commodore96 said:
UberNoodle said:
There was nothing humane about those bombs. Rationalising it as 'the only way to end the war', as many historians do, is as offensive and dehumanising as rationalising 9/11 as America reaping what America had sowed. If you ever make it to Hiroshima, go to the bomb museum and you will see. Japan's total war effort had already broken the country. It's leadership was fragmented and on the verge of major change. Other avenues were being investigated to end the war. Those bombs was the only way to end the war with the outcome America wanted.
The concept that Japan was a culture in which revolt was impossible is almost mythical. Less than 90 years earlier, Japan had successfully revolted against iron fisted Shoganate rule and its rigid and regimented feudal caste system. Within a few decades, the nation had accomplished perhaps the most unprecedented cultural and social revolutions this world has yet seen. It's entirely possible that many more Japanese would have suffered if their war effort had gone on much longer, but they were already greatly suffering. A ship like the Yamato was sent out without enough fuel to return. The war would have ended. The bombs ended it sooner, but no amount of rationalisation can make them in any way 'humane', or not a war-crime.
But yeah, as for nuclear weapons, the USA can take that claim to fame, if it wants. It has the most of them anyway.
Yeah because we all know that a joint USSR and USA invasion of Japan would have saved so many lives of the Japanese. If you want to use number of Japanese lives than nuclear bombs were the way to go. If you want humane deaths of the Japanese people again nuclear bombs were the way to go.
Iwo jima:
little over 8 miles overall, give or take a few
21,000 japanese casualties
26,000 american
dug in fighting. lasted a bit over a month.
X-day, proposed invasion of mainland Japan.
Allied leaders proposed that if the main assult would last 90 days, there would be 456,000 casualties, if another 90 days were needed, then there would be upwards of a million casualties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
The japanese were already using suicide soldiers, and the fighting in the pacific
The battle of okinawa 62,000 casualties not including 12,000 killed or missing, 82 days.
If the war would've gone on longer, ore and more people would be killed, the japanese almost never surrendered in the pacific campaign. It was considered a disgrace to the emporer, and to do so would be unthinkable.
now tell me, how is that humane to either side?
