Needs an EMEA import to save them
17
NA is just like Oppenheimer
posted in
General Discussion
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
The war was about to end... Japan was on the brink of collapse, and many members of the government wanted to surrender, meaning that the nuke was not necessary (according to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information)
I think that you need to do some more research.
If you don't know: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both civilian cities. They had no military significance at all. They got chosen because the other cities were heavily bombed compared to these ones.
I think you need to do more research, you realise that ever after russia declared war on japan, AND both nukes dropped they voted 3 - 3 to surrender,
the only reason they actually ended up surrendering is because the emperor decided to vote (which is normally ceremonial-only role) on the condition that the allies would let the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state
There is a reason Japanese soldiers posted in remote places didn't believe japan surrendered when found decades later
There is literally no world where japan surrendered before the planned land invasion of japan a few months after the nukes dropped which was estimated to have >10 million causalities. The nukes killed 200,000 for comparison
Whether or not they should have nuked is hard to say but unarguably less people died then if the nukes hadn't dropped
Also they did have military significance, Hiroshima contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan.
Nagasaki had one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was importance because of the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials.
Hiroshima: "Although Hiroshima contained some military-related industrial facilities—an army headquarters and troop-loading docks—the vibrant city of over a quarter of a million men, women and children was hardly “a military base.” Indeed, less than 10 percent of the individuals killed on Aug. 6, 1945, were Japanese military personnel ...More than 70,000 men, women and children were killed immediately. In a cruel irony, the munitions factories on the periphery of the city were left largely unscathed." -https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/hiroshima-and-myths-military-targets-and-unconditional-surrender
Also, Nagasaki wasn't even the intended target. It was Kokura which was an actual military city. Nagasaki had some importance, but compared to Kokura, it was nothing. Also, why not the capital or some other big military cities? Because they wanted to kill as many people as possible even if that meant civilians.
Regarding estimates of deaths: "In addition to those killed instantly, many died over the next year of severe burns and radiation sickness. Significant numbers of people also died later from cancer and related diseases, and fatal birth defects may have been caused by the radiation." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trumans-decision-to-use-the-bomb-712569/End-game
They were chosen because they had little damage done by the firebombing and the bombing runs conducted prior in the war.
and what are these estimates of 10 million based on? Did the sources explain? Because there are also some reputable sources saying that it is an overestimate.
Also, it was 90% civilians... It missed the military areas in Hiroshima... Did Nagasaki have military significance? Sure. Did Hiroshima... no...
Dead to radiation vs the lasting effects also have to be taken into account.
Nuking isn't justified, and should not be justified. "saving lives" : kill children and civilians rather than soldiers who volunteered to fight...
MORON... K
First off: The Japanese were negotiating a conditional surrendering regarding the safety of the EMPEROR AND THE IMPERIAL PARTY. after the "unconditional surrender" their conditions regarding the protection of the EMPEROR AND IMPERIAL PARTY were still fulfilled.
WHO TF SAID ANYTHING ABOUT KYOTO LMFAOOO. LIL BRO'S VOICES ARE ACTIN UP! MORON!
I said: Nagasaki and Hiroshima: NAGASAKI AND HIROSHIMA
The one that was planned + had military significance but wasn't bombed in the end was Kokura NOT KYOTO MORON
I’m saying they didn’t bomb kyoto as to preserve civilians if it was just to kill they could have wiped out the nation without nukes just conducting bomb strikes on kyoto and tokyo
The matter of the fact and the way history settles was Japanese soldiers were fighting and dying killing until they surrendered after the Nagasaki and Hiroshima nukes you can COPE about a genocidal dictatorship all you want but there is no reason to prolong ww2
Why did people dislike your comment 😭😭
I swear people have never heard of Unit 731 gas attacks and experiments, comfort women, the rape, pillage, burn tactic across east Asia, and the conquests in SE Asia. I think it’s underrepresented in western media sometimes, which makes sense I guess.
I’ve once heard a quote.
“Nazi Germany turned killing into an industry. Imperial Japan turned killing into a sport.”
Let’s not glorify any country that fought in ww2. War is stupid and nothing can be justified. 🗿
Don’t be fooled by Anime y’all.
“Thinking” is not the same as “doing”
They never did, and would have not accepted unconditional surrender until the joint military invasion of Japan.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1945/surrender.htm
I did read this by the way, you clearly didn’t fully read it.
Japan if not accepting unconditional surrender could’ve kept many East Asian conquests.
Coming from a person whose family was gassed in zhejiang by unit 731, I think many people would definitely not agree to have their land be kept due to negotiated surrender.
Paragraph two of the “Japan surrenders” chapter
“From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions.”
Please read your own sources before commenting like this.
My mistake, but we also need to take into account that Hiroshima was 90% civilians, and that the 10% of militants weren't even effected.
To justify nukes based on the fact that it is "better" than fire-bombings does not change a thing... Both are bad. Is one worse? Yes. Does that mean that the other thing is justified? No.
You can't justify killing civilians.
You can rarely justify war, the real criminals are the old dictators who brainwash the young and send them to death and to commit unspeakable crimes.
Also ty for admitting your mistake.
I won’t say the nukes were justified, but it was a better alternative than the other plan proposed.
Not to say that, a better strategy couldn’t have been proposed - that’s always possible.
This thread has been locked.
Discord