It is a subject that I am drawn to. I put it in the religion thread because in a country that was much more a white christian country in 1945 a fateful decision was made to kill a 100 thousand people in one day and religion played no role in influencing the decision or the timing.

Those atomic bombs were like a barbecue compared to the modern bombs but still thousands of people were literally vaporized.

Truth is relative and so is religion as also is moral relativism

bushido

what is it

the military spirit

when outgunned outmanned surrounded and all hope is lost, fix bayonets and charge

when you capture an enemy, chop off his head that he may die honorably



these are not people you negotiate with

The people killed by the bombs weren't "the enemy." They were civilians, many children, who hadn't done anything wrong.

war is hell

total war is total hell

For about 5 decades the general consensus has been that Truman's decision literally SAVED thousands of lives by bringing the war to a conclusion quicker than it was likely to be. I'm not convinced that any of us NOWADAYS has the info/wisdom to conclude that WE would be smarter or more humane than Truman.

Truman, by most historical references, was an excellent POTUS.
Perhaps, one of our finest!

Posted by tangplay on 8/16/2022 8:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 8/16/2022 7:49:00 PM (view original):
What would you have done?

First and foremost, I would have actually negotiated with the Japanese to accept their conditional surrender
If that fails, I would have made a public demonstration of the nuclear bomb to show Japan openly that we had it, and if that fails, would have chosen a place on the mainland to drop the 2nd bomb that reduces casualties as much as possible.

I would never have chosen to drop the bombs on two large population centers.

Well...we both have the benefit of hindsight.

As to unconditional surrender...Why? We won. The enemy who loses doesn't get to dictate terms. Those were the very terms we dictated to our own people living in the south under Democrat party leadership. That's not being cruel, it's simply pragmatic. We couldn't foresee every situation that would arise in the reconstruction of a foreign nation and unconditional terms makes it easy to pivot or adjust to any event that might arise. It allowed us to correct and better develop our response to changing economic, social and political events. Also, it is not as if we acted as a traditional imperialist entity. We provided much blood and sweat equity from our own people to rebuild Japan.

As to the bombs: If I remember correctly, we only had two. I don't know how long it would have taken to construct a third. We dropped our very first on a city and killed tens of thousands, and yet they did not surrender. What if we had dropped the first on a remote island? Would they have surrendered? To what effect would the second bomb have had in getting the unconditional surrender necessary to enhance our ability for the quickest and most cost effective rebuild to benefit us, the Japanese and the world? How many American lives were saved by getting the unconditional surrender with the second bomb and not having to wait for a third, fourth or fifth to be built?

Anyways, this isn't a knock-down drag-out argument from my perspective. I only know what really did happen. I can only speculate on "what if".

Posted by DougOut on 8/17/2022 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/16/2022 8:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 8/16/2022 7:49:00 PM (view original):
What would you have done?

First and foremost, I would have actually negotiated with the Japanese to accept their conditional surrender
If that fails, I would have made a public demonstration of the nuclear bomb to show Japan openly that we had it, and if that fails, would have chosen a place on the mainland to drop the 2nd bomb that reduces casualties as much as possible.

I would never have chosen to drop the bombs on two large population centers.

Well...we both have the benefit of hindsight.

As to unconditional surrender...Why? We won. The enemy who loses doesn't get to dictate terms. Those were the very terms we dictated to our own people living in the south under Democrat party leadership. That's not being cruel, it's simply pragmatic. We couldn't foresee every situation that would arise in the reconstruction of a foreign nation and unconditional terms makes it easy to pivot or adjust to any event that might arise. It allowed us to correct and better develop our response to changing economic, social and political events. Also, it is not as if we acted as a traditional imperialist entity. We provided much blood and sweat equity from our own people to rebuild Japan.

As to the bombs: If I remember correctly, we only had two. I don't know how long it would have taken to construct a third. We dropped our very first on a city and killed tens of thousands, and yet they did not surrender. What if we had dropped the first on a remote island? Would they have surrendered? To what effect would the second bomb have had in getting the unconditional surrender necessary to enhance our ability for the quickest and most cost effective rebuild to benefit us, the Japanese and the world? How many American lives were saved by getting the unconditional surrender with the second bomb and not having to wait for a third, fourth or fifth to be built?

Anyways, this isn't a knock-down drag-out argument from my perspective. I only know what really did happen. I can only speculate on "what if".

It was not they who could surrender. It was he. No one and certainly not me is saying don’t drop the second bomb if they won’t surrender and keep on fighting.

All I am saying is that 2 days in the era of morse code would not be sufficient amount of time and it would be too quick for an emperor.

What would have been so harmful to give it a few days more to survey the damage more and appreciate the damage of more bombs like the Hiroshima bomb.

Posted by DougOut on 8/17/2022 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/16/2022 8:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 8/16/2022 7:49:00 PM (view original):
What would you have done?

First and foremost, I would have actually negotiated with the Japanese to accept their conditional surrender
If that fails, I would have made a public demonstration of the nuclear bomb to show Japan openly that we had it, and if that fails, would have chosen a place on the mainland to drop the 2nd bomb that reduces casualties as much as possible.

I would never have chosen to drop the bombs on two large population centers.

Well...we both have the benefit of hindsight.

As to unconditional surrender...Why? We won. The enemy who loses doesn't get to dictate terms. Those were the very terms we dictated to our own people living in the south under Democrat party leadership. That's not being cruel, it's simply pragmatic. We couldn't foresee every situation that would arise in the reconstruction of a foreign nation and unconditional terms makes it easy to pivot or adjust to any event that might arise. It allowed us to correct and better develop our response to changing economic, social and political events. Also, it is not as if we acted as a traditional imperialist entity. We provided much blood and sweat equity from our own people to rebuild Japan.

As to the bombs: If I remember correctly, we only had two. I don't know how long it would have taken to construct a third. We dropped our very first on a city and killed tens of thousands, and yet they did not surrender. What if we had dropped the first on a remote island? Would they have surrendered? To what effect would the second bomb have had in getting the unconditional surrender necessary to enhance our ability for the quickest and most cost effective rebuild to benefit us, the Japanese and the world? How many American lives were saved by getting the unconditional surrender with the second bomb and not having to wait for a third, fourth or fifth to be built?

Anyways, this isn't a knock-down drag-out argument from my perspective. I only know what really did happen. I can only speculate on "what if".

It was not they who could surrender. It was he. No one and certainly not me is saying don’t drop the second bomb if they won’t surrender and keep on fighting.

All I am saying is that 2 days in the era of morse code would not be sufficient amount of time and it would be too quick for an emperor.

What would have been so harmful to give it a few days more to survey the damage more and appreciate the damage of more bombs like the Hiroshima bomb.

If you are curious about the historical facts, watch the video, like I said. It totally flipped my mind on the issue.

Posted by tangplay on 8/17/2022 1:41:00 PM (view original):
If you are curious about the historical facts, watch the video, like I said. It totally flipped my mind on the issue.

I can see why you have such affinity for the Japanese.

The Japanese military committed horrible war crimes during the second world War

The US government should not have targeted high population centers when choosing where to drop the two nuclear bombs

There is zero contradiction between these two statements.

You mean like there was ZERO inflation in July?

Posted by Jetson21 on 8/17/2022 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 8/17/2022 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/16/2022 8:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 8/16/2022 7:49:00 PM (view original):
What would you have done?

First and foremost, I would have actually negotiated with the Japanese to accept their conditional surrender
If that fails, I would have made a public demonstration of the nuclear bomb to show Japan openly that we had it, and if that fails, would have chosen a place on the mainland to drop the 2nd bomb that reduces casualties as much as possible.

I would never have chosen to drop the bombs on two large population centers.

Well...we both have the benefit of hindsight.

As to unconditional surrender...Why? We won. The enemy who loses doesn't get to dictate terms. Those were the very terms we dictated to our own people living in the south under Democrat party leadership. That's not being cruel, it's simply pragmatic. We couldn't foresee every situation that would arise in the reconstruction of a foreign nation and unconditional terms makes it easy to pivot or adjust to any event that might arise. It allowed us to correct and better develop our response to changing economic, social and political events. Also, it is not as if we acted as a traditional imperialist entity. We provided much blood and sweat equity from our own people to rebuild Japan.

As to the bombs: If I remember correctly, we only had two. I don't know how long it would have taken to construct a third. We dropped our very first on a city and killed tens of thousands, and yet they did not surrender. What if we had dropped the first on a remote island? Would they have surrendered? To what effect would the second bomb have had in getting the unconditional surrender necessary to enhance our ability for the quickest and most cost effective rebuild to benefit us, the Japanese and the world? How many American lives were saved by getting the unconditional surrender with the second bomb and not having to wait for a third, fourth or fifth to be built?

Anyways, this isn't a knock-down drag-out argument from my perspective. I only know what really did happen. I can only speculate on "what if".

It was not they who could surrender. It was he. No one and certainly not me is saying don’t drop the second bomb if they won’t surrender and keep on fighting.

All I am saying is that 2 days in the era of morse code would not be sufficient amount of time and it would be too quick for an emperor.

What would have been so harmful to give it a few days more to survey the damage more and appreciate the damage of more bombs like the Hiroshima bomb.

It was 3 days and Suzuki had detailed reports about the total annihilation of Hiroshima, but still chose to stay the course.

Posted by tangplay on 8/17/2022 3:08:00 PM (view original):
The Japanese military committed horrible war crimes during the second world War

The US government should not have targeted high population centers when choosing where to drop the two nuclear bombs

There is zero contradiction between these two statements.

I believe there were 5 or 6 potential targets.

The targets were chosen because they contained large amounts of military assets.

Posted by bruceleefan on 8/17/2022 4:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Jetson21 on 8/17/2022 1:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 8/17/2022 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/16/2022 8:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 8/16/2022 7:49:00 PM (view original):
What would you have done?

First and foremost, I would have actually negotiated with the Japanese to accept their conditional surrender
If that fails, I would have made a public demonstration of the nuclear bomb to show Japan openly that we had it, and if that fails, would have chosen a place on the mainland to drop the 2nd bomb that reduces casualties as much as possible.

I would never have chosen to drop the bombs on two large population centers.

Well...we both have the benefit of hindsight.

As to unconditional surrender...Why? We won. The enemy who loses doesn't get to dictate terms. Those were the very terms we dictated to our own people living in the south under Democrat party leadership. That's not being cruel, it's simply pragmatic. We couldn't foresee every situation that would arise in the reconstruction of a foreign nation and unconditional terms makes it easy to pivot or adjust to any event that might arise. It allowed us to correct and better develop our response to changing economic, social and political events. Also, it is not as if we acted as a traditional imperialist entity. We provided much blood and sweat equity from our own people to rebuild Japan.

As to the bombs: If I remember correctly, we only had two. I don't know how long it would have taken to construct a third. We dropped our very first on a city and killed tens of thousands, and yet they did not surrender. What if we had dropped the first on a remote island? Would they have surrendered? To what effect would the second bomb have had in getting the unconditional surrender necessary to enhance our ability for the quickest and most cost effective rebuild to benefit us, the Japanese and the world? How many American lives were saved by getting the unconditional surrender with the second bomb and not having to wait for a third, fourth or fifth to be built?

Anyways, this isn't a knock-down drag-out argument from my perspective. I only know what really did happen. I can only speculate on "what if".

It was not they who could surrender. It was he. No one and certainly not me is saying don’t drop the second bomb if they won’t surrender and keep on fighting.

All I am saying is that 2 days in the era of morse code would not be sufficient amount of time and it would be too quick for an emperor.

What would have been so harmful to give it a few days more to survey the damage more and appreciate the damage of more bombs like the Hiroshima bomb.

It was 3 days and Suzuki had detailed reports about the total annihilation of Hiroshima, but still chose to stay the course.

they were given 2 days to surrender and vaporized on day 3.