Was the first atomic bomb justified?

[Inter-Universal Republic of Earth]

I am one of the believers that the first atomic bomb was justified, since if a conventional invasion was used, the war was projected to go on for 2 to 3 more years. I also believe the first bomb being dropped, even though killing many people, saved the lives of over 2 million more. If the war was to go on, the projected cost of human life would be 3 million lives. It ended the war short, and saved lives in the process. I'm not asking about morality, that's something for another thread. The second bomb I do not think is justified, but that's also for another thread.

So NS, I come to you. Was the first bombing justified or not?

[Allet Klar Chefs]

Yes, and the second too. Fuck the Japanese empire, imo.

[MERIZoC]

Yes, and the second too. Fuck the Japanese empire, imo.

Stupid japs, amirite.

[Valaran]

Yeah.


tbh, the greater moral controversy normally arrives with Nagasaki than Hiroshima.

[The Texan Union]

*cough*

Dresden

*cough*

[MERIZoC]

Now, as I've reiterated time and time again, no.
But hey, don't take it from me.

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

[Galipolska]

Nuclear weapons were used primarily to end WWII without any further American casualties. There's no doubt that US used weapons of mass destruction to innocent civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I agree that nuclear strike on Japan was needed, but killing Japanese civilians was not even necessary.

[Big Jim P]

Yes.

[Great Kauthar]

Yes it was justified. The Japanese were ruthless and commit thousands of war crimes. My great uncle was a PoW in the Hellfire Pass and came back a fifth of his weight and was skinny as fuck. The second one was justified as well, and if there was a third one it would've been justified too.

[Gigaverse]

All we needed was Rainbow Stalin.

[MERIZoC]

Yes it was justified. The Japanese were ruthless and commit thousands of war crimes. My great uncle was a PoW in the Hellfire Pass and came back a fifth of his weight and was skinny as fuck. The second one was justified as well, and if there was a third one it would've been justified too.

Tell me about how the children killed in the bombings tortured your great uncle.

[The Texan Union]

Now, as I've reiterated time and time again, no.
But hey, don't take it from me.

There is little point in attempting precisely to impute Japan's unconditional surrender to any one of the numerous causes which jointly and cumulatively were responsible for Japan's disaster. The time lapse between military impotence and political acceptance of the inevitable might have been shorter had the political structure of Japan permitted a more rapid and decisive determination of national policies. Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

Whether they would've surrendered or not, they deserved all of it. After all, they killed plenty more than that in Nanjing.

[MERIZoC]

Now, as I've reiterated time and time again, no.
But hey, don't take it from me.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

Whether they would've surrendered or not, they deserved all of it. After all, they killed plenty more than that in Nanjing.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GAWD!!!!!111111

[Caracasus]

Japan was attempting to end the war with negotiations before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. All sources pointed to a conventional victory. No, the atomic bomb was not justified.

[SUNTHREIT]

The Atomic bomb actually saved lives in the long run. Without the two bombs being dropped, Japan wouldn't have surrendered, and US+Soviet troops would've had to launch an amphibious invasion of the exhausted Island country. And can you imagine how much of a shithole the communist/soviet-occupied part of Japan would be?

[The Texan Union]

Whether they would've surrendered or not, they deserved all of it. After all, they killed plenty more than that in Nanjing.

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GAWD!!!!!111111

Oh, I'm sorry, do you have a better solution? Peace, right? Let's just forgive and forget right? Why should we even bother punishing murderers, right?

[Arlathan and the Dales]

Yes it was justified. The Japanese were ruthless and commit thousands of war crimes. My great uncle was a PoW in the Hellfire Pass and came back a fifth of his weight and was skinny as fuck. The second one was justified as well, and if there was a third one it would've been justified too.

This is not a good line of reasoning at all. Japan commiting war crimes does not justify a reciprocation. Such a way of thinking is quite frankly horrifying.

At least make the often times used, but no less false, excuse of it ended the war quicker, rather than "yes it killed lots of people so it's good"

[SUNTHREIT]

Yes it was justified. The Japanese were ruthless and commit thousands of war crimes. My great uncle was a PoW in the Hellfire Pass and came back a fifth of his weight and was skinny as fuck. The second one was justified as well, and if there was a third one it would've been justified too.

What about a fourth... or a fifth... or a sixth?
Where do you draw the line?

[Caracasus]

The Atomic bomb actually saved lives in the long run. Without the two bombs being dropped, Japan wouldn't have surrendered, and US+Soviet troops would've had to launch an amphibious invasion of the exhausted Island country. And can you imagine how much of a shithole the communist/soviet-occupied part of Japan would be?

All evidence at the time suggests differently. The Japanese had no real resources left, were starving and demoralized. They were losing ground everywhere and isolated and had already sent a diplomat to Moscow to begin peace talks.

[Chestaan]

Now, as I've reiterated time and time again, no.
But hey, don't take it from me.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

Whether they would've surrendered or not, they deserved all of it. After all, they killed plenty more than that in Nanjing.

And I'm sure if the Nazis had developed a bomb and dropped it in New York you would say the exact same thing. After all, the US killed so many people, look at all the innocent lives they murdered in Dresden!

[MERIZoC]

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GAWD!!!!!111111

Oh, I'm sorry, do you have a better solution? Peace, right? Let's just forgive and forget right? Why should we even bother punishing murderers, right?

If you can provide me with evidence that all of those killed, or even a large majority, in the bombings were murderers, go right ahead.

[Blitz Epidemic]

Yes, of course, and the bomb should of been dropped on Mecca & Medina on 9/11 as well.

[Arlathan and the Dales]

Now, as I've reiterated time and time again, no.
But hey, don't take it from me.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USSBS-PTO-Summary.html#jstetw

Whether they would've surrendered or not, they deserved all of it. After all, they killed plenty more than that in Nanjing.

The mostly civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki commited these acts?

[Arlathan and the Dales]

Yes, of course, and the bomb should of been dropped on Mecca & Medina on 9/11 as well.

How ignorant.

[MERIZoC]

Yes it was justified. The Japanese were ruthless and commit thousands of war crimes. My great uncle was a PoW in the Hellfire Pass and came back a fifth of his weight and was skinny as fuck. The second one was justified as well, and if there was a third one it would've been justified too.

What about a fourth... or a fifth... or a sixth?
Where do you draw the line?

Honestly I don't think he cares.