T O P

Nuclear Weapons are literally a blessing.

Nuclear Weapons are literally a blessing.

[deleted]

[удалено]


Agitated_End8516

The Rape of Nanjing disagrees


RedSunn59

Imagine how many more incidents like that would have occurred had it not been for nukes.


[deleted]

[удалено]


japanesepeople2000

Even if you don't object to the gossip, the Japanese will object to it. The speech-controlled nations of China and South Korea use Allied propaganda to deflect public criticism of their regimes. That is why democratization has not progressed in China and why South Korea continues its civil war.


[deleted]

Would they prefer an American land invasion, which was likely to happen had there been no bombs?


ShinaNoYoru

>It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441. >I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria. Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 350-351. >While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945. Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 37 >Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary. Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45. >Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. https://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm >The war would have been over in two weeks. ... The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. Curtis LeMay, Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334.


TehNightmanCometh

There's a lot of revisionist history here. Japan was going to surrender, under their terms, not the terms set by the Allies.


ShinaNoYoru

The Atlantic Charter was terms set by the Allies.


TehNightmanCometh

The Atlantic Charter was a statement issued in 1941 that discussed the goals and aims of a post war world to which Japan took as an act of aggression due to the US allying with Britain from their perspective. That has little to do with the atomic bombs in 1945. If Japan was going to surrender they would have surrendered before the 2nd bomb was dropped - but they didn't. The Tokyo firebombing was far more damaging anyhow.


ShinaNoYoru

>...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter. U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.


TehNightmanCometh

Come back when you actually understand what you're talking about because you don't understand what The Atlantic Charter was.


[deleted]

So why did they drop it? For shits and giggles?


ShinaNoYoru

Seeing the effects and as leverage to bargain against Russia although it ironically had the opposite effect.


[deleted]

Interesting, I guess that makes sense but wouldn’t a nuclear test in the pacific be enough to show Russia


ShinaNoYoru

Possibly but they didn't think so, maybe Russia would be impressed by the actual damage it causes. Stimson wrote quite a bit on trying to use it as leverage against Russia in his diary


japanesepeople2000

It's so that the U.S. Air Force can be independent and win the competition for the budget. They also wanted to conduct human experiments to see the detailed effects of nuclear bombs. That's why they rushed to drop a second type of bomb before Japan surrendered.


sixfourch

To practically and definitively demonstrate the destructive potential of the weapon they had, which was the only thing stopping Stalin from just continuing past Berlin and pushing the Allies out if Europe. No, a test in the Pacific would not have done this, it would not have had a death toll and so would not be comparable to conventional weapons on an objective, apples to apples level.


RedSunn59

But imagine how many more lives on both sides, especially Japanese civilians would’ve been lost.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RedSunn59

exactly. so sure, they were tragedies but better to have a small one than a larger one.


[deleted]

[удалено]


RedSunn59

I mean yeah, but still, given the state of the world at the time, ww3 was only a matter of time before nukes. Both The US and USSR knew that had they won, it would’ve been about a decade or so before the next massive showdown, nukes prevented that.


Daplesco

They can disagree all they want. They were necessary for the war to end.


ShinaNoYoru

For an action to be necessary it must be first established that no alternatives that will give a desired result exist, unfortunately you cannot do that. >...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63 >It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons William Leahy, I Was There, pg. 441. >...the Japanese were prepared to negotiate all the way from February 1945...up to and before the time the atomic bombs were dropped; ...if such leads had been followed up, there would have been no occasion to drop the [atomic] bombs. Herbert Hoover quoted by Barton Bernstein in Philip Nobile, ed., Judgment at the Smithsonian, pg. 142 >MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. ... When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor. Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71. >I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs. John McCloy quoted in James Reston, Deadline, pg. 500. >I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted. ... In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb. Ralph Bard, War Was Really Won Before We Used A-Bomb, U.S. News and World Report, 8/15/60, pg. 73-75 >It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world... Lewis Strauss quoted in Len Giovannitti and Fred Freed, The Decision To Drop the Bomb, pg. 325. >The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary. While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945 Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 >Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia. >Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb. >I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds. Ellis Zacharias, How We Bungled the Japanese Surrender, Look, 6/6/50, pg. 19-21. >...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs. Carter Clarke quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359. >It was a mistake.... [the scientists] had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it. Adm. William Halsey, https://www.newspapers.com/clip/11687746/fleet_admiral_william_f_halsey_says/ >The war would have been over in two weeks. ... The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all. Curtis LeMay, Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 334. >The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan. Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2012-09-19/html/CREC-2012-09-19-pt1-PgH6128-2.htm


Daplesco

The desired result by many wasn’t their surrender, but the decimation of their morale and a show of force. Can’t have a proper show of force regarding nukes if you don’t actually use said nukes.


ShinaNoYoru

Their morale was already waning, there is a reason the top military brass lamented them as being unnecessary.


Daplesco

Waning, yes, but not utterly decimated. That was the point to many people: Mess with US, and we will send you back a few centuries. Not like Japan didn’t overcompensate and outgrow our technology, but still.


0rb1t4l

If you think that you are not creative and dont understand what our military and intelligence is capable of. We could have easily assassinated all of their leaders.


Daplesco

We could have, and then they would have replaced them. Japan in WW2, at least on the Pacific front, was very desperate. Their citizens would have given life and soul, down to every man, woman, and child. It’s evident through the practice of kamikaze and suicide torpedos. They would eventually lose to the Soviet Union, but that would’ve taken at least another 5 years, and not much detriment to their morale. By nuking them twice, we forced the Emperor to surrender, which utterly crushed Japan; they revered the Emperor like a god. What we are currently capable of is eons ahead of what we could do in WW2.


0rb1t4l

We still could have found another way to end it quickly without ending innocent lives. I dont think most people would have been willing to kamakaze into the US from Japan if ordered to on the street(assuming they could). I think it was a combination of us wanting to test out our new toys, and the fact it was an easier solition. But it definitely wasnt the only one in ending things quickly.


Daplesco

I disagree. The fastest end to a war may usually be the dirtiest one, but sometimes you have to get your hands filthy. No rational person wanted the war to go on any longer, so we ended it in the quickest way possible, at the cost of civilians, which we rationalize as “acceptable casualties”.


0rb1t4l

What your saying just sounds like imperialist indoctorination. You literally cannot rationalise a humane, yet fast way to end the war and are acting like nuking millions of innocent people is the only option, which therefor makes it acceptable. I call that a direct enemy to liberty, freedom, and the persuit of happiness because you just ended *millions* of peoples lives over something they didnt get a say in. If nukes weren't invented, i assure you we would have found a fast way to end the war. Germany wasnt going to give up either, ever. Yet we backed germany back into germany just like we did japan, and we didnt need a fucking nuke then. We just wanted to test out our new toys, thats the cold hard truth. The US military industreal complex is one of the most evil conglomerates there is. They have consistant a history of doing evil and vile things to other countries and their people, even today. Its just the tip of the iceberg but, we are currently bombing 8 different countries, have killed and tortured millions of innocent civilians and implimented a shit ton of military bases all over the world just to flex our throbbing power cock. Everything they do is for control over the world, and nuking them wasnt "the only way to solve this problem quickly" (absurd notion, because we have solved this problem before) It was us flexing our power to other countries and making japan an example. What you spout isnt your own free thoughts on this, its what youve been taught. I know because ive heard them spout the same bullshit in history classes. Its just plain false and can be demonstrated to be false in many ways by past evidence. Your arguement a propaganda and it makes me sick. Youve been indoctorinated to think ending millions of instances of human life, is preferable to doing other military actions because its easier. You even make the arguement that the japanese also prefer to have been nuked instead of continue war. You make me sick. "Acceptable casualties" you think its fucking acceptable just because the government says it is? You truely cannot think for yourself. Break these chains.


Daplesco

I am thinking for myself, thank you. Yes, I do think it was acceptable to use the nukes, and yes, I do believe there is such a thing as acceptable casualties. Innocent people die in war. Every war ever has been like that. Be as woke and as pacifist as you want, but it won't change the fact that war is a dirty business. My personal opinion: when you are attacked by an outside force, you are well within your right to utterly obliterate said force. If that means nuking a couple cities, then a couple cities it is. If you don't like it, you're free to feel that way. ​ Next time, keep your ad hominem to yourself. It doesn't help you at all.


0rb1t4l

>when you are attacked by an outside force, you are well within your right to utterly obliterate said force. The military are NOT its people >I do believe there is such a thing as acceptable casualties. Innocent people die in war. No they don't, thats called a fukin war crime. >Be as woke and as pacifist as you want, but it won't change the fact that war is a dirty business. I spend my life researching corruption and power. But dont get it twisted, i am no pacifist. I used to want to be in the US military with extreme amounts of patriotism. I valued freedom, and the persuit of happiness and well being. I was convinced due to propaganda that thats what this country stood for. I bought into all the lies at a young age. But im too curious for my own good. When i looked at "the few skeletons in the closet of every country" what i found was a functioning necropolis of the dead instead. A machine that fuels off of death, and the destruction of liberty and freedom. Its function was to exploit its people as much as possible while keeping us content. Its hard to believe at first but i can source and prove this to you. We dont even have a real democracy. And all this is just the tip of the iceberg. The evil our gov commits is nearly unfathomable. For this reason i am no pacifist, im a revolutionary activist. And my activism is spreading knowledge that they hide from you. Every man woman and child must know what their government is really like.


Daplesco

In Japan in 1945, the military and the people were one and the same. The Empire of Japan was a dedicated war machine bent on sacrificing every man, woman, and child to eradicating the US. It had to be completely obliterated. You’re right, targeting civilians is a war crime. That doesn’t mean collateral damage doesn’t occur, and that innocents don’t die. Every government lies to its people. It’s how you keep a nation functioning: blissful ignorance and blind obedience. That doesn’t mean it’s always a bad thing. Sometimes people don’t need to know the truth. Point stands: the nuclear weapons were necessary, as voiced by myself and many other millions of people.


TehNightmanCometh

Better than a mainland invasion of Japan


goatkilledgod

I understand the point your making but if everyone points a gun at each other then if one fires everyone gets shot You see my point


RedSunn59

I see, but still, it’s better to live in fear than actually have to one day face it. Imagine one day waking up and finding your your country is at war with 3-4 other large scale powers, and you or someone you know will have to be off to fight on a battlefield soon.


RedSonGamble

You stole my name


RedSunn59

Hahah what a coincidence. What did you think of the post btw?


HuffleMuggle

I can see why this would be a very unpopular opinion.


not_me_agaib

The looming threat of extinction disagrees


MonsterPuck

Sadly this is true, would you fight someone who had a squad of 8 guys when you had 6 or would you fight two guys with guns when you had 6 guys, fear is the real winner of wars, and it has saved many lives


RedSunn59

yeah don’t get me wrong it sucks that to have peace we have to have these world ending weapons but i mean could you imagine if we had never invested nukes, like how much more destructive wars would be.


MonsterPuck

It’s honestly kinda scary, that would prob bring back draft as people would be more necessary


RedSunn59

yeah for sure and also probably WW3 and maybe WW4 would’ve happened by now.


patlight1

i mean we could make peace instead, but sure. Lets view it like that. Its not like The nuclear gearing up is the reason most conflicts exsist


Meow0S

Good luck with that. Foreign relations are complicated. Israel vs Palestine, for example, has been a conflict going on for half a century.


RedSunn59

That region as a whole has been a hotbed for conflict since the dawn of civilization.


patlight1

And you think putting in more weapons will solve it... And not fire up the conflicts even more.


TheStinkyBoi

i understand where you are coming from but peace just isn't gonna happen


patlight1

World peace probably. But if we dont try we wont know. I think its almost impossible too but the more nations have peace, the better it is


TheStinkyBoi

yeah but country's like north Korea are a lost cause, or china


RedSunn59

That’s a hopeful idea, problem is we have too many conflicting ideologies as humans. We have always been a violent species that will find something to fight over.


keegan112099

Okay do you wanna go cross the border in South Korea and speak of peace to the North Koreans? How about we send you to Nigeria and you can treat with Boko Haram? Maybe the CCP will be amenable to whatever you gotta say about human rights?


patlight1

Yea... But giving them mass distruction weapons will fix it....surely


AlterNk

Yeah and we could also end hunger worldwide, and end labor exploitation, and corruption, and literally 90% of the evils we face as a species because most of those are just the result of people not caring enough. Call me a cynic, but if your solution is "why not build an utopia?", well, then your input is not appreciated.


patlight1

My solution is not "lets build Utopia". I just wanted to say that nukes create more Problems than they solve Problems. And that trying to make peace between conflicts would be a better idea. Of course its not easy, but still a better try


TehNightmanCometh

This is literally the most peaceful time in human history


patlight1

In your country maybe. Vietnam, Korea, iraq. All this started because russia and america were gearing up. There is a Lot of conflicts in the middle east, africa and south america. Its definitly more peacful in a Lot of countries, but its definitly not a peaceful time either. I think your right, per ratio more people are living in peace globally, but in a Lot of countries its still not peacful at all


TehNightmanCometh

No this is globally - you're just not aware of the data https://www.good.is/articles/closer-to-peace-than-ever


patlight1

I edited my answer


TehNightmanCometh

Doesn't change the data - context is important


keegan112099

The wars would be awful but part of me thinks they may be necessary. Not that I would have a hat in the ring just that war has a habit of slapping us across the face with reality. I think we've entombed ourselves in our pointless ideologies and government that's too slow at enacting change for it to ever really be effective. I think we need one big catastrophic war to send us back to the stone age. Maybe having to survive and grow on a planet that's been ravaged and half glassed will instill a stronger sense that we shouldn't divide ourselves and waste our lives fighting our fellow man. If anyone survives maybe they'll do better and not shoot themselves in the feet with the structures of power we have created that don't put human lives first and only strive to benefit those on top.


[deleted]

Ratio


VatroxPlays

No, they aren't.


0rb1t4l

First of all, you have no proof that the world would be more violent, nor could you prove that. Second, we didn't NEED to nuke japan. We just wanted to test our weapons. We could have easily assassinated their general and leaders instead of getting innocents involved. "Nukes are a blessing" what a joke. You simply cannot comprehend the destruction this stuff does to the earth, human societies, human culture, and families. Imagine if they had the nukes and did it to us. Then some Japanese people said "nukes are a blessing" in an online forum.


TehNightmanCometh

No you could not have just assassinated leaders in Japan, that would have done nothing to change the culture in Japan at the time. Two bombs prevented a full scale invasion. Literally the most peaceful time in human history now.


0rb1t4l

That was NOT the only way to do things. Sure it ended the war, but it was overkill. With our power we pushed them back into japan before bombing them. So with our power we could have easily found another way. Stop acting like endong millions of peoples lives was the only fucking way to cause peace. Those people didnt decide to go to war with us. Disgusting.


TehNightmanCometh

This is just not historically correct and ignores the cost of invading Japan. I really don't think you understand the culture that existed in Japan and the brainwashing of their citizens.


0rb1t4l

I really think you dont understand the indoctrination in our own country the government has over us. They have you making these arguements that they spout in propaganda, and ive seen it too many times. This is just not historically correct, with the measures we have proved to possess when dealing with other hostile nations, we could have definitely ended this more peacefully. Thats just logical. And its not ignoring your bs proposition that it was the only way. Even if they were as indoctorinated as you say, it still wouldnt justify when we have the ability to take other measures. This is just the bs arguement the gov gives its people. Our military agenda, as we have always proben to be to this day - is modern imperialist. We put bases all around the world and funded the military more than the next 10 biggest militaries combined, so that we can impose our will on others while making money. We commit war crimes extremely often even to this day. And you wont see our media cover it because mainstream media is funded by the military industrial complex. You claim im incorrect, but your the only one whos actually wrong here. Based on the fact we have dealt with this situation before, what makes you think the claim "nuking was the acceptable option" has even a toothpick of standing when we have dealt with this before. If we can push germany into germany, we can push japan into japan. We also did similar shit when we blamed the maine on spain, or when we did the whole red scare. Thats all just our propaganda machine and you have proven its still running strong to this day. How can you call yourself a real american when you have no fucking standing for "freedom, liberty, and the persuit of happiness" that shit doesnt ring once in your heart as you are deciding the deaths of millions of people as acceptable over a less convienient solution. Sure there are ways we could have dealt with this over a longer period of time like a month, but that's worth it when considering millions of human lives. You make me sick.


TehNightmanCometh

Oh good another person without a clue


0rb1t4l

Heh, youve obviously got nothing to stand on because you cant even make an arguement to defend your case. All you have is an ego to defend and a will to be correct even when you have no arguement to stand on.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TehNightmanCometh

Ah yes the largest state sponsor of terrorism should have nukes. Brilliant.


[deleted]

[удалено]


TehNightmanCometh

So you're as ignorant here as you are with monetary policy


HannaaaLucie

While I do agree that countries owning nuclear weapons are probably one of the biggest deterrents to a third world war. I cant agree that the whole Hiroshima thing was a good move, yes it made the war end quicker but Jesus Christ, did you see the devastation from that?


TehNightmanCometh

Fire bombings did more damaged and the bombs prevented a full scale invasion of Japan