The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

[harmonica]

we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple

Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

There were plenty of targets

We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo

30 days????!!!!!!!!!!!
it would mean nothing
that was one of the thoughts----a remote island---but it would mean nothing because it would not have near the amount of infrastructure of a city
....if they weren't surrendering after a city is destroyed--or ALL of their major cities ----they certainly would not have after a remote island was destroyed

 

[JoeB131]

It was a combination of both. I posted the link. Do fuck yourself you antisemitic asshole.

You can post whatever links you want.. The A-bombs just weren't all that impressive (small compared to today's bombs). The fact that 100 new battled hardened divisions of Rape-y Soviets just showed up on their western flank did.

 

[harmonica]

we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple

Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

There were plenty of targets

We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo

30 days!!!
you --ALSO--are in TV land/movie land and not reality
you people are not thinking in realistic terms
the war had been going on for over 3 and a half years !!!!

 

[JoeB131]

Most of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot.

Commies at their finest.

Um, yeah, given the Germans were going to turn them into lampshades and bars of soap, they didn't need that much coaxing.

By 1945, they were battle-hardened divisions... Ones that raped the crap out of Germany and were looking for more in Japan.

Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.

Actually, not really. Most of the hard-core divisions were deployed in China or had been lost in the Pacific. What they had left in Japan were the reserves, not well armed, not well trained.

 

[harmonica]

Most of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot.

Commies at their finest.

Um, yeah, given the Germans were going to turn them into lampshades and bars of soap, they didn't need that much coaxing.

By 1945, they were battle-hardened divisions... Ones that raped the crap out of Germany and were looking for more in Japan.

Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.

Actually, not really. Most of the hard-core divisions were deployed in China or had been lost in the Pacific. What they had left in Japan were the reserves, not well armed, not well trained.

defense does not take much training at all compared to offense
you are ignorant on the subject also

 

[elektra]

You can post whatever links you want.. The A-bombs just weren't all that impressive (small compared to today's bombs). The fact that 100 new battled hardened divisions of Rape-y Soviets just showed up on their western flank did.

Not impressive?
Color TV, would of been very impressive in 1945. Hell, any TV would of been impressive in1945.
Stereo, that would of been impressive in 1945.
A refrigerator was impressive in 1945.

The A-Bombs? Thee most impressive bomb ever seen at that time, by a factor of a million.

The Japanese surrendered well before the Soviets actually killed anybody in China.

 

[anynameyouwish]

we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple

Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....

 

[harmonica]

we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple

Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

 

[anynameyouwish]

The question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?

Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.

yes

that is your opinion


because you are a conservative

you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....

you don't care that the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.

they didn't start the war
they probably didn't want the war
and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would

you prove ignorant of the subject-----they had NO navy

(sigh)....(cons....such morons....)


they had little left in the way of a military, that is true, but they still had forces.

or....

if they had no army or navy left then there was no reason to drop those nukes....

the allies could have just waltzed in and taken over without killing anyone....

oh...

wait....


i forgot....

you WANT to kill people....


you LIKE killing people.....


you are a conservative.....

 

[anynameyouwish]

Why?

What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.

 

[harmonica]

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.

MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country

 

[harmonica]

no surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??

and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives

AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.

you do realize you made yourself look--and are--stupid by mentioning the navy?

 

[Unkotare]

Whatever 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.

Recall that they attacked us.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves. There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.

 

[elektra]

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

You are partially right. The Japanese indeed did have a navy. And much of it was under water, just not at the bottom of the sea. The USS Indianapolis is proof of that. 900 sailors lost their lives when the Japanese Navy sank the USS Indianapolis on July 30th, 1945. How many more ships could the Japanese Navy sink?

 

[Unkotare]

We had a bomb
Nobody else did

There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?

what do you not understand?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters

also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering

please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!

nuked an army or a navy....

heck....both.

if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....


now you see em....

now ya don't!


now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....

hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean

if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.

other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.

MORE proof you are ignorant on the subject
not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country

“Would”?

Propaganda works so well on the feeble-minded that it still has an effect over 70 years later.

 

[elektra]

That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.

Helpless? They had the protection of the Japanese Military? They also had the option of fleeing. It was pretty clear that living in cities with the military was a pretty dangerous thing. We also dropped leaflets warning them.

Morally speaking, it is moral to win a war one did not start as quick as possible.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Whatever 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.

Recall that they attacked us.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves. There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.

A moot point. It performed as intended.

 

[whitehall]

The victors write the history books. It's easy to find evidence that the Japanese were so desperate for reasonable surrender terms that they went to Stalin. "Give 'em Hell Harry" refused to even send an envoy. The hangup in the FDR doctrine of "unconditional surrender" was the Japanese Emperor. The Japanese holdouts wanted to keep the Emperor from being executed but Truman refused to consider it. Ironically the Emperor's life was spared after Truman authorized the incineration of a million Japanese civilians. God help us but the only nuclear attack in history is on the soul of America.

 

[Unkotare]

Whatever 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.

Recall that they attacked us.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves. There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.

Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.

That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.

A moot point. It performed as intended.

The intention was for the bloodsucking fdr to annihilate hundreds of thousands of civilians.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat.

nope

they knew they were done, and were negotiating

the Russians were a huge part of that

~S~

LOL negotiating their offer was a cease fire return to dec 41 start lines except in China no concessions there and no troops in Japan. You people are beyond stupid when you listen to revisionist stories about how Japan was gonna surrender, lets talk FACTS shall we? After 2 Atomic Bombs the Government REFUSED to surrender. the Emperor over rode them and then the Army staged a Coup to stop that.