4 ms·

> The US only had two bombs. They weren't even sure they'd work. It worked. It didn't have to happen twice. It shouldn't have been used like a human experiment

by doall 9y ago

> The US only had two bombs. They weren't even sure they'd work. It worked. It didn't have to happen twice. It shouldn't have been used like a human experiment. > It might take months to make and deliver more. Wait until you are prepared. Or you can stop with a bomb. The US was preparing for 10 bombs until the end of the year. > Thousands were dying every day on both sides. No, such number of non-combatants were dying only in Japan. > The US leaders decided a demonstration was too risky, what if it failed? No, the bombing succeeded. No need for second one. Also Japan was ready to surrender two months before Hiroshima. >Meanwhile, tick, tick, thousands more would die every day while the US dawdled. The bombing in Tokyo is also known as one of the most inhuman bombing ever recorded. Bombing never happens like a natural disaster. If the US does not take such action it will never happen.

valuearb 9y ago
Japan wasn't ready to surrender unconditionally. It didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They only surrendered a week later after Nagasaki. Before that they were only ready to surrender if the US agreed to let them keep the territories they'd enslaved. Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them? War is hell. The US didn't rape Nanking. It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs. The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit.
- doall 9y ago
  >Japan wasn't ready to surrender unconditionally. It didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They only surrendered a week later after Nagasaki. Before that they were only ready to surrender if the US agreed to let them keep the territories they'd enslaved. The Japanese government was preparing for the surrender for a year before Hiroshima. They were also talking with the Soviet Union for peace negotiations months before. It was matter of time for surrender and just the condition which was not decided. Japanese government has not enslaved like what the US did to Africa. >Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them? As I said, there were alternative ways without killing that much and using atomic bombs in the city twice. It is just that the US took the easy path. > War is hell. Yes, very true. > The US didn't rape Nanking The large number claimed by the current Chinese government of which country that does internet censorship and anti-Japan campaign is a propaganda which is officially denied by the Japanese government and historians. > It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was definitely bad. But mostly killed were combatants that is different from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. > It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs. Wow millions? Where did this large number come from? > The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit. They were trying to have a better condition for surrender. Surrender was a matter of time and the US didn't have to drop the atomic bombs twice in the city.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    The japanese committed millions of atrocities in World War II. Their government denies virtually every single one. Even if the Chinese exaggerated the rape of Nanking, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (judges/prosecutors from all of the Allies, including Russia) put Chinese deaths at over 200,000 in that one brief event. They tortured, starved and murdered POWs, the Bataan Death march being just one example. Unit 731 tortured and murdered prisoners with biological and chemical warfare experiments. And you keep saying they were ready to surrender. I agree they wanted a peace deal. But only if they could save face, and retain the territories they had conquered. The Military Facists who ran the government and the Emperor refused to consider unconditional surrender until the bombs were dropped. And even when the Emperor changed his mind, part of the military facists attempted to revolt and stop it.
    - doall 9y ago
      > The japanese committed millions of atrocities in World War II. Killing combatants in war is different from "torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs" or "committed millions of atrocities". Please be more specific, accurate and show sources if you want to talk about this kind of large numbers. >Their government denies virtually every single one. Wow virtually every single one? So there might be lots of examples. Please show them so that I can check the validity of your claim. I am suspicious that you are exaggerating stuff like the Chinese government. > the Far East (judges/prosecutors from all of the Allies, including Russia) put Chinese deaths at over 200,000 in that one brief event. Death is different from raping. You should not mix them up. Killing or raping is bad no matter what. > They tortured, starved and murdered POWs, the Bataan Death march being just one example. Unit 731 tortured and murdered prisoners with biological and chemical warfare experiments. Yes torturing is really bad. But isn't US better at this? Both Japan and the US did bad things in the past. One thing to notice is that the US is still bombing and killing not just terrorists but innocent people including kids. >And you keep saying they were ready to surrender. I agree they wanted a peace deal. But only if they could save face, and retain the territories they had conquered. The Military Facists who ran the government and the Emperor refused to consider unconditional surrender until the bombs were dropped. And even when the Emperor changed his mind, part of the military facists attempted to revolt and stop it. Yes the Emperor and the Japanese military could have done a better job to surrender earlier. But did the US tell Japan that they will drop atomic bombs to make them surrender? The answer is no. The Japanese government did not even notice that it was an atomic bomb in the first place. US is the one who dropped atomic bombs and killed non-combatants, and no matter what you think it is considered one of the most inhuman actions in human history and this fact will never change.

by doall 9y ago

valuearb 9y ago

Japan wasn't ready to surrender unconditionally. It didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They only surrendered a week later after Nagasaki. Before that they were only ready to surrender if the US agreed to let them keep the territories they'd enslaved. Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them? War is hell. The US didn't rape Nanking. It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs. The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit.

doall 9y ago
>Japan wasn't ready to surrender unconditionally. It didn't surrender after Hiroshima. They only surrendered a week later after Nagasaki. Before that they were only ready to surrender if the US agreed to let them keep the territories they'd enslaved. The Japanese government was preparing for the surrender for a year before Hiroshima. They were also talking with the Soviet Union for peace negotiations months before. It was matter of time for surrender and just the condition which was not decided. Japanese government has not enslaved like what the US did to Africa. >Before the nukes, US Bombings were already killing hundreds of thousands of japanese civilians a month. Tens of thousands of Japanese soldiers were dying in combat, and in suicide attacks. Thousands of americans were dying as well. Every day of delay cost thousands of lives, mostly japanese. You seem to care about them, why do you advocate for longer war to kill more of them? As I said, there were alternative ways without killing that much and using atomic bombs in the city twice. It is just that the US took the easy path. > War is hell. Yes, very true. > The US didn't rape Nanking The large number claimed by the current Chinese government of which country that does internet censorship and anti-Japan campaign is a propaganda which is officially denied by the Japanese government and historians. > It didn't bomb Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was definitely bad. But mostly killed were combatants that is different from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. > It didn't torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs. Wow millions? Where did this large number come from? > The Japanese entered in a war where their only way out was unconditional surrender, and the Emperor and the military junta that ruled Japan refused to even consider that option until after the 2nd japanese city was destroyed by a nuclear bomb. The firebombing of tokyo wasn't even close to enough to get them to quit. They were trying to have a better condition for surrender. Surrender was a matter of time and the US didn't have to drop the atomic bombs twice in the city.
- valuearb 9y ago
  The japanese committed millions of atrocities in World War II. Their government denies virtually every single one. Even if the Chinese exaggerated the rape of Nanking, the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (judges/prosecutors from all of the Allies, including Russia) put Chinese deaths at over 200,000 in that one brief event. They tortured, starved and murdered POWs, the Bataan Death march being just one example. Unit 731 tortured and murdered prisoners with biological and chemical warfare experiments. And you keep saying they were ready to surrender. I agree they wanted a peace deal. But only if they could save face, and retain the territories they had conquered. The Military Facists who ran the government and the Emperor refused to consider unconditional surrender until the bombs were dropped. And even when the Emperor changed his mind, part of the military facists attempted to revolt and stop it.
  - doall 9y ago
    > The japanese committed millions of atrocities in World War II. Killing combatants in war is different from "torture and murder millions of surrendered civilians and POWs" or "committed millions of atrocities". Please be more specific, accurate and show sources if you want to talk about this kind of large numbers. >Their government denies virtually every single one. Wow virtually every single one? So there might be lots of examples. Please show them so that I can check the validity of your claim. I am suspicious that you are exaggerating stuff like the Chinese government. > the Far East (judges/prosecutors from all of the Allies, including Russia) put Chinese deaths at over 200,000 in that one brief event. Death is different from raping. You should not mix them up. Killing or raping is bad no matter what. > They tortured, starved and murdered POWs, the Bataan Death march being just one example. Unit 731 tortured and murdered prisoners with biological and chemical warfare experiments. Yes torturing is really bad. But isn't US better at this? Both Japan and the US did bad things in the past. One thing to notice is that the US is still bombing and killing not just terrorists but innocent people including kids. >And you keep saying they were ready to surrender. I agree they wanted a peace deal. But only if they could save face, and retain the territories they had conquered. The Military Facists who ran the government and the Emperor refused to consider unconditional surrender until the bombs were dropped. And even when the Emperor changed his mind, part of the military facists attempted to revolt and stop it. Yes the Emperor and the Japanese military could have done a better job to surrender earlier. But did the US tell Japan that they will drop atomic bombs to make them surrender? The answer is no. The Japanese government did not even notice that it was an atomic bomb in the first place. US is the one who dropped atomic bombs and killed non-combatants, and no matter what you think it is considered one of the most inhuman actions in human history and this fact will never change.