D. C. Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?

That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.

---

No

We killed thousands to save millions.

And saved the lives of up to a million Americans in the process.

---

It's that utilitarianism?

Also the "saved millions" figure has been greatly exaggerated by those in defense of using the two bombs.

Americans only lost 405K in BOTH theaters. How would it have taken another "million" American lives to conquer Japan only when the whole population was "starving" to death?

---

In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.

Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.

---

There were options other than mass killing civilians. Dropping a nuke in an unpopulated area for example. And you say the math is the math, but it's not math, it is pure conjecture. And fantasy to think our only option was to nuke cities to save lives. It's simply been regurgitated so many times people accept it.

Porteroso said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?

That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.

---

No

We killed thousands to save millions.

And saved the lives of up to a million Americans in the process.

---

It's that utilitarianism?

Also the "saved millions" figure has been greatly exaggerated by those in defense of using the two bombs.

Americans only lost 405K in BOTH theaters. How would it have taken another "million" American lives to conquer Japan only when the whole population was "starving" to death?

---

In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.

Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.

---

There were options other than mass killing civilians. Dropping a nuke in an unpopulated area for example. And you say the math is the math, but it's not math, it is pure conjecture. And fantasy to think our only option was to nuke cities to save lives. It's simply been regurgitated so many times people accept it.

---

You are discounting the military importance off both of those cities:

Hiroshima was a city of considerable military importance. It contained the 2nd Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. To quote a Japanese report, "Probably more than a thousand times since the beginning of the war did the Hiroshima citizens see off with cries of 'Banzai' the troops leaving from the harbor."

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great war-time importance because of its many and varied industries, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials. The narrow long strip attacked was of particular importance because of its industries.

ADD - There were British POW camps in Hiroshima. The bombs were strategically placed so as not to harm them either by blast or fallout

Porteroso said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

So it was ok because we killed innocents that were going to starve anyway?

That sounds very familiar to the allowing of abortions because babies are born into poverty or unfit parents.

---

No

We killed thousands to save millions.

And saved the lives of up to a million Americans in the process.

---

It's that utilitarianism?

Also the "saved millions" figure has been greatly exaggerated by those in defense of using the two bombs.

Americans only lost 405K in BOTH theaters. How would it have taken another "million" American lives to conquer Japan only when the whole population was "starving" to death?

---

In wars, people die. Wars also end. In that war, fewer people died with the use of the atomic bombs to bring about an earlier end than would have died with other strategies. One can argue as to whether it was less wrong to use the atomic bombs to end the war quickly than it would have been to starve literally millions of Japanese people to death or to continue to bomb Japan with non-nuclear, but more deadly consequences over time. However, the math is the math.

Leaving aside the question of Japanese deaths, which were clearly massively reduced by using the atomic bombs, using the atomic bombs to end the war quickly also clearly massively reduced future American combat losses. Truman had an obligation to consider these losses that would have occurred with a continuation of the conflict, and it was likely his primary motivation. Additionally, Truman also had an obligation to American POWs who were themselves being staved, beaten and murdered throughout the Pacific theater. It is all very well to condemn Truman's decision, but he made the right call. Had it come out later that he had the means to end the war in August 1945 and that he instead decided to continue with Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet, pushing the war's end well into 1946, he might have faced impeachment, and rightly so.

---

There were options other than mass killing civilians. Dropping a nuke in an unpopulated area for example. And you say the math is the math, but it's not math, it is pure conjecture. And fantasy to think our only option was to nuke cities to save lives. It's simply been regurgitated so many times people accept it.

---

So your option is to have dropped the bomb on an "unpopulated area" and you argue that the Japanese government would then have simply surrendered upon seeing the destruction caused to nothing.

There's something more than a little ironic about you saying that my argument that continuing the war by conventional means would have led to mass starvation of Japanese civilians is "pure conjecture" given the fantasy you offer.

The Japanese command still believed they could fight on even after the bombing of Hiroshima. Does any serious person actually think that showing the Japanese a nuclear test (which may or may not have gone off to start with) was going to make them surrender when wiping out a significant chunk of a city with a single bomb didn't make them immediately surrender? To quote Joe Biden, "Come on, man."

It is not "pure conjecture" that millions of Japanese would have been subject to starvation after August 1945 had the Truman decided not to end the war quickly. Nor, given the death rates in island campaigns leading up to Japan, would it be "pure conjecture" that many more Japanese and Americans would have died should an invasion have been carried out than were killed in the bombing. This is not "pure conjecture," these are reasonable conclusions based on actual data.

Is there any evidence of the Japanese minimizing civilian deaths? Their conquests throughout China,Korea, etc were horrific. Not to mention the pow camps. The Japanese deserved everything they got.