Did Japan deserved to be nuked twice?
Japanese were horrible people who killed many Chinese and Americans, as well citizens from at least 10 other countries who were occupied by Japan. but was nuking them twice justified?
It was more about Russia than Japan but yeah they got what was coming
The Japanese Empire was evil and brutally inhumane; their political and military society unquestionably needed to be thoroughly annihilated. At the same time, the civilian casualty and cultural devastation wrought by the nuclear weapon is also an unmatched tragedy. No easy answer!
The question is... if nukes weren't dropped how much longer would the war to on and how many more people gave to die before you realize the nuke stopped the war. That's why I always advocate for strong first responses to prevent war in the first place instead of long drawn out ears that always spiral out of control and kill many people. For example, Ukraine would be inducted into NATO and Russian troops in Ukraine should be give notice to get out in 15 days and NATO is on the way. Start moving NATO troops into Ukraine. Broadcast that all over TV, internet.. everything that could reach Russisn troops in Ukraine. Russian troops will shit heir pants and go home. Most of them don't want to be there anyway. End of the war. No casualties or minimal. The other benefit is you show how united NATO really is and China will take notice. There's a good chance s show off force that strong could also prevent the upcoming invasion of Taiwan by China as well.
Moral high ground answer: no one deserves war. Actual answer: it’s a genuine shame we nuked Japan. We should’ve dropped both bombs on communist Russia instead.
Of course! There's no difference (to the Japanese civilian) whether they die from an atomic bomb or conventional bomb. The nukes killed ~100k people in Hiroshima and ~70k people in Nagasaki. But the fire bombing of Tokyo killed more than either of that. The Jap civilians are gonna have to die, anyway, because the US military doctrine called for it. And the US already demonstrated the means to do it even without the nuke. So I see nothing wrong with doing it in a more efficient manner, while being able to field test a new weapon on live subjects, and help set itself up as a post-war super power. Fun fact, you can still see the bombers that dropped the nukes. One in Dayton, one in Dulles. I saw both, the feeling was unreal, knowing it singlehandedly took countless souls in one strike. I recommend all to check them out
Nice, wondering what are your thoughts about SF fire bombing vs nuking NYC
NYC has significantly more population, I guess SF will have to burn, then.
No one deserves to be nuked twice. No one deserves having their cities fire-bombed either. The surrender by Japan was less about the nukes and more about the Soviet Union’s declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria.
The english also need to nuked
Killing innocent civilians is now considered a war crime. But WW2 was before Geneva Conventions so take that how you will.
lmao imagine thinking anyone cared about the Geneva convention during any of the wars after wwii
It depends on whether you believe the theory that they were about to surrender anyway because of the Soviet entry into the war. I'm skeptical of that point of view though.
What I seriously don't understand is, how could Japan be nuked twice, and unlike Germany, still not fully repented for the crimes of WW2, which is why relations with its neighbors are still so bad
Watch Oppenheimer.