The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Do you agree with Truman's decision?

[Conan]

thanks for the links, and this is 100% the main point. A lot of people just injest nonsensical, pro-western jargon.

The usual dumb suspects too.

 

[Pressure]

#1. The bombs did not end the war. Japan was already defeated and looking for a way out. The looming threat of Russian invasion ended the war (we barely managed to squeeze in the bomb right on Russia's planned start of operations against Japan) helped out by American willingness to make certain concessions to Japanese sovereignty. USA dropped the 2nd bomb before even waiting for a Japanese response to the first bombing (Japanese leaders were only just starting to discuss Hiroshima because they'd barely been able to survey the damage).

The argument isn't that the bombs ended the war. It's that the show of devastating force changed how super powers engaged going forward.

#2. "Nukes or Invasion" is a false dilemma. Invasion was never necessary. Since the Japanese naval and air forces were already decimated, the "worst case scenario" would have been a continued blockade. Why do you need to risk lives to invade a country that can't actually do shyt to you?

America was a third party bystander. We were content risking little to nothing until drawn into war.

The major powers argument is flawed and myopic due to being Eurocentric.

What you’re saying is that since there were no world wars since World War Two, that the bombs expedited that in some accepted scholarly ways, and that in and of itself made dropping them the right thing.

The reason that doesn’t make any sense is because of the obviously western narrative. After the Napoleonic wars there was no longer any conflict between the great powers that remained safe for the brief Franco Prussian war towards the end of the century. Using that logic the defeat of Napoleon was good for the world and world history as it lead to the alliance between France and England. The reason why that argument is nonsense is because the world powers hastened their exploitation of the world and colonialism intensified. So to then say it was a peaceful time then and look at the lack of casualities due to major conflict is a totally white supremacist way of understanding history.

Your entire argument disregards the changing of the world order post WWII.

You're also falsely operating under the premise that if the US didn't use nukes we wouldn't have continued forward with a land war with Russia.

The biggest flaw in y'alls position for me is that it presumes the world was ever a non violent place.

 

[Pressure]

#3. The Japanese knew they were defeated, if the Americans had simply said, "We'll let the emperor remain and we won't keep Japan occupied indefinitely", the war would already have been over.

They were, but I've never made the argument that we used nukes to make Japan surrender. That's a red herring.

#4. EVEN if #1-#3 weren't true, you can't just kill hundreds of thousands of civilians because you think it will save some soldiers' lives. That's a war crime and incredible moral bullshyt. If massacring some civilians to save others was morally allowable the world would look like a very different place - you could justify torture, organ harvesting, terror attacks, etc.

Napalm killed more Than both nukes combined.

 

[Conan]

They were, but I've never made the argument that we used nukes to make Japan surrender. That's a red herring.



Napalm killed more Than both nukes combined.

The use of napalm in Vietnam was also reprehensible. Unless you think it was not.

 

[Pressure]

The use of napalm in Vietnam was also reprehensible. Unless you think it was not.

Y'all not even on topic anymore.

Whole thread is a red herring fallacy. ​

 

[Conan]

Y'all not even on topic anymore.

Whole thread is a red herring fallacy. ​

You the one who brought up napalm

The use of napalm was worse than the bombs. Ok, what's your point then? Why would you bring this up?

 

[Pressure]

You the one who brought up napalm

The use of napalm was worse than the bombs. Ok, what's your point then? Why would you bring this up?

I'm not the one arguing that militarism would be more humane if we didn't use the atom bomb.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I'm not the one arguing that militarism would be more humane if we didn't use the atom bomb.

Neither are we.


You can point out a horrific atrocity occurred without claiming it's the "only" atrocity. In fact, one could argue that the numerous horrific war atrocities that occurred during the Cold War were possible due to a population numbed to mass civilian casualties, of which the patriotism and hyper-defense of the atomic bombings were one of many factors. How does pointing out that dropping a nuke didn't end war atrocities help your argument?

The dropping of the atom bombs was immediately followed by the Korean War in which 5 million people died, 65-70% of which were civilians. It was quickly after that followed by the Vietnam War, in which 2-3 million people died with a similar civilian death ratio. Those are HUGE civilian death raw #'s and %'s, much higher than in previous centuries. Even WWII didn't have civilian-to-combatant death ratios as bad as Korea and Vietnam did.

We carpet bombed the fukk out of those countries in a manner that had never been done in human history - despite their only crime against us being "opposed white colonialism". Did the dropping of atom bombs and subsequent defense of that act cause the callousness that then allowed us to start bombing civilians in a manner never before undertaken in human history? It would be difficult to prove. But it would be even harder to claim that the bombs started some ambiguous nicer period where shyt was sweet. The 1940s-1980s were a fukking horrific time for civilians in war.

Bombing missions of the Vietnam War

Why Laos Has Been Bombed More Than Any Other Country

 

[Bboystyle]

I had WW2 vets in my family and they would agree it was the right choice to end the war. Nobody wanted to be apart of this shyt except psycho white folks and as tragic as it was,It is what it is.

 

[Cynic]

Absolutely. It ended war and ushered in the most peaceful era in modern history. Most of the advancements, freedom of movement and safeguards are a result of that display of power.

I expect this thread to be full of folks who will he critical of this decision while also cheerleadong for Iran and other countries to have nuclear weapons because to the deterrence they offer will allow those countries "freedom."

It didn't. Stalins invasion did.

 

[Gus Money]

@Rhakim with the receipts

Good thread, @acri1

 

[Rice N Beans]

Nah, I don't agree with dropping nukes on civilians. The war was dwindling anyways since Germany and Italy were bushed. There was no need but I've read accounts that Truman was eager to flex back in HS.

Truly a deplorable thing to do. I hope another nuke is never used in humanity's time.

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

NO!

1) You cannot be against the death penalty and be for a nuclear attack - if you say oh you are against the death penalty for americans not others that's some straight BS!
2) You cannot be against bio-terrorism but be okay with a nuclear attack
3) slightly off topic but still, you cannot be against the oppression that Israel creates and be a Truman fan.

The reason some of you are okay with it is because of American exceptionalism.
You would all consider it an atrocity if another country did it, but it's ok with if America did it.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

@Rhakim i ain’t tryna tell you what to do but just post in threads like these.