We literally nuked them to cow them into surrender rather than spend millions of American and japanese lives in a brutal and ultimately pointless land campaign. We took away their glorious last stand on the home islands and replaced it with instant annihilation, lingering death, and the taste of the sun. It might have spared more Japanese lives in the long run, but it definitely saved a whole mess of American lives in an immediate way. That’s what really matters. USA #1 baybeee
The Russians had zero ability to invade the Japanese home islands. The Russian official declaration of war only cut off a potential way for the Japanese to broker a peace through a neutral Russia.
I suspect they could’ve gained a limited (big emphasis on limited) ability to invade the Japanese islands if/once they seized coastal Chinese and Korean regions that were under Japanese control, some ships might’ve been around.
That’s a post facto justification. Reading over the notes of the people doing the strategic planning for it all, it’s quite clear they expected the war to continue. For example, there was a debate on if they should drop the nukes as they become available (which would have been a few a month), or if they should store them up and drop a whole lot on invasion day.
The Japanese had already fought on through the firebombing of Tokyo. That killed a comparable number of people to the atomic bombings. It just takes a lot more bombers to make it happen compared to dropping a nuke.
Honestly I feel like we really missed something when we passed on the bat bombs. Those things would have absolutely annihilated any significant concentrations of Japanese structures. I feel like weaponizing nature could be done a lot better
In his letter, Adams stated that the bat was the “lowest form of animal life”, and that, until now, “reasons for its creation have remained unexplained”.
In one incident, the Carlsbad Army Airfield Auxiliary Air Base … near Carlsbad, New Mexico, was set on fire on May 15, 1943, when armed bats were accidentally released.
Bat bombs were an experimental World War II weapon developed by the United States. The bomb consisted of a bomb-shaped casing with over a thousand compartments, each containing a hibernating Mexican free-tailed bat with a small, timed incendiary bomb attached. Dropped from a bomber at dawn, the casings would deploy a parachute in mid-flight and open to release the bats, which would then disperse and roost in eaves and attics in a 20–40-mile radius (32–64 km). The incendiaries, which were set on timers, would then ignite and start fires in inaccessible places in the largely wood and paper constructions of the Japanese cities that were the weapon’s intended target.
Initially, dogs were trained to leave a timer-detonated bomb and retreat, but this routine was replaced by an impact-detonation procedure which killed the dog in the process.
Lmfao yeah training women and children how to kill themselves rather than be raped to death by the Wildman invaders sounds a lot like preparing to peacefully surrender.
Eat 15 dicks and then read a history book imbecile
There was a coup in the Japanese military to try to prevent a surrender after the nukes were dropped. Things are far from that simple.
Now, one thing I’ll agree with is that Japan would have surrendered long before on the condition that the Emperor would be kept in place. Then we got the unconditional surrender, and after all the peace talks were done and documents signed, we still allowed the Emperor to keep his place. The argument here is that the American people were out for blood and public perception would only accept unconditional surrender. I don’t think that’s a very good moral argument, though, especially when it led to nukes being used in anger.
Here in the states we have a long standing tradition of assassination of our elected officials.
The US also has a long standing tradition of overkill in warfare. It has little to do with our lack of respect for life, rather the assumption enemies might not me keen to surrender or may believe in the cause for which they’re engaged in hostilities enough to put up an honest fight.
Shaun on YouTube makes a pretty strong case the US didn’t need to drop atom bombs on Japan to secure its surrender, but the US has been really good about not resorting to nuclear attacks since then even when officials wanted to use them, as per Reagan and Trump. Human civilization continues to close on eighty years without a nuclear war.
Everyone forgets the Korean war, but MacArthur begged for the use of nukes when he fucked up and gave the Chinese an excuse to get directly involved. This is especially notable because while the USSR had tested a nuke at that point, they didn’t have many, and they didn’t have the ability to deploy them en masse against the US directly. The US still had an effective monopoly on deploying nukes, and it still didn’t use them.
Pretty sure the ones dropping nukes on entire cities have even less value for life.
We literally nuked them to cow them into surrender rather than spend millions of American and japanese lives in a brutal and ultimately pointless land campaign. We took away their glorious last stand on the home islands and replaced it with instant annihilation, lingering death, and the taste of the sun. It might have spared more Japanese lives in the long run, but it definitely saved a whole mess of American lives in an immediate way. That’s what really matters. USA #1 baybeee
There’s strong arguments to be made that we nuked them so that they’d surrender to us instead of the Russians.
3 prongs.
It was also to show off the nukes to the Russians
Why do one thing when can do many thing same time
The Russians had zero ability to invade the Japanese home islands. The Russian official declaration of war only cut off a potential way for the Japanese to broker a peace through a neutral Russia.
I suspect they could’ve gained a limited (big emphasis on limited) ability to invade the Japanese islands if/once they seized coastal Chinese and Korean regions that were under Japanese control, some ships might’ve been around.
That’s a post facto justification. Reading over the notes of the people doing the strategic planning for it all, it’s quite clear they expected the war to continue. For example, there was a debate on if they should drop the nukes as they become available (which would have been a few a month), or if they should store them up and drop a whole lot on invasion day.
The Japanese had already fought on through the firebombing of Tokyo. That killed a comparable number of people to the atomic bombings. It just takes a lot more bombers to make it happen compared to dropping a nuke.
Honestly I feel like we really missed something when we passed on the bat bombs. Those things would have absolutely annihilated any significant concentrations of Japanese structures. I feel like weaponizing nature could be done a lot better
Thanks for this incredible bit of knowledge.
And I thought the anti-tank dogs on the soviet front were cruel… This is even worse.
Oh great
Just makes me think that the Japanese probably should’ve surrendered way earlier to save those lives
Complete bullshit and typical 'murican propaganda. Japan was already preparing to surrender.
Lmfao yeah training women and children how to kill themselves rather than be raped to death by the Wildman invaders sounds a lot like preparing to peacefully surrender.
Eat 15 dicks and then read a history book imbecile
'murican can’t comprehend factual history instead of the propaganda he’s been fed from birth. More non-news at 11
That’s why you’re getting ratiod and I’m objectively correct. clearly propaganda lmfao
Touch grass, you terminal xitter
r a t i o ’ d
There was a coup in the Japanese military to try to prevent a surrender after the nukes were dropped. Things are far from that simple.
Now, one thing I’ll agree with is that Japan would have surrendered long before on the condition that the Emperor would be kept in place. Then we got the unconditional surrender, and after all the peace talks were done and documents signed, we still allowed the Emperor to keep his place. The argument here is that the American people were out for blood and public perception would only accept unconditional surrender. I don’t think that’s a very good moral argument, though, especially when it led to nukes being used in anger.
Here in the states we have a long standing tradition of assassination of our elected officials.
The US also has a long standing tradition of overkill in warfare. It has little to do with our lack of respect for life, rather the assumption enemies might not me keen to surrender or may believe in the cause for which they’re engaged in hostilities enough to put up an honest fight.
Shaun on YouTube makes a pretty strong case the US didn’t need to drop atom bombs on Japan to secure its surrender, but the US has been really good about not resorting to nuclear attacks since then even when officials wanted to use them, as per Reagan and Trump. Human civilization continues to close on eighty years without a nuclear war.
Everyone forgets the Korean war, but MacArthur begged for the use of nukes when he fucked up and gave the Chinese an excuse to get directly involved. This is especially notable because while the USSR had tested a nuke at that point, they didn’t have many, and they didn’t have the ability to deploy them en masse against the US directly. The US still had an effective monopoly on deploying nukes, and it still didn’t use them.
Oh, and fuck MacArthur.
We put a monetary value on their lives. The value is different, but it’s there nevertheless.
That’s almost more disgusting