Should the US have Dropped "The Bombs" on Japan?

[intel-bank]

There is a parable that our planet Earth, full of sinners, should have been destroyed long ago. But God hesitates. Because of the living few saints.

no earth is in fact full of mostly good people! I know its hard to see sometimes, but the truth is most of us are doing what we think is right! Theres plenty of love to go around! Theres plenty of good to see everywhere!
the world will not die but after this time you will see why the hardships had to happen. But God will not destroy us..

Romans 14.1-13
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Matthew 5:44
"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you".
Matthew 22:39
love thy neighbour as thyself.
Genesis 9:11
This is my promise to you: All life on the earth was destroyed by the flood. But that will never happen again.

 

[RiffRaff]

The following is not from an inaccurate history book but official documents

Adopted by the JCS at the end of June as JCS 924, “Operations Against Japan Subsequent to Formosa,” it “articulated the JCS consensus on an invasion of Kyushu”4 and warned that taking the Home Islands “might cost us half a million American lives and many times that number wounded.”

SOURCE “Operations Against Japan Subsequent to Formosa,” JCS 924/2, August 30, 1944, 120.

Whether you believe it or not doesn’t really matter because at the time the JCS did.

Oh, I'm not denying that had the US tried to invade the Japanese islands the cost would have been horrific. That's absolutely true. My point was that neither an invasion nor the atomic bombs were necessary, as the Japanese were close to surrender already.

I can't believe I have to put the effort into posting all this again. Maybe I need to save it as a text document and just cut and paste when the subject comes up.

The Soviet Union had an agreement with the Allies that they would enter the Pacific War against Japan once Germany was defeated, and they kept their word, declaring war on Japan effective midnight, August 9, 1945. Is that date coincidental? Not in the slightest. The Allies were made aware of this date in advance.

The rest of this information is important to be taken in context with the fact that even though the Soviet Union was fighting alongside the Allies, neither Truman nor Churchill trusted Stalin, and they suspected the Soviet Union would become a military threat to Europe after the war was over.

Because of this, Truman wanted Stalin to know that the US not only possessed nuclear weapons, but was willing to use them. Hence, the bombing of Hiroshima was set to occur *prior* to the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan, and the bombing of Nagasaki occurred before the Soviet Union could actually accomplish anything. This accomplished many things for Truman:
a: He did not have to order an invasion of the Japanese homeland at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. This practically guaranteed him a reelection.
b: He was able to claim that American military might had ended the war in Japan, completely leaving the Soviet involvement out of it, again, guaranteeing him reelection.
c: He was able to send a warning to Stalin that the US had them and would use them, in hopes of deterring Soviet aggression after the war was over.
d: The US military got to collect real-world data on the effects of nuclear weapons used on real cities with real buildings and real people.
e: The military was also able to compare the different effects of both a gun-type fission weapon and an implosion-type plutonium weapon.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more real-world test detonations than they were a strategic attack.

The fact is Japan knew it was in trouble as early as 1942. By 1943, surrender was already being discussed by non-military civilian leaders.

After the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, they immediately invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria and decimated Japanese forces there. This put Japan in the position of fighting a two-front war against the Allies from the south, where they had established all their defenses, and against the Soviets from the north, where they had no defenses at all.

Based on Japanese historical records, the Soviet invasion had more of an impact on the Japanese surrender than did the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, primarily because they really didn't understand the significance of what had happened to those cities yet. But the Soviet threat they did understand.

Most historians believe that Japan would have still surrendered due to the Soviet invasion even if the US had not dropped the two atomic bombs. The surrender may have taken a little longer than it did, but it would have still taken place.

In short, stop believing the American-centrist propaganda bullshit you were taught in high school. Did the bombs end the war sooner? Probably. But they were not the primary reason; they were merely one factor in a very complicated situation for Japan, and surrender was already being discussed months before the US even had a working nuclear bomb.

You now have two choices: You can take the blue pill and wake up believing whatever you want to believe. Or you can take the red pill, go verify everything that I have stated here, and see for yourself how deep the WW2 rabbit hole goes.

 

[Citizen-21]

U.S. war efforts and Soviet overrun of Manjuria was more than enough to defeat Japan. Routine bombing raids of U.S. aviation that burnt down Tokyo and many other places to crisp were far worse than those first nukes.
Bombs dropped were merely a field test, also a message to Soviets and everyone else.
Using those bombs wasn't about finishing off already broken country. It wasn't even about Japan anymore in the first place.

 

[Deleted account]

Oh, I'm not denying that had the US tried to invade the Japanese islands the cost would have been horrific. That's absolutely true. My point was that neither an invasion nor the atomic bombs were necessary, as the Japanese were close to surrender already.

That is a bold assumption, and it would have been the first time in modern history where a state was compelled to surrender unconditionally without actually being invaded. In the end, it is not knowable whether Japan would have surrendered without having been either nuked or conquered by ground troops. Perhaps it might have acceded to "Potsdam with additional conditions", along the lines proposed by the military leadership (i.e. with Japan to handle its own disarmament and try its own war criminals + no occupation of Japanese homeland). But an unconditional surrender? That is hard to fathom.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more real-world test detonations than they were a strategic attack.

Yes, I fully concur with the bullet points listed in your post.

The fact is Japan knew it was in trouble as early as 1942. By 1943, surrender was already being discussed by non-military civilian leaders.

I would like some reference to a primary source on this.

Most historians believe that Japan would have still surrendered due to the Soviet invasion even if the US had not dropped the two atomic bombs. The surrender may have taken a little longer than it did, but it would have still taken place.

Again, depends on the type of surrender. I agree a conditional surrender may have been in the cards - but not the paperwork they ended up signing on the Missouri.

 

[RiffRaff]

That is a bold assumption, and it would have been the first time in modern history where a state was compelled to surrender unconditionally without actually being invaded. In the end, it is not knowable whether Japan would have surrendered without having been either nuked or conquered by ground troops. Perhaps it might have acceded to "Potsdam with additional conditions", along the lines proposed by the military leadership (i.e. with Japan to handle its own disarmament and try its own war criminals + no occupation of Japanese homeland). But an unconditional surrender? That is hard to fathom.

Yes, I fully concur with the bullet points listed in your post.

I would like some reference to a primary source on this.

Again, depends on the type of surrender. I agree a conditional surrender may have been in the cards - but not the paperwork they ended up signing on the Missouri.

It is important to understand that a "negotiated peace" was always a part of the Japanese strategy, marked by a rapid expansion south and east into the Pacific, and then negotiating a truce with the US where they would be able to keep some of the territories they conquered. However, after the Japanese Navy - Japan's primary fighting force - suffered extensive losses in 1942, up to and including the Battle of Midway, it was rendered ineffective as an offensive force and was barely functional as a defensive force as the US began to work its way west, recapturing territories that had been taken by the Japanese. The military leaders knew that without its navy, Japan was in trouble.

Also, the delay in Japan's surrender was largely due to the bickering between three factions within Japan's leadership: those who wanted to surrender unconditionally immediately, those who wanted to surrender with guarantees about the emperor's safety and position, and those who wanted to fight to the last man, woman, and child. If not for these disagreements, Japan might have surrendered as early as June or July, 1945.

If you need further reference beyond my extensive study of World War 2, I would refer you to the researcher Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who is well-versed in the internal politics of Japan and has forgotten more about the Pacific War than I will ever know. He goes into great detail how the Soviet invasion was far more significant to Japan's surrender than the atomic bombs were.

 

[Torch]

You now have two choices: You can take the blue pill and wake up believing whatever you want to believe. Or you can take the red pill,

Wow. With hard facts, references and compelling arguments like that you could make an passable movie script. You win, you are right I will “stop believing the American-centrist propaganda bullshit you were taught in high school“! Im going to completely ignore my own successfully defended dissertation on the subject and go with your premise. Thank you!

 

[Deleted account]

However, after the Japanese Navy - Japan's primary fighting force - suffered extensive losses in 1942, up to and including the Battle of Midway, it was rendered ineffective as an offensive force and was barely functional as a defensive force.

I know that's splitting hairs, but the Japanese Navy had not really suffered any extensive losses "up to" the Battle of Midway - major losses in the run-up to that battle were essentially limited to CVL Hosho (sunk) and CV Shokaku (heavily damaged & couldn't take part in the Midway operation, which may have played a major part in deciding its outcome).

While Midway was indeed significant, it could be argued that the real meatgrinder that broke the back of the IJN was the unglorious, attritional Guadalcanal campaign that followed. They don't call it Ironbottom Sound for nothing.

I broadly agree with the rest of what you wrote.

 

[Obreid]

Japanese civilians died there, they didn't shoot anyone, they didn't hit anyone. It was just another massacre.

Have you heard of Manchuria or Korea or any of the other attacks and abuses towards civilians by Japan in WW2?
Of course civilians died. And I’m not celebrating it by any means. Only that large civilian casualties are always indirectly and directly caused by nations in wars. All wars all nations.
More died in the Tokyo fire bombing raids than died from the two nukes.
In history civilians were often times “looted” into slavery as spoils of war by many cultures. And it was also true that Japan had moved a lot of the military production into civilian areas as well.
The argument isn’t that so many civilians died in the two abombs being dropped. But just the introduction of them into use and wether it was necessary. Not how many died.
As far as the act of hitting civilian targets. Up until this century the targeting of civilian areas has always been fair game if deemed worthwhile.
Not saying it’s right or wrong.
But singling it out as some horrific anomaly perpetrated by the US is nonsense.
The Americans and British argued about flying nitetime or daytime bombing raids over Germany.
The British would only fly nitetime runs because of losses to British bombers.
The US flew daytime to minimize raids over non military targets.
But it didn’t last they switched to nitetime runs also because of bomber losses.

 

[william]

The whole "The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of millions of American soldiers" propaganda myth has been busted, and quite frankly, I'm getting tired of educating people on it. Historical documents have proven that Japan was close to surrendering before the bombs were dropped. I'm not going to post all of it again; look it up.

You've been brainwashed by old history books that have been proven inaccurate by even older documents.

Here is some history I've been brainwashed with. https://charliecompany.org/2015/02/24/declassified-plans-for-the-ww-ii-invasion-of-japan/

 

[william]

Oh, I'm not denying that had the US tried to invade the Japanese islands the cost would have been horrific. That's absolutely true. My point was that neither an invasion nor the atomic bombs were necessary, as the Japanese were close to surrender already.

I can't believe I have to put the effort into posting all this again. Maybe I need to save it as a text document and just cut and paste when the subject comes up.

The Soviet Union had an agreement with the Allies that they would enter the Pacific War against Japan once Germany was defeated, and they kept their word, declaring war on Japan effective midnight, August 9, 1945. Is that date coincidental? Not in the slightest. The Allies were made aware of this date in advance.

The rest of this information is important to be taken in context with the fact that even though the Soviet Union was fighting alongside the Allies, neither Truman nor Churchill trusted Stalin, and they suspected the Soviet Union would become a military threat to Europe after the war was over.

Because of this, Truman wanted Stalin to know that the US not only possessed nuclear weapons, but was willing to use them. Hence, the bombing of Hiroshima was set to occur *prior* to the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan, and the bombing of Nagasaki occurred before the Soviet Union could actually accomplish anything. This accomplished many things for Truman:
a: He did not have to order an invasion of the Japanese homeland at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. This practically guaranteed him a reelection.
b: He was able to claim that American military might had ended the war in Japan, completely leaving the Soviet involvement out of it, again, guaranteeing him reelection.
c: He was able to send a warning to Stalin that the US had them and would use them, in hopes of deterring Soviet aggression after the war was over.
d: The US military got to collect real-world data on the effects of nuclear weapons used on real cities with real buildings and real people.
e: The military was also able to compare the different effects of both a gun-type fission weapon and an implosion-type plutonium weapon.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more real-world test detonations than they were a strategic attack.

The fact is Japan knew it was in trouble as early as 1942. By 1943, surrender was already being discussed by non-military civilian leaders.

After the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, they immediately invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria and decimated Japanese forces there. This put Japan in the position of fighting a two-front war against the Allies from the south, where they had established all their defenses, and against the Soviets from the north, where they had no defenses at all.

Based on Japanese historical records, the Soviet invasion had more of an impact on the Japanese surrender than did the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, primarily because they really didn't understand the significance of what had happened to those cities yet. But the Soviet threat they did understand.

Most historians believe that Japan would have still surrendered due to the Soviet invasion even if the US had not dropped the two atomic bombs. The surrender may have taken a little longer than it did, but it would have still taken place.

In short, stop believing the American-centrist propaganda bullshit you were taught in high school. Did the bombs end the war sooner? Probably. But they were not the primary reason; they were merely one factor in a very complicated situation for Japan, and surrender was already being discussed months before the US even had a working nuclear bomb.

You now have two choices: You can take the blue pill and wake up believing whatever you want to believe. Or you can take the red pill, go verify everything that I have stated here, and see for yourself how deep the WW2 rabbit hole goes.

"In short, stop believing the American-centrist propaganda bullshit you were taught in high school. Did the bombs end the war sooner? Probably. But they were not the primary reason; they were merely one factor in a very complicated situation for Japan, and surrender was already being discussed months before the US even had a working nuclear bomb.

You now have two choices: You can take the blue pill and wake up believing whatever you want to believe. Or you can take the red pill, go verify everything that I have stated here, and see for yourself how deep the WW2 rabbit hole goes."
I'll take the red pill. https://historycollection.com/20-steps-in-planning-for-the-invasion-of-japan-in-1945/6/
"After the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, they immediately invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria and decimated Japanese forces there." This is why there would have been an invasion even after the bombs were dropped if Japan had not surrendered. We didn't want Japan to be soviet territory.

 

[william]

Oh, I'm not denying that had the US tried to invade the Japanese islands the cost would have been horrific. That's absolutely true. My point was that neither an invasion nor the atomic bombs were necessary, as the Japanese were close to surrender already.

I can't believe I have to put the effort into posting all this again. Maybe I need to save it as a text document and just cut and paste when the subject comes up.

The Soviet Union had an agreement with the Allies that they would enter the Pacific War against Japan once Germany was defeated, and they kept their word, declaring war on Japan effective midnight, August 9, 1945. Is that date coincidental? Not in the slightest. The Allies were made aware of this date in advance.

The rest of this information is important to be taken in context with the fact that even though the Soviet Union was fighting alongside the Allies, neither Truman nor Churchill trusted Stalin, and they suspected the Soviet Union would become a military threat to Europe after the war was over.

Because of this, Truman wanted Stalin to know that the US not only possessed nuclear weapons, but was willing to use them. Hence, the bombing of Hiroshima was set to occur *prior* to the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan, and the bombing of Nagasaki occurred before the Soviet Union could actually accomplish anything. This accomplished many things for Truman:
a: He did not have to order an invasion of the Japanese homeland at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. This practically guaranteed him a reelection.
b: He was able to claim that American military might had ended the war in Japan, completely leaving the Soviet involvement out of it, again, guaranteeing him reelection.
c: He was able to send a warning to Stalin that the US had them and would use them, in hopes of deterring Soviet aggression after the war was over.
d: The US military got to collect real-world data on the effects of nuclear weapons used on real cities with real buildings and real people.
e: The military was also able to compare the different effects of both a gun-type fission weapon and an implosion-type plutonium weapon.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more real-world test detonations than they were a strategic attack.

The fact is Japan knew it was in trouble as early as 1942. By 1943, surrender was already being discussed by non-military civilian leaders.

After the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, they immediately invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria and decimated Japanese forces there. This put Japan in the position of fighting a two-front war against the Allies from the south, where they had established all their defenses, and against the Soviets from the north, where they had no defenses at all.

Based on Japanese historical records, the Soviet invasion had more of an impact on the Japanese surrender than did the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, primarily because they really didn't understand the significance of what had happened to those cities yet. But the Soviet threat they did understand.

Most historians believe that Japan would have still surrendered due to the Soviet invasion even if the US had not dropped the two atomic bombs. The surrender may have taken a little longer than it did, but it would have still taken place.

In short, stop believing the American-centrist propaganda bullshit you were taught in high school. Did the bombs end the war sooner? Probably. But they were not the primary reason; they were merely one factor in a very complicated situation for Japan, and surrender was already being discussed months before the US even had a working nuclear bomb.

You now have two choices: You can take the blue pill and wake up believing whatever you want to believe. Or you can take the red pill, go verify everything that I have stated here, and see for yourself how deep the WW2 rabbit hole goes.

a: He did not have to order an invasion of the Japanese homeland at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. This practically guaranteed him a reelection.
b: He was able to claim that American military might had ended the war in Japan, completely leaving the Soviet involvement out of it, again, guaranteeing him reelection.
c: He was able to send a warning to Stalin that the US had them and would use them, in hopes of deterring Soviet aggression after the war was over.
d: The US military got to collect real-world data on the effects of nuclear weapons used on real cities with real buildings and real people.
e: The military was also able to compare the different effects of both a gun-type fission weapon and an implosion-type plutonium weapon.
I do not dispute any of this. Still there would have been an invasion if Japan had not surrendered and the causalities would have been horrendous .

 

[RiffRaff]

a: He did not have to order an invasion of the Japanese homeland at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. This practically guaranteed him a reelection.
b: He was able to claim that American military might had ended the war in Japan, completely leaving the Soviet involvement out of it, again, guaranteeing him reelection.
c: He was able to send a warning to Stalin that the US had them and would use them, in hopes of deterring Soviet aggression after the war was over.
d: The US military got to collect real-world data on the effects of nuclear weapons used on real cities with real buildings and real people.
e: The military was also able to compare the different effects of both a gun-type fission weapon and an implosion-type plutonium weapon.
I do not dispute any of this. Still there would have been an invasion if Japan had not surrendered and the causalities would have been horrendous .

I agree if the US would have mounted a land invasion of the Japanese islands, the human cost would have been massive. I think you and I disagree on whether or not an actual full-scale invasion would have been necessary. But I acknowledge that's a debatable topic.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

causalities would have been horrendous .

Any casualties would of been unacceptable to me even if it where just a few thousand. Hell even if the bombs saved just 100 American soldiers lives I'd say it was well worth it to drop them. We didn't start that war or have a choice in fighting it. So why risk even 1 American life in my view after their atrocious and egregious transgressions against us already.

Not to mention all the other benefits such as, one upping the Soviets, beating the soviets to the punch from getting any major concessions/land from Japan, got a real life test trial, we learned tons of invaluable information about nuclear warfare in urban settings, and much more unexpected but favorable or productive byproducts of dropping the "bombs".

The more this is contemplated the more I am for it. IF I COULD... I don't think I'd change the fact we dropped them on imperial Japan.

 

[william]

Oh, I'm not denying that had the US tried to invade the Japanese islands the cost would have been horrific. That's absolutely true. My point was that neither an invasion nor the atomic bombs were necessary, as the Japanese were close to surrender already.

I can't believe I have to put the effort into posting all this again. Maybe I need to save it as a text document and just cut and paste when the subject comes up.

The Soviet Union had an agreement with the Allies that they would enter the Pacific War against Japan once Germany was defeated, and they kept their word, declaring war on Japan effective midnight, August 9, 1945. Is that date coincidental? Not in the slightest. The Allies were made aware of this date in advance.

The rest of this information is important to be taken in context with the fact that even though the Soviet Union was fighting alongside the Allies, neither Truman nor Churchill trusted Stalin, and they suspected the Soviet Union would become a military threat to Europe after the war was over.

Because of this, Truman wanted Stalin to know that the US not only possessed nuclear weapons, but was willing to use them. Hence, the bombing of Hiroshima was set to occur *prior* to the Soviet Union declaring war on Japan, and the bombing of Nagasaki occurred before the Soviet Union could actually accomplish anything. This accomplished many things for Truman:
a: He did not have to order an invasion of the Japanese homeland at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives. This practically guaranteed him a reelection.
b: He was able to claim that American military might had ended the war in Japan, completely leaving the Soviet involvement out of it, again, guaranteeing him reelection.
c: He was able to send a warning to Stalin that the US had them and would use them, in hopes of deterring Soviet aggression after the war was over.
d: The US military got to collect real-world data on the effects of nuclear weapons used on real cities with real buildings and real people.
e: The military was also able to compare the different effects of both a gun-type fission weapon and an implosion-type plutonium weapon.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more real-world test detonations than they were a strategic attack.

The fact is Japan knew it was in trouble as early as 1942. By 1943, surrender was already being discussed by non-military civilian leaders.

After the Soviet Union declared war on Japan, they immediately invaded Japanese-occupied Manchuria and decimated Japanese forces there. This put Japan in the position of fighting a two-front war against the Allies from the south, where they had established all their defenses, and against the Soviets from the north, where they had no defenses at all.

Based on Japanese historical records, the Soviet invasion had more of an impact on the Japanese surrender than did the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, primarily because they really didn't understand the significance of what had happened to those cities yet. But the Soviet threat they did understand.

Most historians believe that Japan would have still surrendered due to the Soviet invasion even if the US had not dropped the two atomic bombs. The surrender may have taken a little longer than it did, but it would have still taken place.

In short, stop believing the American-centrist propaganda bullshit you were taught in high school. Did the bombs end the war sooner? Probably. But they were not the primary reason; they were merely one factor in a very complicated situation for Japan, and surrender was already being discussed months before the US even had a working nuclear bomb.

You now have two choices: You can take the blue pill and wake up believing whatever you want to believe. Or you can take the red pill, go verify everything that I have stated here, and see for yourself how deep the WW2 rabbit hole goes.

"Hiroshima and Nagasaki were more real-world test detonations than they were a strategic attack."
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were left virgin cites just so the bombs could be tested on them. It was strategic though in the sense that it demonstrated to the soviets that "thanks but no thanks, we don't need your help" and it kept Japan from being divided like Korea.

 

[william]

I agree if the US would have mounted a land invasion of the Japanese islands, the human cost would have been massive. I think you and I disagree on whether or not an actual full-scale invasion would have been necessary. But I acknowledge that's a debatable topic.

Do you think stalin would have stopped in Manchuria if we had just tried to starve the Japanize out? I think I have shone that they would not have and the US had fought and bleed to much to let the soviets overrun Japan and bring it under the sphere of their influence.
"The Soviets planned an invasion of Hokkaido in August 1945
At the Yalta Conference, Franklin Roosevelt secured a promise from Stalin to invade Japan, which was reiterated to Truman during the Potsdam Conference. Allied invasion planners in the Pacific were unaware that the Soviets were planning to keep that promise with an invasion of Hokkaido. In the spring of 1945, the United States initiated Project Hula, in which 180 ships were to be transferred to the Soviet Union via the Aleutians. The ships included landing craft, transport vessels, escort vessels, mine sweepers, and other support vessels. Since the Soviets had minimal experience with invasion from the sea, American and British advisors accompanied the ships.

American planners were aware of Soviet intentions in the Kuril Islands and the Sakhalin peninsula, by the planned invasion of Hokkaido, one of the major Japanese home islands, was unknown to the Americans. The Soviets went forward with their invasion of the Kuril Islands, attacking on August 18, 1945 – three days after the Japanese surrender. Fighting continued until September 1, with the Japanese troops in the islands offering a clue as to what could have been expected during an invasion of Kyushu. On August 23, under orders of the Japanese command, the majority of the troops surrendered, but isolated units continued to resist. The Soviets suffered about 2,000 casualties (out of 15,000 engaged) in what amounted to a Stalin land grab."

In conclusion: I believe the atomic bombing of Japan was necessary and did in fact save American lives in which my father was one.

 

[Torch]

Here is some history I've been brainwashed with. https://charliecompany.org/2015/02/24/declassified-plans-for-the-ww-ii-invasion-of-japan/

Outstanding article!
I recommend the following book. It’s more of a thesis and a compendium. It includes the entire Japanese Defensive Plan.

Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947
D. M. Giangreco

 

[TruthandJustice]

If was Putin, and therefore an asshole, I would pop one offshore but close enough for it to be seen. Like a demonstration, they same why we should have hit Tokyo Bay first. My 2¢

We will never come out and admit it but we needed to drop both bombs on Japan to test real wartime effects and to pause the Soviet advance. Japan formally surrendering without the emperor was just an excuse.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

We will never come out and admit it but we needed to drop both bombs on Japan to test real wartime effects and to pause the Soviet advance. Japan formally surrendering without the emperor was just an excuse.

100%.

 

[Totality 🇺🇦 🇮🇱]

We will never come out and admit it but we needed to drop both bombs on Japan to test real wartime effects and to pause the Soviet advance. Japan formally surrendering without the emperor was just an excuse.

Like I have said here in this thread:

benefits such as beating the soviets to the punch from getting any major concessions/land from Japan, got a real life test trial, we learned tons of invaluable information about nuclear warfare in urban settings, and much more unexpected but favorable or productive byproducts of dropping the "bombs".

 

[Torch]

We will never come out and admit it but we needed to drop both bombs on Japan to test real wartime effects and to pause the Soviet advance. Japan formally surrendering without the emperor was just an excuse.

POTUS and the Joint Chiefs were still considering target right to the end. They didn’t drop one offshore because if Japan refused to surrender they would only have one bomb left until December45/Jan46. At that which time they would have ~8, which they were going to use strategically on the beach and assembly areas.*

*D. M. Giangreco

Hell to Pay: Operation DOWNFALL and the Invasion of Japan

1945-1947
Naval Institute Press 291 Wood Road Annapolis, MD 21402

© 2009 by D. M. Giangreco Chapter 11. “To Break Japan’s Spine” and Chapter 17. “The Hokkaido Myth” © 2017 by D. M. Giangreco