That does nothing to justify it though, because it is a very specious post hoc justification using knowledge and considerations the people at the time could not have.
They did not, and could not, have known the power of those weapons a decade or two later. That was not a concern, since the US only had two, and they were the only two in existence.
Now in retrospect is that true? Quite possibly, but in terms of the decision making at the time? It is a non factor.
They were probably war crimes as defined prior tot he war. I think you have to separate them though. As horrific as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were they probably saved lives in the end. As for the fire bombing of civilian populations earlier in the war I think the jury is pretty much out as to whether they really had any long term effect on the war.
From what I have read German industry adapted pretty quickly to bombing damage and the damage claimed by the air force was rarely accurate.
Yeah, “for the hell of it” was probably the wrong expression. I meant to say that I don’t think they actually took in consideration the amount of damage done to civilians from the viewpoint of a “good guy”. Bombing civilians intentionally is never the action of a “good guy” in my book, and every war convention agrees on that, even if I (and the ones who made those) understand the strategic value of doing such a thing.
Ok, that’s fair then.
“redheads, not warheads”
Ok, but everything is judged through the lens of history. Including Trump’s NK deal.
They definitely saved lives. We were killing far more people with firebombs and an invasion of the home isles would’ve had deaths in the millions.
Perhaps most importantly they taught everyone the horror of atomic weapons beyond just the explosion and no one has used one since. I think without that lesson the odds of them being used more is pretty high.
Trying to think of a creative way to say “Like,” but failing. Anyway, A+ post, sums up America in a nutshell.
I think the horrors of Okinawa made an invasion of the home islands look like it would be incredibly costly for both sides. Not wanting to go through that had to have been a consideration at the time.
Whether they were true or not, or would have proved accurate or not, the US military at the time assumed casualties in the case of an invasion of Japan would exceed 1 million. These figures were based on events that happened in Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.
Cancelled out by starting a war to continue slavery.
The atomic bomb also saved the lives of millions of people in China, Burma, Malaya, the Philippines, etc. where the war was still being fought. I don’t know if their lives matter to people here, since they’re just poors who don’t make Nintendo games, but it’s something to think about.
Care to elaborate?
That was completely uncalled for.
Only half of America started a war to end it, the other half started a war to keep it.
I think this can’t really be stated enough.
The firebombings in japan account for nearly half of the total deaths (which estimates range in the 400k to 450k, not counting the homeless and injured), with the other half basically coming from the 2 nuclear bombs. The firebombings were horrific, and the nuclear bombs were dropped without the full knowledge of the after-effects and casualties. Not dismissing the act, but it was the first (and hopefully last) time nuclear arms were used in conflict.
So, we have a lot of the bad, and a lot of people pointing out how all of the good stuff is bad.
So, America is bad then? Where is the good? I know it is easy to criticize and be negative, but there has to be some good we can look at right?
I believe the half that started a War to keep it would be referring to the Confederate States, who literally seceded from the USA, as their ideals did not match our own.
The USA that won is the one we are now, you are giving no credit to the politicians who worked tirelessly on emancipation, and soldiers who fought to take our country back.
As I said, most things carry with them both good and bad. The Japan bombings cost thousands of innocent civilians lives, but they arguably saved thousands more. That doesn’t make them any less wrong, but it does mean that there was some good in what happened.
BTW, that’s true of nations and people. A lot of people are beating on Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk for mistreating their employers, but the companies they created also benefited the economy and thousands of lives. For every guy that wins in a sport competition, that are many that have to deal with loss. There’s good and bad in nearly everything.
Not being sarcastic here, or a smart ass, but what has American foreign aid over the last almost 80 years done for the world. I would like to think it has helped. Sure, it wasn’t all done just to be a nice guy but I would like to think it involved more than just guns to keep some foreign despot friendly to the US.
Just to bring Japan (and in similar if less direct ways, South Korea) back on the table. WWII took a massive civilian toll on Japan, but post WWII our insistence and doggedness in helping rebuild Japan as a democracy has been a huge boon the world as a whole. Not to discredit the Japanese people in any way, but the occupation and transformation of Japan was extremely well executed.
In 1947, Allied advisors essentially dictated a new constitution to Japan’s leaders. Some of the most profound changes in the document included downgrading the emperor’s status to that of a figurehead without political control and placing more power in the parliamentary system, promoting greater rights and privileges for women, and renouncing the right to wage war, which involved eliminating all non-defensive armed forces.
This was a process that I learned about in my college east asian history class (Taught by a professor of Chinese ancestry who made a very heavy point about the Japenese imperialism in China).
The creation of the Japanese constitution was a very interesting process in which we (as the quote above states) dictated a constitution for them. Many of the Japanese elite fought to hold up their class system, and to give women a lower status in society and we just would not have it. It was, equal rights and representation for all, or we won’t leave. The process ended up being the right thing to do, with hindsight being 20/20. At the time it probably felt preposterous for the US to be dictating the terms of a founding document for another country, but our expertise in democracy led us to that point.