Hiroshima and Nagasaki

With the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. DIRECTLY targeted civilians.  They also directly targeted civilians with the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden.  The Japanese and German GOVERNMENTS committed many atrocities, but that in no way makes it moral or right for the U.S. to murder civilians in those countries.

You can make all the arguments you want about how murdering these civilians brought an early end to the war.  This does not change the fact that civilian men, women, and children were murdered.  When other people do this, we call them terrorists.  That label applies equally here.

>>1

i have an experiment for you.  try to find the argument that you make in your post.  you know - premise --> conclusion.  you'll find that your conclusion, that targeting and killing civilians is murder, is based on an ultra-weak premises of your own moral judgment.  Let me rephrase your argument, with different words but with the exact same premise and conclusion...



It SEEMS TO ME that people should never target civilians.  THEREFORE people who kill civilians are murderers. 

-let me change it up for you....

It SEEMS TO ME that people sometimes need to target civilians.  THEREFORE people who kill civilians aren't always murderers


Who the fuck are you to declare moral absolutes?  Fuck you.  Let me use the exact same logical structure to make my argument

>>2

Why do you defend murderers?  The U.S. Government killed innocent people who were not attacking them.  That is the very definition of murder.

They used the exact same methods (albeit far more destructively) as the terrorists they are now denouncing.

Based on your argument, it is ok for terrorists to kill innocent civilians, and that I am wrong for denouncing them.

>>3

well, seeing how the US Congress gave the President full power to fight WWII and that there's no law defining just or unjust war and that self-defense in an unquestionable national right and that those two cities were industrial and heavily involved in helping wartime japan and that the emperor had consistently refused to surrender and that after the bombings, japan not only made an unconditional surrender but welcomed american occupation...

i'd say you have a pretty weak case. 

>>4

The US Congress giving the President war powers does not change the fact that innocent civilians were directly targeted.  These civilians were not attacking the U.S., yet the U.S. incinerated them.

Also, I've stood at the hypocenter where the atomic bomb in Nagasaki detonated.  That location is far up the valley from the ship factories in the harbor.  It is a civilian location, and it was specifically targeted.

Stop being an apologist for those who condone the murder of innocent civilians.

>>1
Jews did Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was all kike scientists in the Manhattan Project to build the A-Bomb.

Oppenheimer was a Hindu devil god worshipper

>>1
You are a pussy and a coward. Thank fuck our leaders during ww2 did not have your system of ethics.

1: Order the bombing of a city which is supporting a fascist war machine.
Pros - You will indirectly save 100000 lives.
Cons - You will kill 10000 people through collateral damage.

2: Do nothing.
Cons - Your decision indirectly prolongs the war leading to the needless waste of a further 100000 lives.
Pros - Because your decision is indirect you can claim you aren't responsible for anything. Logically though you are.

>>8

LOL!

1:  Hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS were murdered in the 2 atomic bombs and the firebombing of Tokyo.  Men, women, and children.  I would love to know how the children were supporting the 'war machine'.  And are you really sure the civilians supported the war?  Remember that this was not a democracy, but a people ruled by an emperor.

2:  You just admitted that directly targeting CIVILIANS is OK if it achieves your political goals.  Way to support terrorism, moran!

I'm proud that America ended the war like they did, rather than let it drag on for those Japs to keep on killing us. I love the fact the West obliterated Japan's imperial dreams and showed them who is boss.

>>10

I'm sure Osama is proud that his followers killed thousands of U.S. citizens on 9/11 too.  He would also love to obliterate the U.S.'s imperial dreams in the middle east.  Wonderful company you keep.

>>11
It's not a question of being proud of killing people. Like >>8 said, there were two options to take, both involve deaths and it's impossible to say if waiting longer for a Jap surrender would cause more or less misery. I'm just glad we took the bold decision and got a clear victory for the better men.

Dropping the bomb has also put the Western countries off warring with one another for the last 60 years. I mean, would the Soviets and US have been hesitant to start a war if they hadn't already seen the destruction inflicted upon Japan first hand? Thank God the first bomb was dropped on Japan and not Russia, or we might not be here right now.

>>9
If you change the figures my argument becomes even more valid.

1: Order the bombing of a city which is supporting a fascist war machine.
Pros - You will indirectly stop a war which has already seen 50000000 casualties over 6 years and thrown much of the world into poverty and chaos.
Cons - You will kill 100000 people through collateral damage.

I didn't say the civilians weren't being targetted, I said they were collateral damage. Children were not supporting the war machine, this is irrelevant. How much civilian support for the war is irrelevant. I do not support terrorism, I support total war in the face of a serious threat to my country and it's democracy.

>>12

The U.S. condemns terrorism because it is the direct targeting and murder of innocent civilians.  Yet that is exactly what the 2 atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, did.  Hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children were slaughtered.

And come on, the Japanese were already on the verge of surrendering, especially after the first atomic bomb.  Dropping the second bomb is just pure malice.  If the U.S. had lost the war, then it's war leaders would have easily been charged with genocide.

>>13

So by 'total war' you mean 'killing hundreds of thousands of people who had nothing to do with the war'.  It's astounding that you can consider the slaughter of innocent men, women, and children to be 'irrelevant'.

Oh, and BTW, the Japanese were not attempting to invade America and overthrow it's democracy, so even your basis for total war is entirely flawed.

>>15
There is a bomb 60 seconds away from blowing up Earth and a big red button right in front of you which shuts it down. The trouble is shutting down the bomb means an innocent baby will die. What do you do?

>>16

Sorry Bub, the Japanese military was not threatening to destroy the earth.  In fact they were on the verge of collapse.  There was no need to directly target civilians with atomic bombs (twice!) in order to defeat them.  Your analogy is terrible.

>>14
100,000 civilians were killed to end a war that had already killed 500 times that number of people. It's a clear cut moral decision, and it was a great and courageous thing to carry it out.

The Japs were the one who attacked the US and they started the war for empire. They were some of the most vile war criminals ever and certainly had no regard for the civilians they raped and butchered, or the prisoners of war they ate alive in New Guinea and the Philipines.

>>18

I don't want to interrupt your frothing, but it was the Japanese MILITARY that committed those atrocities.  Yet you think this justifies the murder hundreds of thousands of CIVILIAN men, women, and children?

You just admitted that killing innocent civilians is fine as long as it achieves your goals.  Way to support the terrorists, moran!

>>17
So would you press the button or not?

>>19
It was already stated in 1 sentence that civilians were not targetted so your argument is invalid.

>>19
You leftists think that just by never condoning killing civilians you will always have moral high ground. You don't. Being able to prevent evil and not doing so is evil. Such was the case in WWII and in >>16's scenario. I'm starting to think you really wouldn't hit the button, since your view of morality is so warped.

I think the leftist is a troll. Or a weeaboo.

>>21

Wow, you are delusional.  Atomic bombs were dropped in large populated cities.  And you are saying that civilians were not directly targeted.  It is astounding what leaps of non-logic you are willing to take to justify the murder of innocent civilians.

>>22

When did this become a right vs. left argument.  Killing innocent civilians with atomic bombs did not prevent any evil.  At that point in the war, the Japanese Military had no capability of projecting its force.

You are just making up excuses for the needless slaughter of innocent civilians.  You sound just like the terrorists, and just like them, you are convinced that murder is moral.

>>24
I'm sure you cry yourself to sleep each night for that poor innocent janitor killed by airstrikes on nazi arms factories, but what about the 18 year olds bleeding to death on the beaches of normandy? What about your fellow communists who laid down their lives at Stalingrad?

>>26

Here fucktard, this conversation is about the U.S. Military DIRECTLY targeting and incinerating civilians with atomic weapons.  Not accidental deaths, but intentional pre-meditated murder of innocent men, women, and children.  Please try and pay attention.

The funny part:  All of you pro-incinerating-civilians-with-atomic-weapons folk probably consider yourselves to be religious.  You must worship that kill-em-all Jesus.  I think you might want to actually read your Holy book again.

>>25
Let's get your story straight. The US, with one of the best human rights records in the world, just thought they would "needlessly" bomb Japan just for the sake of killing some innocent civilians. They knew Japan would have surrendered the same day anyway but they still did it. Japan actually had no army and was no threat to anyone. Right.

Anyway not bad troll, had me going for a while.

>>29

Way to intentionally misread the comments.

By the time the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Japanese military had no ability to attack beyond its borders.  All they could do was defend their mainland.  Even their airforce had been completely defeated.

Despite all of this the U.S directly targeted Japanese CIVILIANS with not one, but two atomic bombs.  For you to act like the U.S. had no choice in incinerating those civilians shows your complete lack of historical knowledge.

>>27
They weren't targetting civilians.

>>28
We are not pro-incinerating civilians or religious.

>>31
Yes, that's why they nuked TWO cities, neither of which with military value.

All of your pro-incineration folks would be singing a different tune if it was your family that got nuked.  But, in your minds, it's ok when other people die.

So, instead of going in (with the Russians, btw) and killing nearly EVERYONE in Japan, we nuked two cities.  Seems like far fewer Japanese (and Americans/Russians, et. al.) died this way.   Seriously, NOT nuking those two Japanese cities would have led to far more people dying than did from the A-bombs.  The Japanese had to be shown that they had no choice but to surrender.  We did that by killing a couple hundred thousand people without losing any of our own (no honor in being nuked).

Also, the Japanese and German PEOPLE committed quite a few atrocities themselves - rape of Nanking anyone?  Bataan death march ring any bells?  Maybe you've heard of the holocost, or the blitz when the CIVILIANS of London were targeted?  To say it was the government, and not the people, commiting these atrocities is naive at best.  The armies are made up of people, not robots.

btw, it wasn't the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were targeted, it was the cities themselves - they were chosen because of the minimal pre-existing damage - so we could see what these bombs actually did.

Also, I find it hard to have sympathy for a culture as racist as Japan's was (and is).  If they'd had the bomb, they would have nuked us in a heartbeat, and thought nothing of exterminating the gaijin.

>>35

Oh, so now the excuse is that it was the Japanese civilians who killed everyone in Nanking.  Hey fucktard, it was the Japanese MILITARY that raped Nanking.  Just like the Chinese civilians didn't deserve to be slaughtered, the Japanese CIVILIANS also did not deserve to be slaughtered.

Also, thanks for admitting that the real reason we incinerated hundreds of thousands of people in Japan was to test the effects of Atomic weapons.

In the end, the facts are these:

The U.S. Government directly targeted CIVILIANS
The U.S. Government incinerated innocent men, women, and children
Astoundingly, backwater morans still feel the need to defend these murders.

May you and your families be treated the same.

Who do you think was in the millitary, killing all those civilians?  robots?  Hello Kitty?  Astro Boy?  The Japanese were a monolithic racist culture, they saw EVERYONE who wasn't them as worthless.  That sort of culture is a threat to everyone else.  Kinda like the wahabbist muslims today (the flavor that did 9/11).

It's (total) war, and in war, lots of people die.  WWII is the closest mankind has ever come to total war - the civilians actually were valid targets, since they built the machinery of war.  Kill the folks making the bombs/bullets/guns, etc and you stop the material from reaching the soldiers - therefore valid targets.  Kill them in their homes so they can't go to the factory, and they can't make the war material.  Bomb the shit out of the city so that those who survive cannot go to work in the factory to make the weapons to kill us.  Demoralize them enough and they might force the gov't to surrender (see 1917 Russia)  Also, had we invaded, those "civilians" would have been trying to kill us.  Again, valid targets. 

In short, morality has no place in war.  War is win or die, and I prefer to win...

So, in summary:  WWII was essentially total war, and in total war everyone/everything is a valid military target, because EVERYONE is contributing to the war effort.  That means that EVERYONE in Japan was doing their part to kill more Americans. 

Welcome to real life.

btw, so it's better to shoot them dead than to nuke them dead?  seriously, that's what you're saying...

America complains so much about "illegal combatants". They need to start following the rules of war.

>>37

You're useless.  The Japanese were not monolithic, you've just bought into the old (and racist) U.S. propaganda.  Only good nip is a dead nip, amirite?

In the end, the Japanese Navy and Airforce had been completely destroyed.  Those civilians were not trying to attack the U.S. mainland, and had no ability to do so.  Japan was now only a threat if the U.S. decided to invade their mainland.

The U.S. had a choice, and they chose to annihilate innocent CIVILIANS. 

what are you, twelve?  You don't seem to be able to understand what I'm saying.

Only a moron tries to bring morality to war.  war is inherently immoral.  You must kill enough of the other side to make them quit, and Japanese demonstrated over and over that we may just have had to kill ALL of them.  get that?  ALL of them.  erradicated.  gone.  no hentai.  no playstation.  no toyota.  gone.  unconditional surrender was not, is not, something they were capable of.  Surrender is dishonor, and without honor, why live?  They would have rather died well than surrender and be dishonored.

Do you really think it would have been better to unleash the Soviet Army on the Japanese?  They were poised to invade from the North, and Stalin would have made sure whatever he took of the Japanese territories he would keep.  And Stalin would have thought nothing of exterminating the Japanese people.

the Japanese think everyone else is inferior.  They saw us weak, cowardly barbarians.  If you think that's propaganda, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

The Japanese are STILL one of the most racist cultures on the planet. 

Civilians make war material.  therefore they're valid targets for the other side.  Any civilians.  the only thing that prevented US cities from being decimated like everywhere else is great big oceans.  Though the Japanese did try to float bombs over here on balloons, it wasn't too successful.

>>40

Now you're just making shit up.  I've lived in Japan, and I found them to be the most peaceful and kind society I've ever lived in.  This idea that they all share one mind and all act the same is simply a racist stereotype.

This bullshit about killing everything is just your own fantasy.  Get out of the basement, experience the world through other countries cultures, and then come back and talk about 'total war'. 

Just because they were polite doesn't mean they thought you were their equal.  the didn't.

They're peaceful NOW.  Before 1945 it was a purely military culture.  you do realize shit happened before you were born, right?  You do understand that Japan was ruled by the military until we destroyed their military, right? 

Let's repeat that for the slow folks:  Japan was a military society and culture until we dismantled their military after the war.  A war started by the Japanese to keep us from interfereing in their conquest and dominance of East Asia.  The subjugated peoples were treated like animals because the culture of Japan taught that if it ain't Jap, it's crap.  They had to be stopped.

They invaded China, the Phillipines, and other East asian nations.  While there, they committed atrocity after atrocity until we nuked them.  They still try to deny it ever happened.

Japan was just as bad as Germany in their treatment of conquered peoples during the war.  Denying that is revisionist bullshit.  That sort of behaviour by the soldiers doesn't happen in a vacuum.  The Japanese, just like the Germans in Russia, thought of the conquered as subhuman and treated them as such.

Here's what Truman had to weigh in his decision:

1.  US public sick of war, sick of dead Americans.
2.  Japanese always fought to the last, no reason to think it would be any different on the fucking mainland of Japan.
3.  Soviets were about to invade Japan from the north, and communism couldn't be allowed to spread.
4.  Millions of dead Americans if we invaded mainland Japan, and as an American that's bad.
5.  might be able to end it by dropping a couple bombs!?!  DO IT!

btw, had the Japanese military had its way, we actually would have had to kill a majority of the people of Japan, tens of millions in all likelyhood.  The military thought it better for ALL to die than suffer the humiliation of defeat and surrender.  It took their god/emporer to tell them to quit, and the military tried to keep that from happening but (thankfully) faild AFTER we nuked them twice.  That is historical fact.

As a bonus side effect of the nuking, nobody has been nuked since.  yet.

>>42

YAWN.  All those atrocities were committed by the JAPANESE MILITARY.  The U.S. dropped atomic bombs on JAPANESE CIVILIANS.  I realize you can't tell the difference between soldiers and housewives, but please try.

And you're an idiot to claim that Japanese society was simply militaristic before the war, and peaceful after.  Please, please, please read some history.  Japan is a nation centered around rice farming.  That is their societal cohesion.  Their rulers, much like rulers all over the world throughout history, were violent.  JAPANESE RULES does not equal JAPANESE CIVILIANS.

fuck 'em

Truman's nuclear and atomic action against Japanese civilians is precisely equal to bin Laden's action against American civilians.  If one was acceptable, then so is the other.  Choose, assholes!

>>43

I understand where you're coming from, but seriously...what should have been done differently? Clearly you're having a difficult time understanding that during that time in Japan that civilians were as apart of the Japanese military machine as Americans were to theirs.

Things then aren't how they are now. So of course you feel the way you do, I do too! But the fact is the term "civilian" applies differently then in comparison to now. No one is saying that it is moral, ethical or fair, but that's the way it is.

>>45

First of all, you're not still buying that Bin Laden did 9/11 are you? If so: LULZ

Secondly, "Choose" sounds suspiciously like the "With us or against us" rhetoric that Bush puked up during his axis of evil rant. I'm sure "Choose" came out of the mouth of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Nixon and all great fascists drum beaters. You think you're deferring to some moral imparitive but you're just making yourself look like a retard who fails at history and moral relativism.

>>46
There's no serious reason to believe bin Laden wasn't the architect of 911.

Also, I'm only telling the fuckos to choose since by all logic they MUST choose.  For example, since you have to either live or die, you must also "choose" between those options.  Since you must choose, I'm hardly being Fascist about it.

This dumbshit troll has been arguing against a strawman since the beginning of this thread. The US was targetting military installations and industries, they decided to go ahead because they weighed the cost of 100000 japanese civilian lives against the continuation of a war that had already taken 50000000 lives. End of discussion.

>>47


There are plenty of fucking reasons, but whatever, I'm not going to argue that with you here. Anyway, what a choice you give them, eh? A choice between Moral Relativism and Childish 'tit-for-tat' Ignorance.

>>48

Complete bullshit.  The U.S. knowingly dropped atomic bombs on densely populated cities of no strategic military value.  They directly targeted and incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians.  People like you are no different than the people who support terrorist suicide bombing of innocent civilians.

Japs bombed Pearl Harbor.
Then they raped countless women.
A-bombs for the win!

America sucks penis balls.

Irrelevant, stop nit picking
War's over, and we're allied anyway

>>29
THE USA BEST HUMAN RIGHTS RECORD IN THE WORLD?!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA

BAHAHAHAHAHA BAHAhAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAa

Fucktard study you're history.

>>54
So much fail. I said "one of the best" and it is. Even the most prominent America hating academic Noam Chomsky admits this. What countries are you suggesting have better human rights records anyway?

Also, it's "your" not "you're".

Human rights commonly include:

    * security rights that prohibit crimes such as murder/"enforced" involuntary suicide, massacre, torture and rape
    * liberty rights that protect freedoms in areas such as belief and religion, association, assembling and movement
    * political rights that protect the liberty to participate in politics by expressing themselves, protesting, participating in a republic
    * due process rights that protect against abuses of the legal system such as arrest and imprisonment without trial, secret trials and excessive punishments
    * equality rights that guarantee equal citizenship, equality before the law and nondiscrimination
    * welfare rights (also known as economic rights) that require the provision of, e.g., education, paid holidays, and protections against severe poverty and starvation
    * group rights

America leads the way in many of these areas. Only some liberal European countries have such a good record.

>>56
I hope you fucking die. That list is fucking fail.
Welfare rights? WTF? Group rights? Oh wait, unless the group is White.
GTFO welfare nigger worshipper.

>>49

There are plenty of fucking reasons, but whatever, I'm not going to argue that with you here.

You can't actually argue since you don't actually have reasons to support.  There is no serious reason to doubt bin Laden was the architect of 911.  That's the truth that is well enough documented in the 911 Report, and until you come up with the (admittedly non-existent) facts to counter it, IT STANDS.

Anyway, what a choice you give them, eh? A choice between Moral Relativism and Childish 'tit-for-tat' Ignorance.

No, it's a clear choice between accepting or denouncing the evil done by your own nation.  Either bin Laden acted like Truman, or Truman acted like bin Laden.  WHICH IS IT, PUNK?

>>8
ITT we pretend peace negotiations were not going on during the atomic bombings.

He's the real metric

Cons: Kills thousands of innocent people, levels a city, and cause irreperable loss of cultural value.
Pros: We reserve the right to remove the royal family as head of state, which we decide against doing anyway.

The policy of unconditional surrender was one of the worst moves the Allies made in WWII. Not because they should have sought peace with Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo, but because it gave those nations no alternative BUT those.

In 1943, The Italian Fascist Party Removed Mussolini from Power. Then sought to seek a peace agreement with the U.S. Fortunately we were smart enough to realize the opportunity, and the vast majority of Italian Troops throughout axis europe declared Neutrality.

However, if we had made it our policy from the beginning to offer peace, just not with Mussolini, the move against Il Duce by the Fascist Party would have come alot sooner, and would have been in negotiations with the Allies before the coup, possibly avoiding the entire Italian Campaign.

During the July 20th conspiracy, the biggest impediment the plotters had was that the Allies had guaranteed there would be no peace negotiations at all. Had they been offered "We will make peace, but not with the Nazis" there would have been much greater support for the coup. Instead most of the Army followed Hitler to his dying day and beyond.

By 1945, the government that had attacked the United States had been driven out. Since 1944 there was a new prime minister who was given the job in order to secure any peace conditions they could have. By the summer of 1945, they had a single demand for peace. Japan would allow itself to be occupied, allow its government and society to be dismantled, would give up its empire, would disband its military, and only asked in exchange that it be allowed to continue its royal dynasty.

>>59

Awesome point.  The Japanese were prepared to surrender, they just wanted to keep their Emperor.  But the U.S. wanted unconditional surrender, so they incinerated hundreds of thousands of CIVILIANS with atomic bombs.

And in the end, the U.S. let Japan keep their emperor anyway.  This was a completely unnecessary MURDER of innocent men, women, and children.

Wrong. The Japanese refused to surrender even after the bombing of Hiroshima, so it was the decision of the Japanese fascist masters to nuke their own people rather than let the people rule.

Oh and by the way since it was the decision of the Japanofascists the USA is in no way responsible. The USA tried it's best to end the war with the least civilian casualties possible and was the epitome of honour and moral righteousness throughout.

>>62

Obvious troll is obvious.

>>63
I'm not trolling. It's all true.

>>64

Nope, still trolling.

>>61
Right, they refused UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER. They were willing to offer a peace that would have given America everything it requested with the sole condition of maintaining the Imperial Family. They wanted to hold on to this condition even after the first atomic bombing.
Peace was not only achievable with Japan prior to the dropping of the first atomic bomb, but prior to the Surrender of Germany.
Not only would this have saved countless Japanese lives, but countless American, Philipino, and Chinese lives, and also the lives of approximately 1 million people in Indochina.
It also would have prevented the Russians from entering the war, and thereby save Korea, and potentially China from falling to Murderous Commmunist dictators.

Governments can't really be terrorists. Military groups can't do terrorist acts. They can do horrible, unspeakable, evil things, but as long as they're part of an accepted government, it's just another act of war!

>>58

You can't actually argue since you don't actually have reasons to support.  There is no serious reason to doubt bin Laden was the architect of 911.  That's the truth that is well enough documented in the 911 Report, and until you come up with the (admittedly non-existent) facts to counter it, IT STANDS.

I have plenty of reasons, some of which actually stem from how Bin Laden is used in the media, in comparison to threats that actually existed (Kim Jong Ill, Saddam). Also, I never "admitted" that my reasons were non-existent. It's just that it would be a waste of time to debate the issue with someone who takes the 9/11 report so seriously.

Oh and hey, do you happen to have the 9/11 report on hand? What about fact checkers for the report itself? I mean, outside of the media and government saying "Bin Laden did" can you point to me some objective proof that he was "The Mastermind" when, frankly, at that time there were several groups, non-islamic groups, planning similar attacks?

No, it's a clear choice between accepting or denouncing the evil done by your own nation.  Either bin Laden acted like Truman, or Truman acted like bin Laden.  WHICH IS IT, PUNK?

Clearly, you didn't understand what I meant by my statement. Re-read it and get back to us.

>>56
The united states has the worst humans rights record in the west. Europe has a far better humans rights record. YOUR FUCKING FACIST COUNTRY MURDERED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR. What about Vietnam?

>>69
Facist: A system of government in which the people are governed by a face.

Examples: Power Rangers, that IBM commercials.

tl;dr

If you wanted to show the japs what you were capable of you could've just used one on an outpost or an island base

However, one bomb on a major city does serve a purpose - to scare the Russians, 2 is not necessary

US had to do it to stop world war 2. No one liked the Japanese at that point anyway. Thread over.

>>72
So, why didn't they just accept the conditional surrender that was offered long before Hiroshima?

>>73 So they'd give butthurt liberals a reason to complain now.

>>73
Because it was ridiculous.

People die in war? DURRRRRRRRRRRR

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Additionally, killing civilians can never be a good thing, but war is war and there is nothing going to change that. The objective of war is to win and not be taken over, you self-cunt gobbling panty waist. You do whatever you can to win, and not just win, but win and beat the shit out of them so bad that they will never think of it again.

A Japanese soldier would have no problems shooting you and your family given it meant their country's success.

I imagine designing a nuclear bomb cost a lot. Wouldn't want to waste that money, especially with an opportunity like that not to, right?

Designing nuclear bombs has led to many other technologies that are used in every US household. This includes new ways of electricity production and fire detectors!

         *
      *     *
    *          *
  *              *
*The more you know!*
 ------------------

>>77
BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW

>>80
Jeepers, that is irritating, please control yourself.

>>81
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCCCCCCCCCCCCCRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHH WHY CANT TEH WROLD BE SUPA HAPPOY WITH PEOPLE DANCING HAND IN HAND LIKE HIPPPIIESS BBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

>>82
Jeepers, what the fuck was that?

I still say fuck 'em.

Yep. I agree with the Dresden side of things. Not Nagasaki or Hiroshima though.... Fucking japs had it coming