You know what to do.
Obligatory.
>>846938
>Americans will defend this
One was enough, but why two?
>>846963
Its like an exclamation point after a sentence.
Reminder Imperial fucking shits doomed Japan, Tokugawa is the rightful Shogun and ruler, NOT Satsuma usurpers
Fuck yes!
Do you agree /his/?
So when did you learn to love The Bomb, /his/?
>>846963
>hey we're gonna kill the fuck out of you if you don't surrender
>fuck you america pig dog we never surrender!
>ok so we firebombed you, took all of your islands, sunk your navy, shot down your airforce, completely depraved you of all natural resources and you're so fucked you can't even spare ammo to shoot at recon planes
>will you surrender now
>FUCK YOU AMERICA WE FIGHT TILL LAST MAN
>we're gonna fucking nuke you if you don't surrender
>GAIJIN GO HOME
>ok we nuked you, ready to surrender yet, if not we're gonna nuke you again
>BAKA GAIJIN BLUFFING NO HAVE NUKE
>ok well there's another nuke and now Russia is balls deep in your asshole to boot, can you surrender before we have to invade and nuke the beaches first (this was the actual plan)
>fine, white piggu win, we surrender, better than rape piggu at least
>
>>846989
this
Name a harder decision than whether to drop Little Boy or not
>>846989
TOKUGAWA FOREVER
江戸 not 東京ok?
>>847082
Wether or not to care.
>>847014
When I learned that it dterred wars between major powers :3
>>847082
>drop bomb on enemy city
gee what a hard decision.
its not like we've done that before.
>>847100
whether to be this edgy or not
I'd love to hear a non-american's thoughts on these bombings.
Any takers?
>>848380
They deserved it after the war crimes shit they pulled off.
t. Flip
America has a bomb bigger than any bomb ever and are curious to see what it does.
So they drop it on Japan.
That simple.
>>847082
i'm pretty sure they did not care at this point of the war. They where like "why dont these smelly yellow fucks give up, we go their big brother out of the game?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqna5da5cBQ
>>846959
Talk shit, get hit.
Reminder that Operation Meetinghouse likely killed more people than both Hiroshima and Nagaski combined and people hardly ever bitch about it. It also displaced more people than the total pre-bombing populations of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
>>848545
Probably more hell objectively. At least the people near the explosion were immediately vaporized.
>>846938
What God creates, Man can destroy...
>>848386
>Implying glorious nippon ever commited war crimes
This is a chinamen lie perpetuated by the western victors.
>>847057
rare amounts of autism in this post
>>848380
I'm German and I have to say, wow, America is fucking evil.
>>848380
Argentine here.
They did the right decision.
If they had not bombed, they'd have to invade Japan or blockade their ports.
Either way, millions would die - either of starvation or in battle - and the death tool would be hundreds of times higher.
I can say this with confidence because even in small islands like Guadalancal and Pelileu, the Japs were making very brave stands, and believed in a final battle that would turn the tide of the war in their own homeland.
Nuking the Japs was the right thing to do.
Even after taking two fucking a-bombs, I think the japs were more afraid of getting invaded by the soviets after the kwantung army got rapidly pwned by them in manchuria
>>846989
>Tokugawa is the rightful Shogun and ruler, NOT Satsuma usurpers
>2016
>Shogunate fags still butthurt Meiji took a third world medieval shit country and truned it into a industrialized world power in a generation
Reminder that America dropped the bombs in part because of a shitty translation.
https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/tech_journals/mokusatsu.pdf
>>848807
>Meijifags turned Japan into the most cucked nation in Asia with a population of cartoon girl-loving betas
fix'd
>>848811
Yeah because Satsuma didn't get cucked by any european power that chose to open ports on his own land
>>848832
*Tokugawa
>>848797
yeah, America can kill as many people as they want to, no one will ever take them seriously.
>>847057
that post gave me autism
>>848811
>cartoon
don't call her that
>>848515
This ain't the titty bar. These is nukes
>>848797
Yeah, the kwatung army that had no ability to get to Japan.
This meme really needs to die.
>>848585
God created nothing in either city.
t. civil engineer
>>848847
>yeah, America can kill as many people as they want to, no one will ever take them seriously.
You fail to comprehend the level of fanaticism and loyalty the japs had to their Emperor (who was literally regarded as descendant of the Yamato gods)
>>848875
>>848380
Canada.
It was the right call.
>>848380
Our civilians if to fight a land invasion to their deaths. I wouldn't be alive of that I have certainty. The bombs shook everyone of the slumber of blind idiocy. They were necessary evil.
日本人です
>>846959
you're goddamn right we will.
>>848380
Australian here, the nukes were nothing remarkable compared to the rest of the bombing, and land invasion would have been incredibly bloody. Plus the Japanese had strongly demonstrated that they weren't going to surrender even in terrible situations. Fighting for their home soil would be worse.
Bottom line, it was normal war stuff in a slightly new way.
>>849157
In fact the Americans produced so many wounded medals for the expected invasion, they're still using them today. Iwo Jima and Saipan made a big impression.
>>846938
The only reason Japan hadn't already surrendered was that the US demanded they surrender unconditionally, which they still didn't do after the bombs were dropped. they only surrendered when the US promised that the Emperor would not be completely desposed
>>849242
>Plus the Japanese had strongly demonstrated that they weren't going to surrender even in terrible situations.
I don't get how anyone could think this.
Japan was literally trying to surrender at this point. The argument was just over the terms.
'Nukes or invasion' is clearly a false dichotomy. The Allies also had the option of accepting the Japanese surrender and allowing the condition that the Emperor not be tried as a war criminal (a condition which they ultimately allowed anyway, even after the unconditional surrender).
It's also incredibly unlikely that Japan would have allowed the war to go on after the Russians broke the non-aggression pact. That event (which happened to coincide with the second nuke) is probably the major factor behind the unconditional surrender.
>>848380
Pole here, the second one probably wasn't needed but other than that they deserved it. In fact it wasn't even THAT bad, firebombings had bigger death toll, this thing had just enormous shock value.
>>849414
>trying to surrender
No, they were trying to shake hands, say GG, and take their ball and go home. And they were stalling as obnoxiously as possibly to attempt to gain ground at the negotiating table.
They were already heavily fucked at this stage, adding the Russians doesn't change much.
two atomic memes that make a lot of people butthurt for some reason, as if Bombs Away LeMay hadnt already burned down half of Japan with incendiaries
probably dropped by the americans as a live firing exercise and as a message to the rest of the world. they probably could have achieved the japanese unconditional surrender if they just kept burning down japanese cities
>>849414
>I don't get how anyone could think this.
>Japan was literally trying to surrender at this point. The argument was just over the terms.
the terms of a surrender are extremely important
as we all know, messing up the post war settlement after ww1 caused all sorts of bullshit problems later on
>>848380
Canadian here.
Can't say Nagasaki was 100% necessary, but dropping at least one of the bombs was definitely the right call. Nuclear armament in general is something I really appreciate. It means that Europe isn't now a crater potentially ruled by soviets.
>>849535
>the terms of a surrender are extremely important
Sure... but that doesn't explain how someone could take the position that the Japanese 'weren't going to surrender'.
And the main condition that the Japanese demanded was protection for the Emperor, which was ultimately given anyway. It clearly wasn't an extremely important condition for the Allies.
>>849495
>adding the Russians doesn't change much
They suddenly had another very powerful enemy, which had just decimated Japanese military forces in Manchuria. It's a pretty important development.
Meanwhile America dropped yet another bomb, with fewer deaths than the first nuke and far fewer than previous fire bombings.
It's a very difficult argument to say that the latter was the sole cause of Japan's unconditional surrender, while the former 'didn't change much'.
>>849600
>important development
Another enemy with sweet fuck all ability to get to the home islands. And they weren't capable of doing anything the Americans weren't capable of.
>sole cause
More like the two bombs that broken the camels back. They had no way of knowing that the Americans were out of nukes. Ground invasion and bombing could be managed, erasing cities was a totally different proposition.
>>849600
Not the guy you're responding to, but it is quite easy to make the argument that the nuke was enormously more important than the Soviet entrance to the war.
The nuke could hit Japan. The Soviets really couldn't. Their attack on the almost undefended Kuril Islands cost them a third of their (borrowed) landing craft and demonstrated that they were shit at the whole storming beaches thing. They never would have made it ashore on Japan proper.
>>849651
>Another enemy with sweet fuck all ability to get to the home islands
This is true. However, did Japanese knew about it?
>>849690
Did the Japanese have a pretty decent idea about Russian naval capabilities? Yes, I imagine so.
The notion that these boms are somehow separate as far as atrocities go seems absurd to me. The Tokyo firebombings were far more destructive, as far as I know. It's only their subsequent impact on human imagination that is meddling with the way we view them, which strikes me as irrational.
On the other hand, the fact that America remains the only country to actually use these bombs and then has the gall to tell the Iranians whether they are allowed to have them or not is just hypocrisy.
>>849763
>Hurr, what is the NPT?
>>849700
The Soviets themselves didn't know how poorly they would do at amphibious warfare until Kuril. They had otherwise been planning to invade Hokkaido. The Soviets thought that was likely to be successful at the time, and there's no reason the Japanese would have thought any differently based on the information they had at that point.
>>849808
What the Soviets thought and what the Japanese thought would hardly be in accord. Particularly considering Russian/Japanese Naval history, and the total lack of any Russian amphibious operations experience. And if they came to terms with the Americans satisfactorily, the Russians wouldn't want to stir that pot overly. Japanese being fully aware of the antipathy between the Soviets and everyone else, and being noted anti-communists themselves.
>>849800
how exactly does the NPT have any legitimacy ? The nations that already had nukes still retained their arsenals
>>849808
>>849931
Now another question is whether Japanese still had hope in Soviet mediation like days before they've attacked.
Remember that the key reason they've surrendered so late was that the factions inside of Japanese political system agreed on one single thing - the Emperor must stay here and Americans weren't really friendly towards that idea. So before Soviets joined the war there was an idea that due to geopolitical reasons, Soviet union may want to keep "unaligned" Japan as a sort of neutral independent buffer state in between the US and them, which led them to think that they may mediate and make the US agree on keeping the Emperor as at least symbolic figure.
From what I've read about the topic, Japanese were going to surrender after the first bomb, or even earlier but they were biding their time, after Soviets attacked them, they've lost all their hopes.
>>849931
It's not sensible to attribute to the Japanese a more thorough knowledge of Soviet naval capabilties than the Soviets had themselves. Yes, they may have had different views, but in the absence of a very compelling argument to the contrary you would expect that the Soviets would know more about Soviet military affairs than anyone else.
It's easy in hindsight to refer to the lack of amphibious operations experience, but obviously the Soviets were as aware of that fact as anyone else. It's not like the Soviets mistakenly believed that they were experts at amphibious warfare, and only the Japanese knew that they weren't.
The Soviets had at least as much, and almost certainly more, knowledge of their military strength than anyone else, and based on that information they were planning an invasion. There is no reason to suppose that the Japanese would not have expected that invasion to go ahead, if they hadn't surrendered.
>>849944
The nations that already had nukes didn't use them for several decades before NPT was a thing which has proven them to be reliable at handling them.
Allowing any new nations to obtain nuclear weapons is a risk taking. India and Pakistan are risky enough already.
>>850027
t. Nations already possessing nukes, or with allies already possessing nukes.
You really don't see how much a farce that whole thing is?
>>850043
No anon. There's literally no farce.
Look at the nations that have nukes.
The US and Russia/USSR aimed them at each other for almost entire cold war, they still do now.
Have they ever fired them? No. They've never fired them at 3rd party despite fighting a war against them several times as well.
China has that 300(?) nukes forever, they're only here to scare off anybody wanting to invade.
British and French fought wars when they've had nukes and again - they didn't use them.
India and Pakistan(not NPT) have nukes and you can see that I'm being worried about them
Israel(not NPT) has nukes but despite fighting in various conflict in their homeland which rage from skirmishes to full-blown wars in which they were enormously outnumbered they've NEVER used them, which renders them safe despite not signing the treaty.
North Korea(not NPT) is suspected to have nukes and due to its political system it's seen as dangerous(but I'd say they're doing it just so NATO won't roll over them because Seoul being evaporated is pretty heavy casualty and North Korea is certainly able to do this).
Iran is ruled by shiites and is openly theocratic country ever since 1979. Shiite concept of Armageddon is different from sunni(or any other sect's) concept of Armageddon in the way that Sunnis and whatever believe that Mahdi will come to them and Islam will rule the war, but he will come when he's supposed to while Shiites believe that he will arrive when specifically apocalyptic scenario will appear on earth, as in - you can speed his coming up. Tell me that Iran having nukes is no big deal now.
>>849944
Yes, why should nations be held to agreements that they freely entered into? That's just crazy talk.
If you don't like the terms of the treaty, don't sign it. Or withdraw from it. Don't sign it, accept the benefits of doing so, and then break the provisions.
>>848380
To be honest, it shouldn't need to still be talked about. They saved millions (both Japanese and Americans) by dropping them. Anyway, if you absolutely must bitch about bombs, bitch about firebombing.
t. Canadian
>>850127
Iran may be openly theocratic, but there is no indication that they would follow their religious doctrine to such an extreme degree. It seems to me you are putting the cart before the horse, they use religion as a stabilizing factor to give legitimacy to their regime, the regime doesn't exist to serve the religion.
Besides, if the nukes aren't needed, why don't the current nuclear powers dismantle their arsenals?
>>850130
That treaty was never brought up on anything resembling equal terms, so I'm positing that it has no legitimacy and therefore doesn't need to be signed.
Two major world powers already possessing nukes deciding that the rest of the world can't have them and telling them "take it or leave it" is precisely what I would call a farce and an illegitimate treaty.
Besides, the then-leader of Iran was basically an American puppet, so saying that they "freely entered into it" is a bit of a stretch.
>>850209
mean to say doesn't need to be honored, not signed
>>850209
>That treaty was never brought up on anything resembling equal terms, so I'm positing that it has no legitimacy and therefore doesn't need to be signed.
As opposed to the vast majority of international treaties? Nation-states are only very rarely and by chance equal negotiating partners. The differing power of said states colors all negotiations, not just nuclear ones. At that point, you may as well say that all treaties are worthless in their entirety.
>Two major world powers already possessing nukes deciding that the rest of the world can't have them and telling them "take it or leave it" is precisely what I would call a farce and an illegitimate treaty.
That is not what the NPT says. You might want to brush up on the provisions of it. In return for foregoing attempts to develop nuclear weapons, existing nuclear powers (which include more than just the US and USSR, btw) promise assistance, especially in the development of non-militarized nuclear power, which was offered to Iran and rejected.
>Besides, the then-leader of Iran was basically an American puppet, so saying that they "freely entered into it" is a bit of a stretch.
Which again would imply that any treaty negotiated by Iran during the Shah's rule is non-applicable, a position that I don't think anyone takes seriously. Furthermore, the NPT includes withdrawal clauses. North Korea of all people have exercised them. Iran can do the same, and if they wish to develop nuclear weapons, ought to do so; and certainly shouldn't whine if they're facing sanctions under the violation clauses.
>>847057
That's actually not half bad
>>850174
>there is no indication that they would follow their religious doctrine to such an extreme degree
They're using it to justify supplying Hezbollah with weapons and funds. They're funding civil war in Yemen, have some groups in Somalia and Libya as well. I'd say it's safe to assume that their religion does influence their political decisions.
Anon you remind me of bureaucrat who absolutely can't understand how could somebody possibly lie on document. Like the vision of government that isn't read by rational thought is something so bizarre to you that you can't imagine something like it existing, but we've lived through so many crazy motherfuckers including khmer rogue, why would you think Iran is somehow special here?
>Besides, if the nukes aren't needed, why don't the current nuclear powers dismantle their arsenals?
Who said they aren't needed? They are amazing as a deterrence weapons, unless you give them to madman or religious zealot.
>>848767
Of course you do
>>847082
>make a bomb for the sole purpose of dropping it on some city
>bomb finished
>drop it
>>849242
I actually think we recently ran out of those medals
>>847014
Man. Imagine seeing this shit out from your window during a casual flight.
>>846938
The perfect ending to the most tragic chapter in human history.
>>846989
Why did Saigo have to die?
Based Canadians supporting the nuke.
Britain: Japan deserved to be cleansed in righteous nuclear fire. Glad the yanks let us watch second time round.
