Was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki purely utilitarian (ending the war quickly with less casualties) or did they have other motives as well?
It was a showoff to the Soviets. "Look at we have you red bastards!" Too bad the commies already had their own spies on the Manhattan project.
>>871705
It had no "utilitarian" use (Japs were already in process of surrendering)
It was purely to test it on civilians and send a message to the USSR
>>871705
muh unconditional surrender
>>871705
Ostensibly it was to force unconditional surrender from the Japanese, however scholars and historians seem to fall under the consensus that it was a form of chest beating against the Soviet Union, a gaudy and frankly morally questionable display of the furious power the US possessed.
>Was nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki purely utilitarian (ending the war quickly with less casualties) or did they have other motives as well?
Yes
by mid 1945 before the US had the capabilities to invade mainland Japan there were already 3m deahs in the Pacific war, not counting the deliberate slaughter and systematic murder of tens of millions of innocents (Japs killed more than the nazis did during the holocaust). US officials estimated that if mainland Japan were to be invaded head on, it would have taken many more years and cost at least 1m more civilian casualties, and would've been "an Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other." -Truman.
The bomb cost around 140-170k lives, it was just too bad that they targeted the areas of Japan with the highest rate of Christians; those who might've been sympathetic to allied attempts at winning the war. Even after the nuking of Japan high ranking Jap generals still didn't want to concede because they believed in the power of decisive battle, it was only after Hirohito overruled them that the nation surrendered. Also yeah it probably was a great way of letting the soviets know who's boss, is there anything morally wrong with showing off?
TL;DR: It cost a fraction of the lives in the nuking and a tiny amount of time and resources compared to years of bloody battle trying to invade mainland Japan. Any SJW that tells you it's awful because of the civilian casualties the nuking cost or because of evil western imperialist attempts at pacifying the world are wrong and only use the nuking to fit their anti-white, anti-western narrative of history.
They wanted surrender as soon as possible so the Soviets can't claim a chunk of Japan.
>>871875
/thread
>>871714
Japan was "in the process of surrendering" as soon as the first American bombs dropped. They didn't agree to an unconditional surrender until after the bombs were dropped and America had no reason to believe they were going to crack any time soon.
>>871875
>it was just too bad that they targeted the areas of Japan with the highest rate of Christians
They didn't pray so good.
