Moon instead of Sailor Moon 





Fucking glorious


----------



## The Last Stand (May 1, 2021)

War is never morally "right." Japan then was ready to colonize Asia and take hand in the Western world. Something had to be done. 

I don't agree with the practice, BUT WWII crossed the line long before Berlin. Somebody had to end it.


----------



## Muttnik (May 1, 2021)

Yes in strategic retribution for WW2's shit. No for the moral attack on helpless civilians.

It's funny to joke about nuking countries but truthfully I wouldn't wish nuclear warfare on anyone.


----------



## Judge Holden (May 1, 2021)

As I have mentioned before, even when you strip away all the fun things Japan did in its occupied territories against civilians and also against prisoners of war, not to mention the bigger picture unprovoked military aggression against neighbouring states for no reason beyond conquest and expansion they had been waging for about 15 years by that point, the facts on the ground were as follows.

a) Japan was throwing everything into making any conventional military action to take them out as bloody and costly as humanly possible both to the allies and to their own people

b) Japan's "wishes for conditional surrender" so touted by their apologists unironically involved them keeping all the land and territories they violently conquered, them facing no punishment or consequence for their actions beyond promising to demilitarise and no war criminals receiving any trial, and the allies pulling out of asia entirely.

c) Japan had by that point already repeatedly used WMDs against its enemies in the form of biological weapons targeted at civilians with a death toll that exceeded what would come with the nukes, and were actively planning and preparing to target the US mainland with the same weapons either via their balloon delivery systems or via their new XXXL submarines that could carry small bombers and payloads

While point c) was unknown to the allies at the time, the fact of the matter was that from a big picture view in which all the nasty little details are obscured....yeah it was the right call. Morally and strategically and pragmatically and from any utilitarian total-suffering equation standpoint.

When you actually zoom in on the aforementioned nasty little details one wishes a couple more nukes had been thrown around just to even the score a little.


----------



## Yaniv’s Hairy Balls (May 1, 2021)

It was more about just stopping Japan. We haven’t had a dead ass _world war_ since then and I think that’s why tbh. Nobody wants to deploy it and nobody wants to endure it, so people are really ready to walk a straight and narrow, these 3rd world shit will only go so far now and they go oh so very carefully. It doesn’t matter if we lose battle after battle, they know we’ll win the war. And that’s kept a lot of atrocities within their own borders, as opposed to spreading the genocide worldwide. That was (one of, and probably the first) fuck up if Hitler. He spread that nastiness so far. Had it kept to Germany it’s still probably be going.
I dunno if it was right or moral, but a whole lot of lines are being towed now.


----------



## Disheveled Human (May 1, 2021)

No because it kickstarted anime.


----------



## Smug Chuckler (May 1, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> Yes, the other option was subject Japan to the USSR. They'd have been begging for the atomic bombs.



Japan had a non-aggression pact with the USSR until America convinced them to break it.


----------



## HeyYou (May 1, 2021)

Smug Chuckler said:


> Japan had a non-aggression pact with the USSR until America convinced them to break it.


Oh, at the time the US thought the USSR helping out would be good. I'm saying that, retroactively, we saved Japan from a mass rape that would put US soldiers on military bases in Japan to shame.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 1, 2021)

No. There were options other than forcing them to surrender unconditionally, which we knew they would never do, or nuking them. We did not have to murder 200K+ civilians, we did it because we did not see them as human beings, we wanted revenge (for a war we got ourselves into before Pearl Harbor), and it was a convenient way to test the atomic bomb on population centers. Japan was no longer a threat to anyone by that point.


----------



## fine tooth comb (May 1, 2021)

every action performed by the allied powers was incorrect


----------



## VIPPER? (May 1, 2021)

The war was pretty well already over and even if you're a kneejerk tojo hater physically demolishing so much of the country and its inhabitants is what made them bounce back after the war and blow out western manufacturing (turns out when everything in your cunt is destroyed, you have to buy new machinery and have opportunity to invest in new techniques/industries while other countries are still using 90 year old machine tools and bubba practices that "just werk")


----------



## Lemmingwise (May 1, 2021)

I'm still mystified about a christian country genociding almost all (90%?) of christians in Japan with a nuke by dropping it dead center on a christian cathedral.

--

I think it's pretty savage to nuke population centers of an already defeated country in an attempt to scare off another country. It's one of those things that makes it hard to cheer for the allies.

With that said, I may have made the same decision. But then I also think about Japan that way in regards to starting that war.


----------



## Brahma (May 1, 2021)

Killing your enemies is always morally correct


----------



## get_ur_gamon (May 1, 2021)

It hardly mattered one way or the other. More people died in the Tokyo firebombing than the individual nukes in japan (not including people who died years later from long term side effects). It didn't matter if a city was destroyed in 1 night by a thousand bombs or 1 minute with a single bomb, the outcome was practically identical. It was the fear of the Soviet invasion which made them surrender (which happened to begin the same day as the first blast).

But it was still useful to set the stakes for the cold war. If a nuke wasn't tested on a major city, then it would be harder to imagine the damage done to people. Kinda like how WW2 leaders who served in WW1, would refuse to use poison gas bombs later on. Because the bombs were tested on Japan everyone knew what the stakes were.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (May 1, 2021)

I'll take 100 for questions that should only be answered by "yes".


----------



## Maurice Caine (May 1, 2021)

WeWuzFinns said:


> No because Japan's retaliation was worse than the bombs. They inventing anime and now people in west have mutated from chads into horrible beasts.
> 
> View attachment 2134533View attachment 2134532


I do agree that the people of the bottom image are fags but do you really think every man in the west is that? Also, those guys are 100 years out of fashion.


----------



## Thomas Highway (May 1, 2021)

It wasn't morally correct, but it was tactically correct at the time.


----------



## Johan Schmidt (May 1, 2021)

America playing big daddy, tossing their hat in the ring to start with and attempting to starve out Japan for starting shit half a world away was immoral. Dropping two cans of instant sunshine on the Japanese is just another spoon of immorality.


----------



## DumbDude42 (May 1, 2021)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Japan was no longer a threat to anyone by that point.


pretty much, yeah
their navy and air force were done for, their economy was in shambles, and their land armies in china/manchukuo were mass surrendering to the invading soviets

anyway, the nuclear bombings werent any more or less 'morally correct' than the large scale bombardment of enemy cities that had been going on for years before already, on both sides of the war. when war is waged, people die, that's just the nature of it. no point in singling out any one country or event in particular for it.

the more interesting question is whether the US was morally justified in diplomatically and politically antagonizing japan all those years before, which led to pearl harbor in the first place. american leadership really disliked the idea of japan gaining control over china, but i don't know what their reasoning or rationale behind that position was.


----------



## Niggernerd (May 1, 2021)

The Last Stand said:


> War is never morally "right." Japan then was ready to colonize Asia


We should have helped them with China at least given where we are now.


----------



## The Real Me (May 1, 2021)

I’m no historian but the US greatly underestimated the size and strength of an atomic blast; they didn’t intend or anticipate the sheer level of destruction that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would face.

However, this doesn’t change the fact that they decided to drop a never before used (in actual conflict) weapon on two cities filled with civilians.

They probably should’ve just performed standard air-raids, akin to the Germans.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (May 1, 2021)

I don't even think that's the right question to ask. There's nothing moral about nukes. What you should be asking is, was it cool?

Yes, it was very cool. Besides, we wouldn't have anime without it happening.


----------



## Niggernerd (May 1, 2021)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> I don't even think that's the right question to ask. There's nothing moral about nukes. What you should be asking is, was it cool?
> 
> Yes, it was very cool.


We got anime out of it so I'm not complaining


----------



## Cabelaz (May 1, 2021)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> I don't even think that's the right question to ask. There's nothing moral about nukes. What you should be asking is, was it cool?
> 
> Yes, it was very cool. Besides, we wouldn't have anime without it happening.


I guess I should have rephrased it as a lesser of two evils question.
 I've recently been reading the memoirs of Okinawan veterans and the accounts of Japanese brutality and ruthlessness shocked me. The slaughter of all civilians once a position became untenable, Japanese soliders hiding in bunkers for weeks without any water just so they could kill one unlucky American who thought they were in a secure area, the suicide charges, etc.
After realizing the immense loss of life that was inevitable with an invasion of the home islands, the difficult choice to drop the nuclear weapons to save both Japanese and American lives interested me. This type of situation had never been made and hasn't been made since.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 1, 2021)

DumbDude42 said:


> pretty much, yeah
> their navy and air force were done for, their economy was in shambles, and their land armies in china/manchukuo were mass surrendering to the invading soviets
> 
> anyway, the nuclear bombings werent any more or less 'morally correct' than the large scale bombardment of enemy cities that had been going on for years before already, on both sides of the war. when war is waged, people die, that's just the nature of it. no point in singling out any one country or event in particular for it.
> ...


The allies had a much larger civilian kill count by far. They firebombed and atomic bombed civilians like it was going out of style.


----------



## HeyYou (May 3, 2021)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> The allies had a much larger civilian kill count by far. They firebombed and atomic bombed civilians like it was going out of style.


lol no they didn't. Fucking hell. If we're comparing just the US and Japan, the US killed around 250,000 civilians if you combine the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombs. Japan killed at least 3.7 million civilians in China alone. And what we did to Germany with Dresden and such fucking pales compared to what they did in Poland.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 3, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> lol no they didn't. Fucking hell. If we're comparing just the US and Japan, the US killed around 250,000 civilians if you combine the firebombing of Tokyo and the atomic bombs. Japan killed at least 3.7 million civilians in China alone.


Then you've conveniently forgot Dresden, where another 200K+ civilians were killed. Chinamen don't count, they'll eat each other at the drop of a hat.


----------



## HeyYou (May 3, 2021)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Then you've conveniently forgot Dresden, where another 200K+ civilians were killed.


Dresden wasn't 200K, and Germany did the same exact thing to London. Before Dresden even happened.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 3, 2021)

Dresden was at least 200K. Germany didn't declare war on Britain, they asked for it.


----------



## Iron Jaguar (May 3, 2021)

Yes. It saved millions of lives on both sides.


----------



## HeyYou (May 3, 2021)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> Dresden was at least 200K. Germany didn't declare war on Britain, they asked for it.


Nobody seriously considers Dresden's death toll to be 200K. You're going off of 40s German propaganda. The only modern scholar who suggested that number is Irving, and even he eventually said it's probably closer to 20-30K. Moving the goalposts from "Allies killed more civilians" to "Britain asked for it" is pretty funny, though.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 3, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> Nobody seriously considers Dresden's death toll to be 200K. You're going off of 40s German propaganda. The only modern scholars who suggested that number is Irving, and even he eventually said it's probably closer to 20-30K.


So my choices are to go off loser propaganda or victor propaganda, and victor propaganda is always more trustworthy? Lol, nah.


----------



## draggs (May 3, 2021)

Of course it was, total war is total war. Japan waged total war, Germany and its handful of puppets waged total war, the Allies waged total war. Loser bitches be mad that the Allies were better at it than the Axis in the end. Even then the civilian casualties are like 20% Axis/80% Allies.

Japan was on the brink of mass starvation and a breakdown in public order, an invasion that would have added a ton of chaos even if Japan gave in almost instantly = nuking them saved at least several millions of lives.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 3, 2021)

draggs said:


> Of course it was, total war is total war. Japan waged total war, Germany and its handful of puppets waged total war, the Allies waged total war. Loser bitches be mad that the Allies were better at it than the Axis in the end. Even then the civilian casualties are like 20% Axis/80% Allies.
> 
> Japan was on the brink of mass starvation and a breakdown in public order, an invasion that would have added a ton of chaos even if Japan gave in almost instantly = nuking them saved at least several millions of lives.


The allies weren't better at war so much as they were better at having more resources.


----------



## The best and greatest (May 3, 2021)

draggs said:


> Of course it was, total war is total war. Japan waged total war, Germany and its handful of puppets waged total war, the Allies waged total war. Loser bitches be mad that the Allies were better at it than the Axis in the end. Even then the civilian casualties are like 20% Axis/80% Allies.
> 
> Japan was on the brink of mass starvation and a breakdown in public order, an invasion that would have added a ton of chaos even if Japan gave in almost instantly = nuking them saved at least several millions of lives.


I dont disagree with you. Strategically it is wise to do what will win right now rather than expend the men and  resources to fight the Japanese at thier worst on the mainland and maybe not even win conclusively for several years if ever. With that said it was still a total bitch move to just delete two cities and win by default rather than play it out to the end. No honor. Just lame gay  science victory.


----------



## Just Another Apocalypse (May 3, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> Dresden wasn't 200K, and Germany did the same exact thing to London. Before Dresden even happened.


Tbf, Britain accidentally shelled London, and then tried to blame the bosh.


----------



## AnimeGirlConnoisseur (May 3, 2021)

Cabelaz said:


> This is one of the most ulitarian decisions ever made. Sacrifice the few to save the many.
> But the ones we sacrificed were mainly women and children, and some died in extreme pain and agony. Was this a justifiable action by the US Goverment?


1. If Japan was invaded by the US then everybody would have been forced to fight them. Look at what happened in Saipan and Okinawa. They would have made stuff like the Volkstrum or Basij look like a joke. Women and children would not have been spared if America didn't drop the bombs.
2. Not dropping the bombs would have meant that the conventional bombing of Japan would have continued to kill indiscriminately. In our timeline many more Japanese peopled were killed by conventional bombs than from the two atomic bombs.
3. If Japan was invaded then many American servicemen would have died along with the Japanese. The Japanese were entrenched and willing to fight to the last man and the last bullet to defend their home. Once again, look at the Japanese defense of Saipan or Okinawa and extrapolate that to the entirety of Japan. 
4. Nuclear doctrine did not exist in 1945 and nobody else had nukes at the time. The Americans were just throwing something at the wall to see if it would stick. Do you think that the doctrine around nuclear arms would have evolved in a similar way if the first time we used nukes was at a later point in history when the USSR also had nukes? I think that, if that happened, there would be a greater chance that nuclear weapons would be seen as just bigger bomb instead of how we see them today.


----------



## Deadwaste (May 3, 2021)

nothing a few more firebombing campaigns wouldve stopped. japan wouldve probably ended up surrendering anyway after the soviets took manchuria


----------



## Mr. ShadowCreek (May 3, 2021)




----------



## draggs (May 3, 2021)

Forgetful Gynn said:


> The allies weren't better at war so much as they were better at having more resources.


And if pigs had wings we'd all carry umbrellas

Cry moar. Not my fault Nazis were so dumb they got into a war with three countries that had much larger populations and resources than Germany had at the same time


----------



## Bassomatic (May 3, 2021)

I'm not trying to be edgy but not only was it OK it was GOOD.

Now the firebombing based Curtis called killed way more, but it showed US did not give a FUCK we will nuke things, thank god after 2 they gave up because really, we were out.

We moved from ww2 to cold war, Russia was behind and saw we literally did not give a fuck using nukes. It scared em, and LeMays plans were if Warsaw Pact did traditional war we'd just vomit nukes.

Honestly, I legit think, while Japan suffered, it saved the world, build MAD. If not we'd have nuked ourselves out of a planet in the early 50s.


----------



## MrJokerRager (May 3, 2021)

get_ur_gamon said:


> It hardly mattered one way or the other. More people died in the Tokyo firebombing than the individual nukes in japan (not including people who died years later from long term side effects). It didn't matter if a city was destroyed in 1 night by a thousand bombs or 1 minute with a single bomb, the outcome was practically identical. It was the fear of the Soviet invasion which made them surrender (which happened to begin the same day as the first blast).
> 
> But it was still useful to set the stakes for the cold war. If a nuke wasn't tested on a major city, then it would be harder to imagine the damage done to people. Kinda like how WW2 leaders who served in WW1, would refuse to use poison gas bombs later on. Because the bombs were tested on Japan everyone knew what the stakes were.


There was a plan to clear the beaches of Japan with nukes and have US Marines land on the beaches.


----------



## Bassomatic (May 3, 2021)

MrJokerRager said:


> There was a plan to clear the beaches of Japan with nukes and have US Marines land on the beaches.


It still expected to cause 1 MIL deaths of US service and many more times that of Japanese, most civs.


----------



## Fanatical Pragmatist (May 3, 2021)

No.
Should have dropped them on Moscow instead.


----------



## MrJokerRager (May 3, 2021)

The whole Eastern Front seemed like a nuclear wasteland at the time. 

If Hitler was more selective in his Jew hate, the Nazis would have gotten the bomb. 

The concept of a single bomb destroying a whole city existed at the time. 

Whoever got the bomb, would have used it inevitably.


----------



## potato in mah painus (May 4, 2021)

MrJokerRager said:


> The whole Eastern Front seemed like a nuclear wasteland at the time.
> 
> If Hitler was more selective in his Jew hate, the Nazis would have gotten the bomb.
> 
> ...


A lucky torpedo strike that took most of Germany's uranium with it is probably the only reason they didn't end up with them anyway. Its frightening how many butterfly effects could have swung the outcome one way or another.

On topic WWII was ugly for all sides involved, If you want to criticize nuking two cities you need to criticize the thousands of towns and cities that were equally leveled in the years prior. The nukings were literally a drop in the bucket compared to how many were killed in those bombing campaigns.


----------



## Pokemonquistador2 (May 4, 2021)

Johan Schmidt said:


> America playing big daddy, tossing their hat in the ring to start with and attempting to starve out Japan for starting shit half a world away was immoral. Dropping two cans of instant sunshine on the Japanese is just another spoon of immorality.


Nothing would have stopped America from entering the war and shoving their boot far up Japan's ass. Those men who died at Pearl harbor were husbands, brothers and fathers. Japan may have been goaded into attacking the US, but they also believed that an overwhelming strike would crush the US for far longer than it wound up doing. Japan made the decision to sucker punch a country filled with the world's most hotheaded immigrants, and it paid dearly.

One could argue that the world is better off for the bombs being dropped. Seeing what the bombs did to a civillian population - seeing body horror inflicted on living beings that defies anything Junji Ito could conjure up - that was a big incentive for military men in the US and USSR to cool their heels and not throw nukes at each other willy nilly. Just like how the movies "Threads" and "The Day After" convinced Gorbachev that maybe both sides having a twitchy finger perpetually hovering above the Doom Button wasn't such a good idea after all, causing him to call for disarmament treaties.


----------



## Elwood P. Dowd (May 4, 2021)

MacArthur thought Japan could have been beaten in an invasion fairly quickly, and opposed the use of atomic weapons. Of course since he expected to lead the invasion and was addicted to huffing his own farts, who knows if he was right or wrong.

I think if the US high brass from Marshall on down had doubts about using atomic weapons, the clusterfuck that was Okinawa convinced them otherwise, that a different approach was needed. Yes, the US (inevitably) won, but at the cost of something like 20,000 US/70,000 Japanese casualties and turning the southern half of the island into a moonscape. To say nothing of random pictures of mothers throwing children off cliffs to avoid American capture, though I guess that was more common on islands like Saipan. Upscale that outcome to the entirety of Japan's five main islands and you get something pretty unpalatable politically. 

I think MacArthur thought the Japanese would have been helpless once American armor was rolled out in force, with far more room to maneuver and generally fewer hills than an Okinawa. We'll never know.

FWIW, I remain skeptical to the extent a Soviet invasion of Japan would have been possible, at least on any kind of scale in a reasonable timeframe. There remained a massive Japanese Army presence in Manchuria everybody forgets about, that they'd have had to get through first. Plus a lack of seaborne transport to get the troops in. Soviet occupation of Manchuria and the Korean peninsula, OTOH? That I guess could have happened. Hell, to a certain extent it did, I think.


----------



## capitalBBustard (May 4, 2021)

Morals are gay, the interesting question is "were the nukes necessary?". Conventional plebbit takes on display say yes, absolutely. Like most reddit tier history takes, they are parroting the loudes opinion no matter how retarded.

Japan was holding out for a conditional surrender via soviet mediation. (Yes, their plan was to surrender. Not "the divine power of the emperor will sharpen our blades against the ganjin when he invades".) Eg, no occupation, prosecuting their own war criminals(lol), retain the emperor etc. They had a non-aggression pact they signed years prior, which they thought gave them some pull with the USSR. Then the soviets invaded Manchuria and all their hopes died. Only unconditional surrender was left on the table, well nothing else was ever on the table, but nobody really told them that. At that point they would rather get occupied by the allies. Politically the nukes meant little, the soviet entry against Japan was what changed things.

The US bombed other cities even worse via conventional means, so the bombs were just a flashy way of destroying a couple of them. At that point they bombed like 60 cities. Strategically, the situation didn't change either. US had a scary new weapon they could use to do what they have been doing the entire summer and level cities. Big whoop.

Reality is a lot more boring than 'japan savage samurai country that gonna death war, need big boom to scurr stupid nip into submission'. That's a also the mantra to justify smoking those people for no tangible benefit. Or saving face, or deriding the USA, rr whatever, a bunch of this comes from post WW2 narratives. 

Now, how in the fuck the US was supposed to know that Stalin was gonna go gamer on Manchuria the same time as they were dropping the first nuke? They couldn't. But they didn't have to drop the second one that soon. That might actually just be a pure war crime all things considered.


----------



## Bad Gateway (May 4, 2021)

>Morals
>War

Pick one and only one.


----------



## Traummaschine (May 4, 2021)

The Real Me said:


> I’m no historian but the US greatly underestimated the size and strength of an atomic blast; they didn’t intend or anticipate the sheer level of destruction that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would face.
> 
> However, this doesn’t change the fact that they decided to drop a never before used (in actual conflict) weapon on two cities filled with civilians.
> 
> They probably should’ve just performed standard air-raids, akin to the Germans.


Part of the reason to drop the bombs was to test them. That is why it was important to drop them on untouched cities, and why they immediately sent in people to measure the destruction when possible.


----------



## Billy Beer (May 4, 2021)

No it wasn't Moral. 

The men who signed up to fight (those who's lives were being spared) signed up to fight. Those women and children didn't sign up to get turned to dust in a second, one August morning. 

It's harsh to hear, but Millions were lost in the European campaigns of both world wars. We shed a tear for them, but we know as well as they do, that they signed up for it. 

America wanted to scare the ruskies, declare themselves the best in the world and didn't want to enter a campaign that they would have probably lost.


----------



## chainsaw enthusiast (May 4, 2021)

was the nanking massacre morally correct? how about the operation of unit 731?


----------



## Hitman One (May 4, 2021)

The only problem is that the Americans stopped at two bombs. Chat shit get banged.


----------



## HeyYou (May 8, 2021)

Schlong song said:


> No it wasn't Moral.
> 
> The men who signed up to fight (those who's lives were being spared) signed up to fight. Those women and children didn't sign up to get turned to dust in a second, one August morning.
> 
> ...


lmao we would have won even if we had gone with Operation Downfall


----------



## Billy Beer (May 8, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> lmao we would have won even if we had gone with Operation Downfall


I don't know. A war with islands like that, in terrain and environments the west aren't used to, only accessible by ship (planes didn't have the range to get to Japan from mainland America IIRC) Would have been a brutal, uphill battle. The japs were willing to fly planes in to boats and did not fear death. How do you fight an enemy on the ground like that? How do you fight through towns and cities without demolishing it with tanks/carpet bombs, without taking on heavy, heavy losses. 

It's guerilla tactics that spanked the Yanks and French in Vietnam and the Ruskies in Afghan. To name but a few.


----------



## HeyYou (May 8, 2021)

Schlong song said:


> I don't know. A war with islands like that, in terrain and environments the west aren't used to, only accessible by ship (planes didn't have the range to get to Japan from mainland America IIRC) Would have been a brutal, uphill battle. The japs were willing to fly planes in to boats and did not fear death. How do you fight an enemy on the ground like that? How do you fight through towns and cities without demolishing it with tanks/carpet bombs, without taking on heavy, heavy losses.
> 
> It's guerilla tactics that spanked the Yanks and French in Vietnam and the Ruskies in Afghan. To name but a few.


US anticipated heavy losses, which is why we went with the atomic bomb first, but I don't think it's in doubt that within a year and a half we would have won.


----------



## Toolbox (May 8, 2021)

Yes, and we should have nuked the North Korean border during that war as well. Nuclear explosive irradiation lasts a tiny amount of time in comparison to meltdowns. If it means ending a war before it gets even further out of hand, it is moral. Firebombing is way worse than a nuclear blast that kills in an instant, and that was done all the time over Japan already.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (May 8, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> Yes, the other option was subject Japan to the USSR. They'd have been begging for the atomic bombs.


The USSR wouldn't have even been a threat to the Axis powers without JewSA interference.  Even with Japan being tied up fighting the US, and not really able to provide help to the Germans, the USSR was completely broken after Operation Barbarossa.  The US gave the USSR thousands of planes, vehicles, munitions, and supplies, which allowed them to recoup their forces enough to counterattack.   

Also, I always love how allied simps react to topics like these.
Killing civilians is wrong and the Axis powers must still answer for these horrible war crimes to this day!  Also, any civilians killed by the US, UK, or USSR were justified since it benefited those nations strategically.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 8, 2021)

We could have just negotiated a white peace. Nobody had to die.


----------



## Billy Beer (May 8, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> US anticipated heavy losses, which is why we went with the atomic bomb first, but I don't think it's in doubt that within a year and a half we would have won.


12 months in Japan would have put you guys seriously behind on the world stage. Good luck focusing your resources on Europe and the ruskies while you're being pulled in to a war of attrition. After 9-12 months of fighting you guys would have gone total annihilation (let's pretend the nuke was never invented) with chem and bio weapons anyway. 

Maybe a nuke was more humane?


----------



## Billy Beer (May 8, 2021)

mr.moon1488 said:


> The USSR wouldn't have even been a threat to the Axis powers without JewSA interference.  Even with Japan being tied up fighting the US, and not really able to provide help to the Germans, the USSR was completely broken after Operation Barbarossa.  The US gave the USSR thousands of planes, vehicles, munitions, and supplies, which allowed them to recoup their forces enough to counterattack.
> 
> Also, I always love how allied simps react to topics like these.
> Killing civilians is wrong and the Axis powers must still answer for these horrible war crimes to this day!  Also, any civilians killed by the US, UK, or USSR were justified since it benefited those nations strategically.


Holocaust vs Carpet bombing. 

Gee, those are the same thing.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (May 8, 2021)

Schlong song said:


> Holocaust vs Carpet bombing.
> 
> Gee, those are the same thing.


You're right, one happened, and the other didn't.


----------



## Billy Beer (May 8, 2021)

mr.moon1488 said:


> You're right, one happened, and the other didn't.


No, we definitely carpet bombed Nazi occupied towns.


----------



## Wright (May 8, 2021)

Yes, and if you disagree, you are most likely retarded.


----------



## HeyYou (May 8, 2021)

mr.moon1488 said:


> The USSR wouldn't have even been a threat to the Axis powers without JewSA interference.  Even with Japan being tied up fighting the US, and not really able to provide help to the Germans, the USSR was completely broken after Operation Barbarossa.  The US gave the USSR thousands of planes, vehicles, munitions, and supplies, which allowed them to recoup their forces enough to counterattack.
> 
> Also, I always love how allied simps react to topics like these.
> Killing civilians is wrong and the Axis powers must still answer for these horrible war crimes to this day!  Also, any civilians killed by the US, UK, or USSR were justified since it benefited those nations strategically.


I'm not and never did claim that killing civilians is right or wrong in war, I said the Axis killed more civilians than the Allies, which is just a fact. The USSR should have been raked over the coals for their rapes in eastern Europe and Germany and so should the US and Britain for their massacres, but the winner sets the terms as in a lot of wars.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (May 8, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> I'm not and never did claim that killing civilians is right or wrong in war, I said the Axis killed more civilians than the Allies, which is just a fact. The USSR should have been raked over the coals for their rapes in eastern Europe and Germany and so should the US and Britain for their massacred, but the winner sets the terms as in a lot of wars.





> Also, I always love how allied simps react to topics like these.
> Killing civilians is wrong and the Axis powers must still answer for these horrible war crimes to this day! Also, any civilians killed by the US, UK, or USSR were justified since it benefited those nations strategically.


I was more directing this towards some of the other posts I'd seen in the thread.  Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 8, 2021)

HeyYou said:


> I said the Axis killed more civilians than the Allies, which is just a fact.


It's really not, unless you include the made up holocaust numbers.


----------



## WolfeTone (May 8, 2021)

It was pretty messed up that we dropped em where we did


----------



## Hongourable Madisha (May 8, 2021)

No, because it meant the officials in charge of the war got away with a lot of their crimes because Japan had supposedly suffered enough. Scum like Shiro Ishii got to live normal lives after the war, while civilians who had no idea what atrocities they were committing were nuked in their place. My family were imprisoned in camps in Semarang, one died and the rest wouldn't have survived the few more months it would've taken for the Allies to liberate Indonesia without the bombs, so I certainly have no love for the IJA, but I can't help but think the bombs meant that the wrong people were punished while the real bastards escaped justice. And nowadays all the bleeding heart types go on about the bombs every time anyone tries to talk about Unit 731, the Rape of Nanking or the "comfort women" policy. Everyone knows about the Holocaust but not enough people know about Japanese war crimes, because it's all overshadowed by the bombs, and that suits the nips just fine so they don't have to pay reparations.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 9, 2021)

Yes, because the Japanese were evil bastards who deserved way worse.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (May 9, 2021)

mr.moon1488 said:


> The USSR wouldn't have even been a threat to the Axis powers without JewSA interference.  Even with Japan being tied up fighting the US, and not really able to provide help to the Germans, the USSR was completely broken after Operation Barbarossa.  The US gave the USSR thousands of planes, vehicles, munitions, and supplies, which allowed them to recoup their forces enough to counterattack.
> 
> Also, I always love how allied simps react to topics like these.
> Killing civilians is wrong and the Axis powers must still answer for these horrible war crimes to this day!  Also, any civilians killed by the US, UK, or USSR were justified since it benefited those nations strategically.


When you play dirty you can’t bitch when the other side does it to you. Don’t really feel like crying over Dresden when there’s a mountain of dead British civilians.


----------



## Forgetful Gynn (May 9, 2021)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> When you play dirty you can’t bitch when the other side does it to you. Don’t really feel like crying over Dresden when there’s a mountain of dead British civilians.


The British refused all attempts at peace. They had an option.


----------



## Wuornos (May 9, 2021)

No.

Japan was well within their right to attack Pearl Harbor, a military target, in response to American aggression. They even gave you guys several warnings to back off and you still continued dogging them.

America dropped two nukes on peaceful civilian villages. You murdered hundreds of thousands of men, women and children. It was a genocidal act and is considered a war crime by most historians.

It will always be a stain on your country. It's quite amusing watching America police the world over nukes when you are the only country in the world to have committed genocide via nukes.

I guess anime destroying American youth is karma?


----------



## Tad Loaf (May 9, 2021)

Yeah, it's war, not some honorable duel with your neighbor. Do anything you have to in order to reduce damage to your people and maximize damage to their's and Japan at that time would agree with the sentiment.


----------



## The Last Boyscout (May 9, 2021)

whichever was the first one, yes - it was. Imperial Japan's culture of zealotry was somethin' else, alright, and somethin' else than the usual was likely warranted to snap them out of it. shit, it's not like the utterly insane firebombing prior to it didn't kill and destroy a LOT more already.

whichever was the second, lmao no way - that was good ole USA going: "well, looks like we finally brought them to the table, but let's throw another one of those fuckers just to make sure and our scientists need more data and a 2nd control case." it really was USA's version of "Bomber Harris, do it again!"


----------



## Dyn (May 9, 2021)

The only morally incorrect action was stopping after two bombs.


----------



## Toolbox (May 9, 2021)

Moloko said:


> No.
> 
> Japan was well within their right to attack Pearl Harbor, a military target, in response to American aggression. They even gave you guys several warnings to back off and you still continued dogging them.
> 
> ...


Was Japan not actively already attacking US allies and trade routes?


----------

