Was dropping the bomb the right thing to do?
How many would have died if we didn't?
Would significantly less civilians had died if we invaded?
>>1165238
> Would significantly less civilians had died if we invaded?
no, it would have been many more, probably by a few magnitudes
Operation Downfall was projected to produce 2 million US casualties. All Purple Hearts issued by the US military since WW2 were part of an initial production run for the invasion. The US has made it through Korea, Vietnam, and the Global War on Terror without running out.
This was probably too low, as the Japanese High Command had correctly predicted American landing points and order of battle.
An American land invasion would have looked like something out of the absolute worst days of the Eastern Front, or the Paraguayan War.
Picture the Battle of Berlin times like ten.
Not to mention Japan wasn't self sufficient in food. One of the first things the US did after the surrender was rush in as much food as possible to avert the impending famine. Even without a blockade, you would see mass starvation.
I think it's almost impossible to think of a historical scenario that involves less than 200,000 Japanese dead during that time period. That's just the way it was back then.
>>1165295
All Purple Hearts issued by the US military since WW2 were part of an initial production run for the invasion. The US has made it through Korea, Vietnam, and the Global War on Terror without running out.
no
>>1165295
This. Thread closed.
>>1165321
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals (awarded for combat casualties) were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[95] There were so many left that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded in the field.[95]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall#Estimated_casualties
Get rekt faggot.
>>1165295
False dichotomy. You assume the not dropping the bomb produces the downfall scenario. Your entire post is about how Downfall was bad.
You have not established causality. Don't count your chickens before they hatch, kiddo.
I don't think the bomb was the actual reason for their surrender, more like it was the last straw.
>>1165276
dang how come?
>>1165392
>the US military had already established operational plans and committed to an invasion of Kyushu
>the Japanese military had established operational plans to resist an invasion of Kyushu
>both combatants were committed; the US had taken 400,000 dead up to this point, and Japan was so fanatical that even after the atomic bombs, there were junior officer coups attempted to force the war to continue
>your mother is disappointed in you
Unless one of these axioms is untrue, I can't see a way in which less than 200,000 Japanese would die.
>>1165435
Look at the Battle of Berlin, the Paraguayan War, or the Siege of Leningrad for real life examples.
>>1165439
You haven't established a relation to atom bombs, nor do your axioms. One of them mentions bombs, but absurdly as an example of them being ignored.
>>1165238
Imagine you're Truman.
On one hand, you have Operation Downfall. It works, but the cost in human lives (which you probably don't care about), time and public perception (of which both are related, as it'll drag the war for another year or so and once the people realize that Downfall is not as nice as the European Theater, shit's gonna happen) is gonna be detrimental to your administration.
On the other hand, Stalin says he wants to help. You don't like Stalin and you're unwilling to work with him. Also, you're gonna have to give him MORE HELP and expertise since you probably know about the Kurils Campaign.
And then you have an untested superweapon that your generals are sure could turn the tide of the war to your favor, but they don't know the side effects of.
Which one would you pick then?
HOL UP
Your question presupposes there is an absolutely right thing to do in the situation.
Ending a war that endangers thousands of innocent people allied to you necessitates the killing of thousands of innocents allied to the enemy, but killing innocents is never the right thing to do.
Neither of the three outcomes was right, but I do believe they picked the least wrong one.
When the only alternatives are letting more people get killed and killing more people, you have to pick the least wrong one.
I'm sure the men who dropped that bomb knew on some level that what they did was wrong, even if it was buried deep inside them, but I doubt they'd have allowed the other outcomes to occur.
I'm sorry if Japan was on the wrong side of the game of wrongs, but they picked their side and refused to give up.
>>1165466
Okay, let's add more axioms to try and create a more complete logical picture
>up to this point, every major city in Japan had been bombed extensively, the bombing of Tokyo had killed perhaps half a million
>Japanese forces had been pushed back at every turn, to the point where US forces could take Okinawa, which was part of Japan proper
>the combination of American submarine warfare and the aptly named Operation Starvation air dropped mine program had devastated the Japanese merchant marine to the point where Japan could no longer feed itself
>this was insufficient to induce a surrender, as the Japanese High Command literally had a pathological aversion to surrender
>the Japanese believed that they could still win the war by making an invasion of the home islands so costly that America would accept a negotiated settlement
>even the first atomic bomb wasn't enough, as the first reaction of the Japanese High Command was to insist that the attack wasn't the work of a fission nuclear device, as the Japanese had attempted to create such a device and deemed it impossible
>after the bombing of Nagasaki, an American airman was shot down over Japan and was tortured for information about the US nuclear program
>since he didn't know anything, he said that the Americans were producing 50 bombs a month
>only the threat of being completely annihilated with no chance of inflicting any damage on the enemy was enough to force a surrender
>you touch yourself at night
Downfall was unlikely, but continued fire raids and the blockade would've killed more people than the bombs ever did. Plus the Soviet Union could've steamrolled all of Korea, which wouldn't have been fun. Out of all possible outcomes, it was probably the best.
>>1165528
Downfall had a date on the calendar and troops were actively being gathered for it.
>>1165508
This isn't high school history class where you can just sperg out endless anecdotes and everyone will listen politely to you while you perniciously avoid answering the actual question.
Prove that atomic weapons caused the Japanese surrender.
>>1165535
Prove that Hitler invading Poland caused France and England to declare war.
>>1165535
Are you just being woefully ignorant?
>>1165535
Why do you think they surrendered?
>>1165532
Both King and Nimitz opposed the operation, and even if Truman refused to use the bomb, he wasn't too hot on an invasion of the home islands.
Why are we still talking about the necessity of the atomic bomb? That is of little consequence. We probably didn't need it.
The Japanese committed some of the worst war crimes in modern history. Nanking, the Phillipines, coastal China, their treatment of Western POWs. Truly horrific, nightmare fuel shit. The average Japanese soldier had zero respect for human life. And we're going to sit back and debate whether it was moral to hit them with the worst weapon we had at our disposal?
Fuck them. The Japanese deserved it.
>>1165573
I see you've also read pic related.
>>1165539
I asked first. Also stop samefagging.
>>1165577
>we
>deal with it
t. reddit
>>1165586
Sorry, but before this goes any further, I'm going to need you to prove that Gavrilo Princip caused WW1.
>>1165591
But my whole challenge was to get you to stop posting irrelevant shit. If you stop that means I've won ;)
>>1165577
I love that pasta, it really gets to the heart of the issue.
The amount of horror Japan inflicted upon Asia and the Pacific is almost unparalleled. They really did deserve the nuke. And we can debate the morality of killing civilians all you want, but I really don't care. I'll admit it was revenge, but sometimes revenge is necessary
>>1165586
I'm not that guy so I can vouch that he's not samefagging. From what I've been reading in your chain of replies, you're just being an ignorant little shit.
>Prove that atomic weapons caused the Japanese surrender.
Seriously? Open a history book.
>>1165596
Dumb question.
Do you think the Spanish-American War had anything to do with the USS Maine?
The timing is suspicious to me, but then again, it could have been because of the Soviets taking Manchuria.
>>1165598
And on themselves.
I am now completely unsurprised at how the average Japanese soldier treated the civilians when I realized that their own generals treated them like shit to begin with. It completely explains the atrocities the IJA (and to a much lesser extent, the IJN) committed.
The miracle was that they actually did good or managed to stand up for decent treatment of PoWs to begin with.
>>1165637
>>1165637
>>1165535
Dude you got rekt, just accept it.
>>1165577
>I type in all caps so I'm right
>>1165747
I think that's more of a style choice to make it more readable.
Like how logos are in all caps.
He's right because he used a lot of obscenity, not because of the caps.
The Japanese had a no surrender policy. Prior to the bombs being dropped (and the firebombings, which were arguably much worse than the bombs themselves), plans were being made to outfit every man, woman and child to resist an American invasion, which has already been pointed out as unfeasible and extremely costly for both sides.
The bombs were terrible but people forget the alternatives. If they did invade, it's likely parts of the japanese would defect after some time. But it would still be really long and costly, with no guarantee the invading forces would be forced to merely slaughter most of the populace, and would involve sending a war weary army to amphibiously assault a densely populated mountainous island. kinda fucked
>>1165238
Why is that clown drawn like that?
>>1165238
They were the humane thing to do. Tens of millions of soldiers and civilians would be dead otherwise.
>>1165238
>Anonymous
Dropping the bomb was the best way to end the war, but it was the worst thing that could happen to humanity.
Still is.
>Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should We continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
>Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewel_Voice_Broadcast
The use of the bomb, was seen as a convenient explanation for Japanese surrender, they were defeated by Science, not man. In addition, Japanese leaders did not meet immediately after Hiroshima, instead they convened immediately after the Soviet Declaration of war.
If America of 1945 were a current day nation in, say, the middle east; Americans would have no problem with calling the bombing of Hiroshima a war crime and attempt overthrowing the 1945 American "regime".
>>1165495
>""""""""""Innocents"""""""""
>>1165238
Yes.
I hate to say it but let's look at the facts
>Japan already proved at Iowa Jima/fucking Okinawan they weren't fighting to win but kill as many as possible.
>Fighting would involve bunkers, mountains, and millions dedicated to fighting to the last man
>Japan had biological weapons
>Japan would literally be corpses and ash before America/Soviet forces declared a victory
>Fucking china and the Soviet Union having better access to the Pacific
Dropping the bomb was horrible, and despite what many people argue, we didn't know what it was capable of. It ended the war, and made the cold war less hot then it already was
>>1165439
>Junior officer coups attempted to force the war to continue.
Nigg that was just half of the 1st Imperial Guard in the IJA who were following a retarded Major. You know the Imperial Guard that in history has always fucked up a lot of stuff.
Young officers were sick of the war, higher up's knew they were fucked, and the enlistees just wanted things to end. With enough causalities in the initial invasion and news of the Jap soldiers getting btfo, people would've let the US steam roll across Japan so long as they got food and didn't get shot.
>>1166286
Iwo Jima was brilliant.
No banzai charges, defenders deeply dug in, operators operating operationally and they all did it to buy an ungrateful nation time.
The general in charge of the defense knew how the American mind worked and basically did what Ho Chih Minh would be doing during the Vietnam War.
Source: Letters from Iwo Jima, the BOOK.
>>1165573
>I'm justified in killing hundreds of innocent children because some people they're tangentially related to did some bad shit
>>1166938
So, you're implying they're not responsible for the maltreatment of their own soldiers, the atrocities their own brothers and sisters committed, and all the fucked up shit that happened by dint of "I didn't know"?
I fucking hold myself responsible for literally everything my government by dint of being a citizen of the country I live in and if my country were hit by sanctions or war, I will fucking say I deserve it because I propped up a despotic regime by simply doing nothing.
Any other form of rationalization is just unthinkable and contradictory.
>>1166961
Do you honestly expect infants and children to be able to do anything to stop an extremely powerful and autocratic government? Or hell, the vast majority of Japan's citizens period? WW2 Japan wasn't like the US or most of the rest of the modern west where you can openly protest if you disagree with your country's actions.
And to clarify, I don't think nuking Japan was bad - the other options were far more costly on all fronts - but to say that the people killed or injured by the bombs deserved it simply for being a citizen of the target country is ridiculous.
>>1165238
they were on the brink of surrender
>>1166979
Not him, but you are right from an idealistic point of view.
Although, this raise a good question.
In the face of your country's government making a mistake that threatens your nation's existence, is there a duty to revolt? And if so by failing to revolt, should the people accept the consequences?
I don't really know why people get so hung up on the atom bombs when the firebombing campaign inflicted even more civilian casualties.
Given that my grandfather may well have been killed in the invasion, I can't really find it in me to argue against the bomb. Japan had already lost the war - they have no one to blame but themselves for not surrendering sooner. They were perfectly aware of the USAAF's destructive potential already.
>>1168377
The atom bombs have symbolic value. At the end of the day you have to reduce issues to make them digestible to the public. The controversy over atom bombs has undoubtedly affected the post war climate, and galvanized treaties against indiscriminate civilian bombing that would otherwise have less impetus if not for the awe inspiring sword of damocles unleashed.
Two words
>Operation downfall
an incredibly higher amount of japanese would have been killed if we went with that plan instead.
Not to mention the japanese killed much more in nanking
