Oppenheimer - New Christopher Nolan Movie/Should the U.S. have used the atomic bomb?

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
The civilians that were murdered were not the aggressors.

Do citizens bear any responsibility for the actions of their country?

Not really, no. That’s kind of a fucked up way of looking at it unless you’re just that desperate to maintain our hero status.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
The civilians that were murdered were not the aggressors.

Do citizens bear any responsibility for the actions of their country?

This is like debating major sports eras. There’s no winning argument.

Anyone going to see the movie at an IMAX?  

70mm
11 miles of film
weighs 600 pounds  
18K resolution



Michigan has 2 of America's 19 true IMAX film theaters showing 'Oppenheimer'

kingstonlake wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Do citizens bear any responsibility for the actions of their country?

This is like debating major sports eras. There’s no winning argument.

I think we can all agree that at the time it was a very difficult decision to make.

Which lends more credence to there being some propaganda afoot in that 80 years later we are all supposed to be in lock step that the right call was made.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:

This is like debating major sports eras. There’s no winning argument.

I think we can all agree that at the time it was a very difficult decision to make.

Which lends more credence to there being some propaganda afoot in that 80 years later we are all supposed to be in lock step that the right call was made.

I think there was definitely pressure to use the technology since we crossed the finish line first on its development.

I've had this discussion before. Minds will not be changed either way, but mark me down as anti-nuke.

If I were an adversary of the US, I would make more frequent mention of the fact that we are the only country in the history of the world to have used a nuclear weapon against any other nation. Especially if I were a nation like NK or Iran that has nuclear ambitions of their own that we (rather hypocritically) do our level best to frustrate.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Do citizens bear any responsibility for the actions of their country?

Not really, no. That’s kind of a fucked up way of looking at it unless you’re just that desperate to maintain our hero status.

I'm not the least bit jingoistic and I have no need to see the US as heroic. That said, we were heroic in that war. The world was lucky that this country was the first nuclear power. Japan has been a very good friend to the US in our lifetimes, so maybe it's hard for you to think of them as a violent and murderous danger to the world - but that's what they were.

You could be correct that we didn't need to drop the bombs in order to cow Japan into submission. We'll never know. But if we didn't, they would likely have questioned both our capability and our will. The bombs answered those questions.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:without the bomb being dropped a shit ton of people will die

What we’re debating is that the people that decided to drop the bomb are the ones that have convinced you to accept this as fact, which is very convenient for the murderers to have you believe.

It isn't just the explanations of Truman et al. Plenty of collaborating details, and seriously just conjecture that Japan would have surrendered without as much loss of life, so the conspiracy theories are just that.

I guess it all comes down to how many 9/11s worth of dead foreign children is acceptable to show the world that we could beat Japan all on our own and without anyone else’s help. My answer is 0 9/11s worth of dead children but it’s a sliding scale for everyone

I was looking up casualty and death stats for WWII. Japans death rate of soldiers was 17-1 to that of the US. That’s fucking crazy. It does appear that they didn’t give to shits who and how many they sacrificed. Something about dying with honor….

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I guess it all comes down to how many 9/11s worth of dead foreign children is acceptable to show the world that we could beat Japan all on our own and without anyone else’s help. My answer is 0 9/11s worth of dead children but it’s a sliding scale for everyone

You remind me of some people...

https://www.chronline.com/stories/pro-life-group-compares-abortion-deaths-to-911-terrorist-attacks,248596

Those guys give away plastic fetuses. I hope you have some fun handouts to support your position.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I guess it all comes down to how many 9/11s worth of dead foreign children is acceptable to show the world that we could beat Japan all on our own and without anyone else’s help. My answer is 0 9/11s worth of dead children but it’s a sliding scale for everyone

Those two cities were "saved" for the nuclear bombs, instead of being carpet bombed by B29's, so not understanding your point, exactly. That bombing of civilians is murder, don't disagree, however the nuclear bombs were a means, not the only means to accomplish this murder.

Pervis Muldoon wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I guess it all comes down to how many 9/11s worth of dead foreign children is acceptable to show the world that we could beat Japan all on our own and without anyone else’s help. My answer is 0 9/11s worth of dead children but it’s a sliding scale for everyone

You remind me of some people...

https://www.chronline.com/stories/pro-life-group-compares-abortion-deaths-to-911-terrorist-attacks,248596

Meh, they’re unequivocally wrong about that but I’m unequivocally right about this so we’re still pretty different

kingstonlake wrote:I was looking up casualty and death stats for WWII. Japans death rate of soldiers was 17-1 to that of the US. That’s fucking crazy. It does appear that they didn’t give to shits who and how many they sacrificed. Something about dying with honor….

Surrendering was dishonor, which is why Japan's surrender after the bombs were dropped wasn't anything like a sure thing, and almost didn't happen.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Floyd Robertson wrote:Huh, today is the day I learned that Fat Man and Little Boy used different types of triggers.

The first hydrogen bomb, misnamed actually because lithium is the actual element used, exploded at Bikini, was 7 times more powerful than they expected, due to the conversion of what they thought was an innert form of lithium into one that would, and did, fuse.

Unlike the fission bomb, a fusion bomb can be made as powerful as the designers want.  The largest ever detonated, by the USSR caused a shock wave in the earth's crust which went around the earth 5 times before it damped out.

Just adding to the nuclear bomb knowledge base here, courtesy of the thread which caused Trevor B. to create Wells Hall.

I thought everybody in America knew this.

kingstonlake wrote:I was looking up casualty and death stats for WWII. Japans death rate of soldiers was 17-1 to that of the US. That’s fucking crazy. It does appear that they didn’t give to shits who and how many they sacrificed. Something about dying with honor….

Looked up death stats also, both military and civilian.  This site (not certain if reputable) puts Japanese military deaths at ~5-1 the US.  Still high considering the US was fighting in both Europe and the Pacific.

Maybe someone else can explain the rest of the numbers.  They blow my mind.

Estimated number of military and civilian fatalities due to the Second World War per country or region between 1939 and 1945

The Pantry wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:I was looking up casualty and death stats for WWII. Japans death rate of soldiers was 17-1 to that of the US. That’s fucking crazy. It does appear that they didn’t give to shits who and how many they sacrificed. Something about dying with honor….

Looked up death stats also, both military and civilian.  This site (not certain if reputable) puts Japanese military deaths at ~5-1 the US.  Still high considering the US was fighting in both Europe and the Pacific.

Maybe someone else can explain the rest of the numbers.  They blow my mind.

Estimated number of military and civilian fatalities due to the Second World War per country or region between 1939 and 1945

My numbers were specific to the war against Japan.  It sure seems like they were weren’t going to surrender until they were made to realized 6 year olds aren’t an effective fighting force. Put me in the camp that a shit ton of people were gonna die either way.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm#:~:text=Total%20U.S.%20combat%20casualties%20in,1%2C740%2C000%20were%20killed%20or%20missing.

kingstonlake wrote:

The Pantry wrote:
Looked up death stats also, both military and civilian.  This site (not certain if reputable) puts Japanese military deaths at ~5-1 the US.  Still high considering the US was fighting in both Europe and the Pacific.

Maybe someone else can explain the rest of the numbers.  They blow my mind.

Estimated number of military and civilian fatalities due to the Second World War per country or region between 1939 and 1945

My numbers were specific to the war against Japan.  It sure seems like they were weren’t going to surrender until they were made to realized 6 year olds aren’t an effective fighting force. Put me in the camp that a shit ton of people were gonna die either way.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm#:~:text=Total%20U.S.%20combat%20casualties%20in,1%2C740%2C000%20were%20killed%20or%20missing.

I may have linked this before, maybe not. But this more succinctly puts why that probably isn’t the case, and also why we were compelled to end it quickly. And for that matter why Japan may have been as well had we not done what we did.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-08-05/hiroshima-anniversary-japan-atomic-bombs

...

I’ve read that angle as well. There were factions on both sides. Japan was definitely trying to broker a side deal of surrender via Russia. Russia was no. There’s no doubt with Russia entering the war that eventually Japan was going to have to surrender. The “continue to fight” faction in the Japanese cabinet was still in power. Unconditional surrender was a sticking point. Another myth was the emperor surrendered for the good of the people. He wanted to stay in power and preserve the diety status. But as far as I know and have read, at no point did Japan offer to surrender. There were only exploring potential terms. And they weren’t exactly trust worthy. 80,000 people died in Tokyo after being fire bombed. And they didn’t surrender. I guess they could have done it a couple more times to see if that would have done the trick. I don’t think the US had much appetite for a Germany style split with Russia either after carrying the load in the pacific. And honestly, in the long run it preserved the Japan state as whole. Albeit in a horrible way.

kingstonlake wrote:I’ve read that angle as well. There were factions on both sides. Japan was definitely trying to broker a side deal of surrender via Russia. Russia was no. There’s no doubt with Russia entering the war that eventually Japan was going to have to surrender. The “continue to fight” faction in the Japanese cabinet was still in power. Unconditional surrender was a sticking point. Another myth was the emperor surrendered for the good of the people. He wanted to stay in power and preserve the diety status. But as far as I know and have read, at no point did Japan offer to surrender. There were only exploring potential terms. And they weren’t exactly trust worthy. 80,000 people died in Tokyo after being fire bombed. And they didn’t surrender. I guess they could have done it a couple more times to see if that would have done the trick. I don’t think the US had much appetite for a Germany style split with Russia either after carrying the load in the pacific. And honestly, in the long run it preserved the Japan state as whole. Albeit in a horrible way.

This!

Ignoring the effects of the bombing raids with hundreds of B29's dropping bombs and killing more people that the nuclear bombs did is to focus only on the nuclear bombs and not on the results of the strategic bombing which was ongoing. The US could have achieved the same results as the nuclear bombs with a couple of "conventional" bombing raids on those cities. The bombs were just a more efficient tool.

Saying that Japan was all in on surrendering while ignoring the fact that a faction in the Japanese military revolted and almost succeeded is stopping the surrender message is rewriting the history of the feelings in Japan about surrendering at that time, which is just a dishonest way to think.

Saying that it was Japan's fear of Russia which forced them into unconditional surrender is flipping the script entirely. It really was the United States who didn't want Russia in this war, and Stalin taking advantage of the reality that Japan was already defeated to get a seat at the table and some gains for Russia. The United States probably made more concessions to Japan, such as allowing the Japanese Emperor to remain in a figurative position of power, in order to bring a faster end and keep Russia out of the picture as much as possible.

One opinion piece by someone who has a position to defend is hardly a definitive slam-dunk on this complex issue.

Trapper Gus wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:I’ve read that angle as well. There were factions on both sides. Japan was definitely trying to broker a side deal of surrender via Russia. Russia was no. There’s no doubt with Russia entering the war that eventually Japan was going to have to surrender. The “continue to fight” faction in the Japanese cabinet was still in power. Unconditional surrender was a sticking point. Another myth was the emperor surrendered for the good of the people. He wanted to stay in power and preserve the diety status. But as far as I know and have read, at no point did Japan offer to surrender. There were only exploring potential terms. And they weren’t exactly trust worthy. 80,000 people died in Tokyo after being fire bombed. And they didn’t surrender. I guess they could have done it a couple more times to see if that would have done the trick. I don’t think the US had much appetite for a Germany style split with Russia either after carrying the load in the pacific. And honestly, in the long run it preserved the Japan state as whole. Albeit in a horrible way.

This!

Ignoring the effects of the bombing raids with hundreds of B29's dropping bombs and killing more people that the nuclear bombs did is to focus only on the nuclear bombs and not on the results of the strategic bombing which was ongoing.  The US could have achieved the same results as the nuclear bombs with a couple of "conventional" bombing raids on those cities.  The bombs were just a more efficient tool.

Saying that Japan was all in on surrendering while ignoring the fact that a faction in the Japanese military revolted and almost succeeded is stopping the surrender message is rewriting the history of the feelings in Japan about surrendering at that time, which is just a dishonest way to think.

Saying that it was Japan's fear of Russia which forced them into unconditional surrender is flipping the script entirely.  It really was the United States who didn't want Russia in this war, and Stalin taking advantage of the reality that Japan was already defeated to get a seat at the table and some gains for Russia.  The United States probably made more concessions to Japan, such as allowing the Japanese Emperor to remain in a figurative position of power, in order to bring a faster end and keep Russia out of the picture as much as possible.

One opinion piece by someone who has a position to defend is hardly a definitive slam-dunk on this complex issue.

“We would have just murdered them a different way” is not the winning argument you think it is

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

This!

Ignoring the effects of the bombing raids with hundreds of B29's dropping bombs and killing more people that the nuclear bombs did is to focus only on the nuclear bombs and not on the results of the strategic bombing which was ongoing.  The US could have achieved the same results as the nuclear bombs with a couple of "conventional" bombing raids on those cities.  The bombs were just a more efficient tool.

Saying that Japan was all in on surrendering while ignoring the fact that a faction in the Japanese military revolted and almost succeeded is stopping the surrender message is rewriting the history of the feelings in Japan about surrendering at that time, which is just a dishonest way to think.

Saying that it was Japan's fear of Russia which forced them into unconditional surrender is flipping the script entirely.  It really was the United States who didn't want Russia in this war, and Stalin taking advantage of the reality that Japan was already defeated to get a seat at the table and some gains for Russia.  The United States probably made more concessions to Japan, such as allowing the Japanese Emperor to remain in a figurative position of power, in order to bring a faster end and keep Russia out of the picture as much as possible.

One opinion piece by someone who has a position to defend is hardly a definitive slam-dunk on this complex issue.

“We would have just murdered them a different way” is not the winning argument you think it is

It depends on what you are arguing about. (Honestly, I am confused about your position on this)

If it is about dropping the bombs, then as a result driven argument, it absolutely is.  One method of murder is equilivent to any other method.

If it is about the morality of bombing civilians, who are producing goods for the military which is fighting, then not so much.  This method has been around as long as war has, with invading armies murdering civilians with spear and swords long before practical airplanes were invented.

I get that people may not be aware of the horror of WW2 strategic bombing with HE bombs & firebombs, but it is every bit as terrible as "thin man" and "fat boy".

As for the argument that dropping those bombs let the nuclear horror out of the cage, that is just stupid.  The physicists did that with the development of knowledge of the structure of matter starting long before that.  The bombs would have been developed in time.  It can be argued that having them and dropping them then has held off any further use in war, which might be a good thing.

kingstonlake wrote:

The Pantry wrote:
Looked up death stats also, both military and civilian.  This site (not certain if reputable) puts Japanese military deaths at ~5-1 the US.  Still high considering the US was fighting in both Europe and the Pacific.

Maybe someone else can explain the rest of the numbers.  They blow my mind.

Estimated number of military and civilian fatalities due to the Second World War per country or region between 1939 and 1945

My numbers were specific to the war against Japan.  It sure seems like they were weren’t going to surrender until they were made to realized 6 year olds aren’t an effective fighting force. Put me in the camp that a shit ton of people were gonna die either way.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/C/a/Casualties.htm#:~:text=Total%20U.S.%20combat%20casualties%20in,1%2C740%2C000%20were%20killed%20or%20missing.

The one thing that chart shows is that before the US defeated them the Japanese were absolute monsters with regard to the treatment of the civilian populations (China, Netherlands East Indies & Philippines) in areas they invaded.  Stopping them by whatever means necessary was a very good thing for the civilian populations on the rest of the globe.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
“We would have just murdered them a different way” is not the winning argument you think it is

It depends on what you are arguing about. (Honestly, I am confused about your position on this)

If it is about dropping the bombs, then as a result driven argument, it absolutely is.  One method of murder is equilivent to any other method.

If it is about the morality of bombing civilians, who are producing goods for the military which is fighting, then not so much.  This method has been around as long as war has, with invading armies murdering civilians with spear and swords long before practical airplanes were invented.

I get that people may not be aware of the horror of WW2 strategic bombing with HE bombs & firebombs, but it is every bit as terrible as "thin man" and "fat boy".

As for the argument that dropping those bombs let the nuclear horror out of the cage, that is just stupid.  The physicists did that with the development of knowledge of the structure of matter starting long before that.  The bombs would have been developed in time.  It can be argued that having them and dropping them then has held off any further use in war, which might be a good thing.

My argument is largely that we could have simply let Russia join the war and Japan would have surrendered quickly and that we didn’t need to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Which is what happened. We tell ourselves it’s because of our heroic slaughter of hundreds of thousands and that the war would have kept going and you even convince yourself that we would have needed to kill those people anyway. But Russia showing up is what ended the war, and it would have happened that way regardless of if we decided to kill those people or not.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

It depends on what you are arguing about. (Honestly, I am confused about your position on this)

If it is about dropping the bombs, then as a result driven argument, it absolutely is.  One method of murder is equilivent to any other method.

If it is about the morality of bombing civilians, who are producing goods for the military which is fighting, then not so much.  This method has been around as long as war has, with invading armies murdering civilians with spear and swords long before practical airplanes were invented.

I get that people may not be aware of the horror of WW2 strategic bombing with HE bombs & firebombs, but it is every bit as terrible as "thin man" and "fat boy".

As for the argument that dropping those bombs let the nuclear horror out of the cage, that is just stupid.  The physicists did that with the development of knowledge of the structure of matter starting long before that.  The bombs would have been developed in time.  It can be argued that having them and dropping them then has held off any further use in war, which might be a good thing.

My argument is largely that we could have simply let Russia join the war and Japan would have surrendered quickly and that we didn’t need to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Which is what happened. We tell ourselves it’s because of our heroic slaughter of hundreds of thousands and that the war would have kept going and you even convince yourself that we would have needed to kill those people anyway. But Russia showing up is what ended the war, and it would have happened that way regardless of if we decided to kill those people or not.

Maybe, if the only goal is ending the war, though Russia's entry effect on Japan is being overstated in that article, as it was more the US not wanting to concede any territory to Russia which softened the US positions for Japan's surrender.

However, in the longer term of "the great game" as the diplomatic corps call it, the question of more Russian gains near Japan leads to the question of what would have happened during the cold war with a different settlement with Japan at the end of WW2.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
My argument is largely that we could have simply let Russia join the war and Japan would have surrendered quickly and that we didn’t need to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Which is what happened. We tell ourselves it’s because of our heroic slaughter of hundreds of thousands and that the war would have kept going and you even convince yourself that we would have needed to kill those people anyway. But Russia showing up is what ended the war, and it would have happened that way regardless of if we decided to kill those people or not.

Maybe, if the only goal is ending the war, though Russia's entry effect on Japan is being overstated in that article, as it was more the US not wanting to concede any territory to Russia which softened the US positions for Japan's surrender.

However, in the longer term of "the great game" as the diplomatic corps call it, the question of more Russian gains near Japan leads to the question of what would have happened during the cold war with a different settlement with Japan at the end of WW2.

Yes. I very much agree that using nukes was more about Russia than it was Japan. And I think that is abhorrent.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Maybe, if the only goal is ending the war, though Russia's entry effect on Japan is being overstated in that article, as it was more the US not wanting to concede any territory to Russia which softened the US positions for Japan's surrender.

However, in the longer term of "the great game" as the diplomatic corps call it, the question of more Russian gains near Japan leads to the question of what would have happened during the cold war with a different settlement with Japan at the end of WW2.

Yes. I very much agree that using nukes was more about Russia than it was Japan. And I think that is abhorrent.

At the time the USSR had an army in Europe which could have attacked the US / GB / French armies and probably driven them out of Europe.  This was still a global war in which the USSR had been on the other side until 1941.  Truman et al were probably more concerned about that than Japan.  Stalin was thousands of times worse than Putin and had a first-rate military at the time, to back up whatever he wanted to do.

Based on Stalin's personality, a brutal use of the nuclear bombs was likely a very convincing argument to make to hold him back from global conquest.

Debating Japans surrender with 2023 eyes is an exercise in futility on all our parts. I’ve read that Truman was actually glad Russia entered the war. My guess is that it made dropping the bomb an easier sell.

One thing is not debatable. Hirohito and the cabinet didn’t give two shits about the civilian population. Their main concern was preservation in any type of surrender scenario.

It should also be noted that Russias invasion of Manchuria was pretty much a rape and pillage fest of Chinese and Japanese civilians. They had done it before in Germany I believe.  I’d like to believe that we were aware of what was gonna happen if Russia invaded Japan.  No simple black and white math on do or don’t here.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

It depends on what you are arguing about. (Honestly, I am confused about your position on this)

If it is about dropping the bombs, then as a result driven argument, it absolutely is.  One method of murder is equilivent to any other method.

If it is about the morality of bombing civilians, who are producing goods for the military which is fighting, then not so much.  This method has been around as long as war has, with invading armies murdering civilians with spear and swords long before practical airplanes were invented.

I get that people may not be aware of the horror of WW2 strategic bombing with HE bombs & firebombs, but it is every bit as terrible as "thin man" and "fat boy".

As for the argument that dropping those bombs let the nuclear horror out of the cage, that is just stupid.  The physicists did that with the development of knowledge of the structure of matter starting long before that.  The bombs would have been developed in time.  It can be argued that having them and dropping them then has held off any further use in war, which might be a good thing.

My argument is largely that we could have simply let Russia join the war and Japan would have surrendered quickly and that we didn’t need to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Which is what happened. We tell ourselves it’s because of our heroic slaughter of hundreds of thousands and that the war would have kept going and you even convince yourself that we would have needed to kill those people anyway. But Russia showing up is what ended the war, and it would have happened that way regardless of if we decided to kill those people or not.

Because Russia joining the war wouldn't have resulted in civilians being killed somehow?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
My argument is largely that we could have simply let Russia join the war and Japan would have surrendered quickly and that we didn’t need to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Which is what happened. We tell ourselves it’s because of our heroic slaughter of hundreds of thousands and that the war would have kept going and you even convince yourself that we would have needed to kill those people anyway. But Russia showing up is what ended the war, and it would have happened that way regardless of if we decided to kill those people or not.

Because Russia joining the war wouldn't have resulted in civilians being killed somehow?

Russia is everything that is good and wholesome. They would never let civilians die for no reason…

Motown Spartan wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Because Russia joining the war wouldn't have resulted in civilians being killed somehow?

Russia is everything that is good and wholesome. They would never let civilians die for no reason…

Neither would China.

Show of hands all those who feel like they already had all the information they needed to arrive at their conclusion prior to the beginning of the conversation?

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
My argument is largely that we could have simply let Russia join the war and Japan would have surrendered quickly and that we didn’t need to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Which is what happened. We tell ourselves it’s because of our heroic slaughter of hundreds of thousands and that the war would have kept going and you even convince yourself that we would have needed to kill those people anyway. But Russia showing up is what ended the war, and it would have happened that way regardless of if we decided to kill those people or not.

Because Russia joining the war wouldn't have resulted in civilians being killed somehow?

Because Russia joining the war would have caused Japan to surrender very quickly. Which it did. In actual reality.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Because Russia joining the war wouldn't have resulted in civilians being killed somehow?

Because Russia joining the war would have caused Japan to surrender very quickly. Which it did. In actual reality.

Yeah, they weren't surrendering from everything else, but that made them surrender. Also, we continued to bomb Japan conventionally after Nagasaki and Russian entry.

And on a single night alone in March we killed more people in conventional bombings than either atomic bomb, with some estimates saying more than both combined.

As I said way back when this thread started, the ship had long since sailed on any moral high ground with regards to killing civilians before August 1945, so focusing a moral discussion on the atomic bombs just misses the more relevant discussion.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
Because Russia joining the war would have caused Japan to surrender very quickly. Which it did. In actual reality.

Yeah, they weren't surrendering from everything else, but that made them surrender.  Also, we continued to bomb Japan conventionally after Nagasaki and Russian entry.  

And on a single night alone in March we killed more people in conventional bombings than either atomic bomb, with some estimates saying more than both combined.

As I said way back when this thread started, the ship had long since sailed on any moral high ground with regards to killing civilians before August 1945, so focusing a moral discussion on the atomic bombs just misses the more relevant discussion.

That first part is correct, yes, nailed it. 

Same thing for you as traps earlier- saying that we killed plenty of civilians in other ways is not a winning argument here. We could have killed that many less by simply not doing what we did.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

Yeah, they weren't surrendering from everything else, but that made them surrender.  Also, we continued to bomb Japan conventionally after Nagasaki and Russian entry.  

And on a single night alone in March we killed more people in conventional bombings than either atomic bomb, with some estimates saying more than both combined.

As I said way back when this thread started, the ship had long since sailed on any moral high ground with regards to killing civilians before August 1945, so focusing a moral discussion on the atomic bombs just misses the more relevant discussion.

That first part is correct, yes, nailed it. 

Same thing for you as traps earlier- saying that we killed plenty of civilians in other ways is not a winning argument here. We could have killed that many less by simply not doing what we did.

And if you think I'm suggesting that's a winning argument, you don't read good (bad grammar intended).

I think you're just trying to discuss the morality of the bombs without any context whatsoever. There was no moral high ground by any major participant in the war. You could say, "fewer civilian lives would have been lost if we didn't do that" to literally hundreds of thousands of bomber sorties in WWII. But the fact is that the powers that be didn't give a fuck about civilian lives in enemy countries. That's my point. The conversation shouldn't just be about the bombs.

Okay. I’ll do some math for you.

Xxxx number of people died to that point.

Because we dropped those bombs, xxxxx + 100,000 people died 

Had we not done that, xxxx + what do we want to say, a few thousand, maybe? Would have died. Or more. That will be your argument. But you don’t know that. There’s no way to know that other than swallowing the propaganda of the people that made the decisions.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Okay. I’ll do some math for you.

Xxxx number of people died to that point.

Because we dropped those bombs, xxxxx + 100,000 people died 

Had we not done that, xxxx + what do we want to say, a few thousand, maybe? Would have died. Or more. That will be your argument. But you don’t know that. There’s no way to know that other than swallowing the propaganda of the people that made the decisions.

Looked at as a percentage of the deaths in WW2 200k more deaths is below the decimal point.

The argument that Japan would have surrendered without those additional deaths is just as speculative as the argument they did surrender due to the shock of the bombs and those deaths.

We might as well be arguing about the question of if the US & Japan had communicated perfectly in 1940 all those deaths, well except the millions of Chinese, Indonesians and Philippine citizens that Japan murdered, would have lived.

Fruitless speculation.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Okay. I’ll do some math for you.

Xxxx number of people died to that point.

Because we dropped those bombs, xxxxx + 100,000 people died 

Had we not done that, xxxx + what do we want to say, a few thousand, maybe? Would have died. Or more. That will be your argument. But you don’t know that. There’s no way to know that other than swallowing the propaganda of the people that made the decisions.

I don’t think anyone is swallowing propaganda or blaring Jason Aldeane over this. I think most of us are looking at it with as much information as possible and available.

We know how many people died from fire bombing and nuclear bombs. Saying when Japan would have surrendered is speculation. Saying that less people would have died had we not dropped the bombs is speculation. It’s a great debate that’s been going on for decades. But either way it’s all speculation.