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.

Porteroso said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

You'd think the 2 days after we won the war for independence would be up there, or the days after WWII when everyone realized their loved ones might not due, and might be home soon, would be up there.

Using nuclear weapons against Japan is just not a highlight at all. If you know anything about how pressured the President was to use them, you'd know they were basically just a flex. Despicable that we used them.

---

If you know anything about the situation in Japan at the time, you know that using them likely saved millions of lives.

---

That is the party line. The justification for nuking entire populations.

Most people don't think it is even remotely accurate. Millions? Just no. Is that based upon a ground invasion? Could have easily just used conventional bombs until they capitulated.

---

They would not have given up with just the use of conventional bombs. Even after using the two atomic bombs there were still many in the top of the military that wanted to continue and it wasn't until the Emperor stepped in that they agreed to stop.

An invasion and conventional bombs would not have gotten those results without many times more deaths.

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

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.

---

See my post above as to why dropping in the middle of no where would be pointless.

The lengths to which the Japanese were willing to go in order to win is well documented and well understood. The devastating use of overwhelming power was the only thing that was going to end the war. As someone previously stated, armies don't go to war, nations do. And with that, unfortunately comes fallout and collateral damage. Dictators tend to think more about themselves and less about their citizens causing them to spend even more time in harms way.

I'd say the last 50 years of US warfare has shown us what you get with half-measures. Drawn out conflicts with no resolutions. If you go to war, go all the way, overwhelm your adversary and win convincingly and quickly. That's how you show a bully to not ever try it again. We know the death toll of the bombs. We can only speculate as to how many lives ending the war potentially saved. What we do know is, the deaths of citizens of our opponent came at the expense of saving American lives. Our democratically elected leaders chose our people over theirs. The Japanese were willing to sacrifice both theirs and ours.

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

---

It was dropped on a military base and a naval stop. I went into detail up top. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the second Japanese Army that controlled the entire southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was a huge munitions port and the biggest seaport in southern Japan. The majority of folks that were killed in Hiroshima were military, not civilians.

These were tactical strikes at Japan's ability to defend the southern half of Japan. US could have landed in the the south with little to no opposition from land or sea. Once in the southern half, the north would fall in a short time

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Yep LOL is right. It's really the only appropriate response to such a dumb statement - drop it in the middle of nowhere. The poster is living in a fantasy land whee he wants to discount all that we knew then (and now) about the Japanese and their will to continue fighting. Truly the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

---

The allies had air supremacy in Europe by the middle of 1944. Nevertheless, we still had to invade Germany to get them to surrender, losing many Allied soldiers in the process. You are right that we would not have had to invade Japan. If we had simply forced millions of Japanese to die of starvation they would surely have surrendered eventually. Indeed, we could have waited them out until there were none left able to stand. Of course, we would have continued to lose men in combat as well as virtually losing virtually every Allied POW or civilian detainee, who were dying at a pretty high rate already.

What makes you think that Japan would have been any different? Do you think the Japanese were less devoted to the cause than the Germans were?

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

---

It was dropped on a military base and a naval stop. I went into detail up top. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the second Japanese Army that controlled the entire southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was a huge munitions port and the biggest seaport in southern Japan. The majority of folks that were killed in Hiroshima were military, not civilians.

These were tactical strikes at Japan's ability to defend the southern half of Japan. US could have landed in the the south with little to no opposition from land or sea. Once in the southern half, the north would fall in a short time

---

Absolutely not. The vast majority killed were civilians.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

---

It was dropped on a military base and a naval stop. I went into detail up top. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the second Japanese Army that controlled the entire southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was a huge munitions port and the biggest seaport in southern Japan. The majority of folks that were killed in Hiroshima were military, not civilians.

These were tactical strikes at Japan's ability to defend the southern half of Japan. US could have landed in the the south with little to no opposition from land or sea. Once in the southern half, the north would fall in a short time

---

Absolutely not. The vast majority killed were civilians.

---

Hiroshima was home to a number of units, such as the Second General Army Headquarters, which was central to the decisive battles in Western Japan and defended the southern Japan area; the Army Marine Headquarters, which was central to army shipping transport; and the Chugoku Military District, which was central to all army units of the Chugoku Region.

Add, I shouldn't have used "majority". But the loss of military in Hiroshima was high. Very underreported also. Taking out the Second General Army was very important as we needed an option to invade Europe if needed. By taking them out, it lessened their ability to defend Japan

Assassin said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

---

It was dropped on a military base and a naval stop. I went into detail up top. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the second Japanese Army that controlled the entire southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was a huge munitions port and the biggest seaport in southern Japan. The majority of folks that were killed in Hiroshima were military, not civilians.

These were tactical strikes at Japan's ability to defend the southern half of Japan. US could have landed in the the south with little to no opposition from land or sea. Once in the southern half, the north would fall in a short time

---

Absolutely not. The vast majority killed were civilians.

---

Hiroshima was home to a number of units, such as the Second General Army Headquarters, which was central to the decisive battles in Western Japan and defended the southern Japan area; the Army Marine Headquarters, which was central to army shipping transport; and the Chugoku Military District, which was central to all army units of the Chugoku Region.

Add, I shouldn't have used "majority". But the loss of military in Hiroshima was high. Very underreported also. Taking out the Second General Army was very important as we needed an option to invade Europe if needed. By taking them out, it lessened their ability to defend Japan

---

Estimates I've seen are that about 10% of the casualties in Hiroshima were military.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

---

It was dropped on a military base and a naval stop. I went into detail up top. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the second Japanese Army that controlled the entire southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was a huge munitions port and the biggest seaport in southern Japan. The majority of folks that were killed in Hiroshima were military, not civilians.

These were tactical strikes at Japan's ability to defend the southern half of Japan. US could have landed in the the south with little to no opposition from land or sea. Once in the southern half, the north would fall in a short time

---

Absolutely not. The vast majority killed were civilians.

---

100% correct

In addition there were some allied POW's and a relative few neutral civilians killed as well.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

---

It was dropped on a military base and a naval stop. I went into detail up top. Hiroshima was the headquarters of the second Japanese Army that controlled the entire southern half of Japan. Nagasaki was a huge munitions port and the biggest seaport in southern Japan. The majority of folks that were killed in Hiroshima were military, not civilians.

These were tactical strikes at Japan's ability to defend the southern half of Japan. US could have landed in the the south with little to no opposition from land or sea. Once in the southern half, the north would fall in a short time

---

Absolutely not. The vast majority killed were civilians.

---

Hiroshima was home to a number of units, such as the Second General Army Headquarters, which was central to the decisive battles in Western Japan and defended the southern Japan area; the Army Marine Headquarters, which was central to army shipping transport; and the Chugoku Military District, which was central to all army units of the Chugoku Region.

Add, I shouldn't have used "majority". But the loss of military in Hiroshima was high. Very underreported also. Taking out the Second General Army was very important as we needed an option to invade Europe if needed. By taking them out, it lessened their ability to defend Japan

---

Estimates I've seen are that about 10% of the casualties in Hiroshima were military.

---

THe numbers I've seen range from 10k to 15k. it appears that it wiped out many if not all of the staff of the Japan Second Army. I have seen the names of them but I can't find it.

Reddit:
The Target Committee had three factors to consider: military importance, the ability to measure the bomb's effect, and how quickly it could end the war.

There is no debating the military significance of Hiroshima. It had the headquarters of the 2nd Army, which commanded the defense of Southern Japan. It also was a major port and key communications center and contained a troop assembly area, military supplies storage areas, and industrial targets. In addition, because it had not been heavily bombed compared to other major cities, the effects of the bomb could be determined.

Nagasaki as you say was a secondary target because of cloud cover over Kokura, which contained some of Japan's largest surviving armament manufacturing facilities as well as factories producing chemical weapons. And like Hiroshima, Kokura had not been heavily bombed so the bomb's effect could be seen.

Nagasaki was the back-up target because it contained two large Mitsubishi factories, was a major port city, and like the other targets had not been seriously bombed. Clouds also were over Nagasaki and the pilot was about to head back to base, but at the last minute they parted enough to reveal the city to the bombardier.

You ask why the U.S. didn't pick a target like a military base. The original idea, long before the U.S. even had a bomb, was to drop it on a fleet in port such as Truk. Japan had a number of heavily fortified, well-defended bases on Pacific islands. But by the time the bombs were ready, the Japanese island fortresses had been either destroyed or bypassed. At this point in the war, dropping a bomb on a useless fortress wouldn't achieve any of the objectives.

Porteroso said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Assassin said:

---

So your solution is to abort all babies born to bad parents? Like Pete Hegseth whose dad was nowhere to be found and whose mom was a drug addict? And you could go on and on

The only connection is really the saving of millions of lives due to the atomic bombs vs the taking of 60,000,000 million lives via abortion. They both used the term 'millions'

Again, lousy metaphor. Your comparison is horrendous.

---

Where have I said that I support abortion? How have you misconstrued my statement that greatly? Maybe someone can explain it better to you.

You just don't understand the concept. Or you are obviously OK with trading lives of innocents for American lives.

I contend that there were other options like using the bomb outside the cities or even in the ocean outside of Tokyo.

---

Lol. Using the bomb in the middle of no where or in the ocean would have been a waste. It wouldn't allow for the scale of destruction to be understood.

To be able to show that one plane dropped one bomb and a city that many in the top had been to and knew was gone was the only way to show its power.

---

Could have dropped it on a military base. So many options that wouldn't have wiped out cities. And we never would have invaded on the ground. No need with complete air superiority. But I get it, you guys are convinced it was the best way.

---

Lol. Japan did not have military bases that were not right next to a city. So it might have been centered on a city but it still would have hit part of the city.

Just like all our military bases with the exception of a very few that are isolated because they are target practice, literally on an island or completely in a foreign country, cities or towns surrounded their bases.


So the base thing was not really an option.

Add that many historians think that the Atomic bombing was a side message to the USSR who some think was about to invade Japan. Apparently, there were massive numbers of Soviet troops heading toward the coast. Japan was also concerned about what would happen to them if the Soviets invaded given the events of the Russo-Japanese war about 40 years earlier

The whole topic of innocent civilians is really problematic and relative. If killing innocent civilians is morally wrong, can the good guys bomb an enemy's manufacturing facilities that are directly used to support the war effort, how about indirectly? What if a free democracy is losing to a dystopian, godless, tyrant and losing is a surety unless they bomb facilities staffed by civilians? Can they bomb the food stores used to feed the armies, can they bomb the farms used to supply the food stores. What if each of those is sure to incur civilian losses. Can they bomb the computer centers that are providing information to their military. And if bombing a facility that has civilians is acceptable, then it in effect is no different than bombing a city that supports the military. The numbers are just larger.

Moral decision makers do the best they can when there are no good options. God help anyone put in that situation.