You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Were the Bombs Necessary? Let's talk about it.
No need to be so rude.
It's true than many of the people were innocent. It was awful that the bombs were aimed at population centers.
Even if there were alternatives, It was likely the best choice to make at the time. It did produce results, with minimal allied casualties.
You forget to notice how disgusting some of the atrocities being carried out by the Japanese military were at the time. Humans are all flawed and horrible by nature. When we come together we judge and take action. Sometimes it's bad actions like this and Nazi Germany. Sometimes it's good.
We elect leaders who sometimes have to make choices where disposable numbers are the best measure of success and doing what's best- Even if it isn't always right.
He technically wasn't the first one to use the term 'moron' in a sentence within this topic - but I quite agree that emulation is not optimal.
Incidentally I steadfastly believe that both nukes were unnecessary.
First of all, there were attempts on the Japanese side to end the war - and it was the Allies who were steadfastly aiming for the Emperor to stand trial for crimes against humanity.
Anybody with any understanding of the relationship between the Japanese and their Emperor will readily realize how that went down.
Thus Japan was attempting to get prosecution of the Emperor off the table - via the Russians as mediators.
Ironically when the first bomb dropped - Russia was 'honorably' on-hand to invade the north of Japan.
In spite of a diplomatic scramble on the side of Japan, the second bomb dropped... and the rest is history...
It is amazing that Japan has thrived so well since (with one or five hiccups along the way).
P.S. Japan was militarily a sitting duck and had little offensive capability - since the sinking of the pride of its fleet in 1943... but 'somebody' wanted to see what Little Boy could do - and to underline military supremacy in the decades and century to come.
Yep that part was understandable, but it didn't stop at just 'moron'. I wouldn't have said anything at all otherwise lol.
It's true there were other options and other attempts. Do you think things played out in a more unlikely manner than they should have based on the overall situation?
It actually doesn't surprise me that Japan has done well since. A lot American money was invested there to rebuild the economy and forge political dominance. The Japanese were subsequently banned from supporting any realistic military budget, so they were able to use that elsewhere. Piggybacking the trade network and outsourcing defense bargain!
I also believe that curiosity and a show of force was a major consideration when deciding to use the bombs.
I was hoping to provide an indirect nudge there - if emulation is not optimal then escalation is simply bad. :cP I could have been more direct - one should always be classy in one's communications (and name-calling (and worse) is not classy).
I personally think that there were interests at play wishing to see the A-bomb used in a real world situation - and that such eagerness smothered and over-ruled any attempts by Japan to opt-out, not once but twice.
The first bomb could easily have been dropped in a less populated area as a warning - if one were trying to be humane about it. Instead 'valuable data' was collected on the A-bombs effects upon population centers.
Of course - it is possible that Russia simply wasn't passing on Japan's mediation efforts (they did move fast) - and that the US dropped the bombs blind to Japan's efforts, rather than in spite of them.
You make a very good point about the effect of post-war political interference upon Japan. That should have been obvious to me but you put me back in the picture. Fortunately it has worked out well for Japan.
Also - 100% agreed with your final statement. A consideration indeed.