Wyz_sub10

I have read some statements esposing this as well. Still, I find that very hard to believe. I'd be interested to read any further info you could provide on this.

I would agree wholeheartedly that these were reasons.

But these "conventional" methods were still killing Japanese citizens. [edited: I read some additional info. The sides seem to be split over whether surrender was forthcoming. I think it's safe to say that, either way, thousands of deaths were inevitable].

I would argue that Japan may not have surrendered without some show of a devastating attack they could not counter. Japan was not Germany nor Italy.

I agree that you cannot compare Hiroshima to Pearl Harbor, and defining Hiroshima as a "military target" is a stretch.

But I find any discussion on the "ethics" of war to be a bit bizarre. War is brutal and savage and pointed. The bombs succeeded in doing what they were supposed to do - illicit surrender.

I find this bit of history as unsettling and grotesque as, perhaps, you do. But nothing about WWII was pretty. The bombs help to bring about an end.

John Hancock

I know the solution. First invent atime machine and hack as to what the various out comes would be.

Barkhorn1x

Why it's a Commie History Lesson - complete w/ half lies, full lies twisted facts and general gibberish about those damn Capitalist exploiters.

Hey why not give "the other side a chance" and quote something from The Turner Diaries.

That might be cool.

Regards,
Barkhorn.

Syphor

I'm not sure if you've read this essay, but I view it as a very comprehensive and detailed read - Hiroshima - Was it necessary?

I think the concern of the atomic bomb critics was the intentional targeting of areas with minimal military significance with such a devastating weapon. Certainly the fire bombing of Tokyo killing 80,000 people was arguably as bad, and the extent of that mission was also unnecessary as well.

It is often said that the war could have even ended sooner, if the US was prepared to open up dialogue and compromise with the Japanese. Japan had pursued surrender through the Soviet Union as mediator in the months proceeding August 1945, and with the US having access to Japanese radio transmissions it meant they were well aware of this. The Potsdam Proclamation put forward by the US, UK and Soviet Union demanded unconditional surrender as well as threatening the removal (although not explicitly stating) the Japanese leadership. With the deity-like significance of the Emperor to Japanese culture and society, unconditional surrender was deemed unacceptable for the Japanese. With the atomic bombings and the Soviet invasion of Manchuria Japan was faced with complete destruction, due to this, and due to the Potsdam Proclamation not explicably stating the removal of the Emperor, it was the Emperor himself that eventually ordered the surrender five days after Nagasaki was bombed. By specifically outlining in the Potsdam Proclamation that the Emperor would not be removed from his position or even put on trail as a war criminal, and by perusing a more open dialogue with the Japanese, the atomic bombings could have been avoided.