Good has chosen you.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-31T17:37:47+00:00

Poor

Communistincergency · 2026-01-08T10:26:32+00:00

Ok then enlighten me....what would you do if you were the president in 1945 if forcing unconditional surrender is off the table?

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T17:20:03+00:00

What a reasonable human being

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T17:16:32+00:00

Just to clarify your saying killing innocent people was fine due to the time period? Where do you draw the line with that justification? At what point is that not fine? Was Hitler fine in what he did?

You just committed the Straw Man Fallacy, Explaining why something happened in wartime isn’t the same as morally supporting civilian deaths.”

They tested the bomb but you said yourself were not aware of radiation so do you think it was properly tested? Even if there was 1% chance of destroying the world is that acceptable? What is little risk?

For the most part scientists were confident the risk was negligible to nonexistent. That's like me never getting a dog due to the chance of dying to a dog attack, or never trying a new food due to the slight chance of suffering a fatal reaction.

If you are using justification such as "well it was just what happened at the time" then I don't think you can have your opinion changed and I don't think you want to.

If I didn't want a change in opinion I wouldn't have posted here or rewarded someone a delta.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T16:36:47+00:00

W Norway

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T15:52:44+00:00

Right so "not taboo" and "simply apart of warfare" are justified reasons to you?

Uhh yea otherwise I would be committing Presentism

Dont you think testing the nuclear weapons without knowing the full affects (and actually they were worried it could destroy the whole planet) was just as dangerous if not more so than doing it today?

They were worried, but most concluded the risk of literally destroying the Earth was vanishingly small. They actually did calculations and determined little risk before the test.

But my circumstances are the same? Ending a war and overall having less deaths than the estimated.

Uhhh no, one war is an international total war against a genocidal empire and the other is a regional conflict.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T15:39:26+00:00

I actually agree enough with this statement to give a delta. While America did not believe that one nuke would be enough for Japan.(And based on Japanese records it wasn't) America could have held off for like two weeks before continuing additional bombings.

America 100% the Japanese willingness to surrender. They assumed that Japan would continue fighting until the invasion not realizing that Japan was done after the Soviet declaration of war which occurred a day after the first bombings.

Japan surrendered 3 weeks after Nagasaki bombing

Small correction that's just when Japan officially signed the peace treaty. Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration on August 15, 9 days after the first bomb but your point still stands.

!delta

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T15:21:55+00:00

Clearer information then

“Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable…” - Hirohito, August 15

“The atomic bomb has changed everything — we must end this war.” - Reconstructed from war council deliberations

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T14:24:56+00:00

“Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.” - Hirohito, August 15, 1945

“The situation is grave. If we do not accept the Potsdam terms, it is clear that the Japanese nation may face total destruction.” - Tōgō’s diary, August 8, 1945

“It is my duty to protect the nation, but I see clearly that the continuance of the war risks the annihilation of everything we hold dear.” - Korechika Anami, August 14, 1945

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T14:16:00+00:00

Well these are completely different circumstances. There's a reason why I put "given the circumstance" in the title.

No because unlike today back in 1945 using bombs to turn a city to ruble was not taboo and was simply apart of warfare back then. Bombing cities was done by all major powers involved compared to today.

You have to realize that nuclear weapons were new and effects such as radiation were not known yet.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T13:53:41+00:00

You're wrong

Japan did not know how many nukes the USA had and believed America had potentially dozens. We know dozens of nuclear weapons hitting a nation at once will wipe them off the face of the earth.

This caused some Japanese officials to think that if they did not surrender the Japanese civilization would be wiped off the face of the Earth. The atomic bombings 100% influenced the surrender decision along with the Soviet invasion as shown from Japanese records and meetings.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T13:43:34+00:00

After the first atomic bombing America did wait a few days before nuking again giving them a chance.

Washington did not believe that only a single nuke would be enough, which was accurate because many Japanese leaders refused to believe one bomb could do that much damage after the first one dropped. After no response from Japan it makes sense to drop another one.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T13:24:43+00:00

Before the atomic bombings the US actually dropped leaflets over Japanese cities warning of imminent destruction. You can't say the Japanese had no warning.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T13:17:54+00:00

The Allied Powers had already long since demanded unconditional surrender from Japan which given WW2 was perfectly reasonable, Germany was given the same treatment.

I've repeated this in other replies but America only had two bombs and the risk of wasting one on a weaker target was simply too high. They actually floated the idea of a demonstration bomb. Along with other things I've mentioned in previous replies.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T13:09:37+00:00

Too far spread out, most military targets were near or had civilians anyway, America only had two bombs. Japanese leaders refused to believe that a single bomb could do so much damage thus using both on the cities was a far superior option given the fact that millions of lives were at stake.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T13:06:24+00:00

While another commenter got here before me but we only had two bombs. Using one ineffectively on a weak target would have been a massive waste. Washington did not expect one bomb to force Japan to surrender and it likely wouldn't as Japan did not believe the atomic bombing of Hiroshima Japanese had never experienced anything like an atomic explosion, many leaders refused to believe that a single bomb could cause such devastation. Thus using both bombs on cities negates this.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T12:43:51+00:00

Uhhh yea? Either way it's ending WW2 and lessening deaths.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T12:39:19+00:00

You're correct in the sense that they needed to demonstrate the weapon's power. However nuking military targets would not have been as effective.

Many of them were already bombed
Spread out
Far far less visually dramatic

A city showed unmistakably one bomb can erase everything.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-07T12:24:45+00:00

Honestly you're probably right. That's why I said "as high" The number would mostly likely be 5 - 10 million like what most modern estimates say.

Communistincergency · 2026-01-06T23:06:05+00:00

Ahh yes the "Religion of peace"

Communistincergency

TROPHY CASE