Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Congratulations on your websiteWhatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
No it wasn't......FDR was warned about it.Pearl Harbor wasn’t necessary either.
Only people with no souls share your opinion.Nothing says "Don't fuck with us!" quite like a nuke up the ass. And that needed to be said. I'm thankful that it was.
So you think every Japanese citizen was complicit in attacking Peal Harbor? I guess if you have managed to convince yourself of that it makes it easier to look the other way on killing thousands of civilians.Sorry, but Japan isn't the victim here. To be nice, they deserved the A bomb. They brought it on themselves. With the Nanjing atrocities and Pearl Harbor and everything else, they aren't exactly poor witto victims, are they?
Have you managed to convince yourself that it somehow more immoral to be killed by a nuke than a bayonet? Dead is dead and none of the participants in WWII was especially concerned about killing "innocent civilians". Japan treated enemy civilians with special brutality and earned what they got. Some folks just seem to search for any excuse to slam my country. Doesn't make me very happy.So you think every Japanese citizen was complicit in attacking Peal Harbor? I guess if you have managed to convince yourself of that it makes it easier to look the other way on killing thousands of civilians.
We have all the moral high crime babe...both were Military Targets fool. One was a massive shipping port where military supplies where ship around from and the other was the headquarters of their army. Tired of the fucking lies told about the not so innocent two cities.However you cut it...we are the only nation to use nukes on civilians. We have no moral high ground here.
The japanese then were nasty fucking people who took delight in murdering others---they would have fought to the very last man woman and child to obtain power if not soundly beaten and bombed into submission.
Are you an American?However you cut it...we are the only nation to use nukes on civilians. We have no moral high ground here.
However you cut it...we are the only nation to use nukes on civilians. We have no moral high ground here.
Because it is. Nuclear bombs are indiscriminate.you managed to convince yourself that it somehow more immoral to be killed by a nuke than a bayonet?
I agree
There was no need to attack a second city so soon. Japan should have been told we have dozens of more bombs and were prepared to use them.
While Hiroshima could be justified (did we need to demonstrate on such a populated target?). Nagasaki was not necessary
Congratulations on your website
while its not a crazy idea some people have about dropping nukes on japan as a war crime I think you are wrong
the japanese people were fanatical and millions would have died during a US invasion
also you wrote this:
While FDR bent over backwards to befriend the Soviet Union’s brutal, murderous Marxist regime, he showed no such flexibility toward anti-communist Japan. The Japanese offered a wide range of concessions in an effort to get FDR to lift the sanctions, but Roosevelt, perhaps influenced by his pro-Soviet advisers, would not even meet with Japan’s prime minister to discuss the matter.
FDR could have made Japan our ally, and he probably could have persuaded Japan to invade the Soviet Union, which would have almost certainly led to Russia’s defeat and would have spared hundreds of millions of people from Soviet tyranny. The Japanese were seriously considering invading Russia before they concluded that Roosevelt was not interested in a reasonable peace deal and that he was determined to strangle Japan’s economy to the point of collapse. They decided to attack Pearl Harbor only after FDR rejected every peace offer they made to try to get the sanctions lifted, and after FDR refused, on admittedly flimsy grounds, to meet with their prime minister to discuss their differences (Hoover 263-320).
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
i reject the idea that FDR could have or should have allied with japan in a war against the soviet union when nazi germany was the greater threat
Conventional bombs are more discriminating than nuclear bombs? I don't think so. Weapons cannot, and do not, discriminate no matter the weapon.Because it is. Nuclear bombs are indiscriminate.
Okay great, but i dont totally agree (regular bombs can still be more discriminate), and you compared bayonets and nukes. Obviously we recognize a scale of our methods and weaponry. Else we would just drop a nuke every time we were annoyed with a nonnuclear state.Conventional bombs are more discriminating than nuclear bombs? I don't think so.
