I recall that the military advised JFK to nuke the soviets during the missile crisis. Sometimes you need to disobey the advice of counsel.

Yes, sometimes, not all the time, especially when the facts line up with them, as I have shown.

At least four different opinions emerged about potential casualties. These estimates for U.S. losses on Kyushu ranged from as low as 31,000 for just the first thirty days, to a total of about 280,000

US casualties are unacceptable. Drop 2 bombs on the country and you get what you want.

Blockade assumes there would be no negatives associated with the blockade.

Gideon Rose, the editor of the journal Foreign Affairs, estimated that during every month of 1945 in which the war continued, Japanese forces were causing the deaths of between 100,000 and 250,000 noncombatants.

The question also assumes the Japanese no longer had the ability to harm others. Japan had a very active and successful bacteriological warfare program - they had killed an estimated 300,000 civilians in China - and were planning on using their balloon delivery systems to send disease (plague, anthrax, etc.) to the US. See wikipedia: Unit 731: Germ Warfare Attacks

That's the cost of continuing your hypothetical blockade. It was much more effective to get it done with by dropping the bombs. Plus you are also starving the Japanese out.

Given that people would continue to die if we just waited around it was wise of Truman to drop the bomb. A quick finish to a tiresome war.

There's also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

Continuing the war meant them using the submarines to attack the mainland.

The Japanese were not our friends during that time. Fuck waiting a few months. They sure as hell didn't wait to strike Pearl Harbor. Accept the terms or get bombed. America and Truman who ran it had the duty to save American lives. America looks at America's interests. Not to care about Japanese lives but care about American lives. Japanese lives didn't matter at that time. And, that was a good thing.

Go to hell. What the fuck did tens of thousands of civilians do for that? Oh, they're within a certain geographic area, they deserve to die because you can't accept one term, or you can't wait a few fucking months for some prick miles away to sign some papers to stop your conflict.

It's called collateral damage. You even had suicidal citizens who killed themselves and their children because they were ordered to by the Japanese government.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/05/13/national/majority-see-no-need-for-obama-to-apologize-for-atomic-bombing-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-japan-times-poll/

80% of Japan sees America favorably. They hold no resentment over us and has forgiven us.

Edited 7/23/2016 07:22:47

US casualties are unacceptable.

If you actually believed this, you'd be an anti-interventionist like me and not a fucking retarded warmonger who advocates keeping up war because you can't accept one term.

That's the cost of continuing your hypothetical blockade. It was much more effective to get it done with by dropping the bombs.

The blockade would continue for about a week until the Japanese surrender (as all evidence points to.)

The question also assumes the Japanese no longer had the ability to harm others. Japan had a very active and successful bacteriological warfare program - they had killed an estimated 300,000 civilians in China - and were planning on using their balloon delivery systems to send disease

This assumes that the Japanese could get several submarines past the blockade and all away across the Pacific Ocean and that the operation would be able to take place and finish before the peace is done. And this is also implausible because the IJN didn't even want to go through with US casualties are unacceptable.

If you actually believed this, you'd be an anti-interventionist like me and not a fucking retarded warmonger who advocates keeping up war because you can't accept one term.

That's the cost of continuing your hypothetical blockade. It was much more effective to get it done with by dropping the bombs.

The blockade would continue for about a week until the Japanese surrender (as all evidence points to.)

The question also assumes the Japanese no longer had the ability to harm others. Japan had a very active and successful bacteriological warfare program - they had killed an estimated 300,000 civilians in China - and were planning on using their balloon delivery systems to send disease

This assumes that the Japanese could get several submarines past the blockade and all away across the Pacific Ocean and would begin before peace was signed. This also assumes that the IJN would let this plan go forward, which it wasn't showing any signs of actually committing to.

The a-bomb saved American lives. If they tried to go across the blockade there would have been a naval battle of some sort. You also risk the ships slipping out as well.

You risk a attack on the mainland. The bio warfare program of theirs could have been used anywhere and killed more people. Screw all of that.

How would you know talks would only last a week? It could have lasted weeks and months. More people dying.

Their retarded Bushido concept led them to attack people after they surrendered. This happened a bunch of times during the war when they pretended to surrender. This is something they could have done.

And, who the fuck said I'm not anti-interventionist?

Edited 7/23/2016 07:31:22

It's called collateral damage. You even had suicidal citizens who killed themselves and their children because they were ordered to by the Japanese government.

Hiroshima was a civilian city, and the bomb was targeted at the center, away from the factories at the periphery of the city. That's not collateral damage, you fucking Neo nazi bastard, that was what Truman intended.

And the Okinawans killed themselves in droves because the US soldiers were raping and pillaging across Okinawa. The Japanese told them that the US were just as bad, and guess what, they were right.

80% of Japan sees America favorably. They hold no resentment over us and has forgiven us.

Guess what, this is irrelevant.

Sometime there will be civilian casualties in war. It's called war. That's what happens in war.

It's relevant because even the Japanese don't blame us for dropping the bomb.

Edited 7/23/2016 07:34:23

The a-bomb saved American lives. If they tried to go across the blockade there would have been a naval battle of some sort. You also risk the ships slipping out as well.

The A-Bomb didn't save jack. Frankly, most folk involved agreed upon this. If they tried to go across, they'd be destroyed pretty quickly, what's a few submarines to more than half of the American navy?

You risk a attack on the mainland. The bio warfare program of theirs could have been used anywhere and killed more people. Screw all of that.

You take a few southern islands with minimal casualties, and the Japanese government is brought to the negotiating table without two destroyed cities.

How would you know talks would only last a week? It could have lasted weeks and months. More people dying.

How would you know they would last longer when all evidence points to Japan being completely exhausted and surrender inevitable?

You know what? You're probably right here. We probably could have taken different actions. Perhaps, there was a better way of doing things.

I ran out of arguments and slowly realized that perhaps there was a better way of doing things. Thanks for changing my perspective on this issue. Unless, someone else can provide a better argument on why the drops were a optimal way of ending the war.

Edited 7/23/2016 07:39:41

Sometime there will be civilian casualties in war. It's called war. That's what happens in war.

There's collateral damage, and then there's civilians being the main target of the attack. Civilians were the main target.


It's relevant because even the Japanese don't blame us for dropping the bomb.

99.9% of these folk weren't alive back then. They weren't victims of this. Their parents and grandparents might have been, but they were not.

I really have no idea what to say.

Well, I'm proud of myself. Bye, and good day.

Targeting civilians can be a effective tactic when engaging warfare. Depends on the context of the situation.

Meh, I can change my mind on issues. Not really fixated on them or obsessed about it. Unlike some people who have a vested interest in preserving their ideas/views (ie: religious people rejecting the possibility that they could be wrong) Just looking for truth. If you have convincing alternate evidence I will most likely change my mind. mmm

Edited 7/23/2016 07:43:28

Frankly, I think I need to sit down and go play a game. Bye and thank you.

Sorry guys, but you seem to have forgotten that the Japs Sneak attacked America first. So arguing over a nuclear bomb isnt really what its about. If you sneak attack a country you open yourself up for unregulated warfare.

Well ya. But it appears we could have done it differently to reduce casualties on both sides. They were also gonna surrender. I recall that the USA misinterpreted communications between the Japan. It was like "i gonna think about surrender" and the usa thought it was "NO"

mmm. Say someone sucker punches you. Ok, you beat the nigga to a pulp. But to what extent?

do u KILL it ?!!??!!?

Edited 7/23/2016 07:52:50

Japan is PE

well YA

it is PE

but to wat extent do u dish out damage. there a point where ur enemy know tht they fucked up and regret it

they were on da surrendering table. i still hold the view that they shouda taken any deal or DIE but meh wat happenend happenend

Edited 7/23/2016 07:54:57

This is the point where WACO starts revising the chat and creating a WACO revisionist history.

These are my Comments below , im not sure what WACO said, because it was all been revised to fit the WaCO Jap propaganda Machine.



"when the rice starts popping from the radiation"

Edited 7/23/2016 08:06:23

and stop editing all your responses WACO
JAP

i think the ultimate decision that led them 2 surrender was the soviet union invading

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/

and i like to fine tune/refine my posts

wee

Edited 7/23/2016 07:56:05

Some people would call that revisionism.

Either way I think we both agree the sneaky Nips shouldnt have snuk attacked the US. And they got what the deserved for their treachery.