Do you think the atomic bomb drop during WW2 was inevitable?
- Thread starter Muz1234
- Start date
- 14 Mar 2002
- 21,050
- 18,904
Konnichiwa Muz1234-san!
Palestinians are being massacred by Israelis. What kind of karma do Palestinians carry?
Ukraine has been subjected to indiscriminate bombing by Russia for over four years. What crimes have the Ukrainians committed?
In Iran, more than 170 elementary school girls were killed by Americans. Were these children violent criminals?
Ignorant people who don't study history foster prejudice and create new crimes. Of course, even those who have studied history make many mistakes. That is why people must continue to learn.
You shouldn't use God or karma as an excuse for not learning(or attack the enemy).
NANGI
Palestinians are being massacred by Israelis. What kind of karma do Palestinians carry?
Ukraine has been subjected to indiscriminate bombing by Russia for over four years. What crimes have the Ukrainians committed?
In Iran, more than 170 elementary school girls were killed by Americans. Were these children violent criminals?
Ignorant people who don't study history foster prejudice and create new crimes. Of course, even those who have studied history make many mistakes. That is why people must continue to learn.
You shouldn't use God or karma as an excuse for not learning(or attack the enemy).
NANGI
Kulern
Sempai
- 26 Feb 2026
- 184
- 192
I have heard two sides of it
USA thought Japan would never surrender no matter what. So they thought it was better than to sacrifice American lives for it.
The more... contemporary.. Not sure what you would call them, opposite thought. (This is really more a conspiracy so i wouldnt 100% trust this). But, Japan wanted to surrender but that they demanded the emperor Hirohito to be left alone. This was not ok with Americans. So they bombed either way, and also was a way to test their nuclear weapons aswell. Well after the two nukes the surrender of Japan happened. Well Hirohito was basically left alone after that either way.
In the end. The victors writes history. Just look at the American Civil War narrative
I have read book called "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James McPherson. And it gave me a completely different narrative than what pop culture or media wants me to think about it. Especially about Abraham Lincoln
Last edited:
Achilles 1-1
Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.
- 21 Aug 2024
- 1,041
- 589
It wasn't either of those. In true American fashion, it was payback, and incredibly deserved. It had nothing to do with Nanjing, (America doesn't care about that). It was a DIRECT retaliation for the incredibly disgusting and unprovoked attack on Pearl Harbor, a means to end the war quickly without unnecessary American bloodshed, as the original plan was a massive land invasion of Japan, Operation: Downfall, which would have lead to millions of Japanese/America deaths, increased firebombing, which was already destroying Tokyo, a naval blockade to immediately halt all food and supplies to Japan, forcing national starvation, and the threat of soviet entry. Why was America even brought into the war? The Japanese leadership at the time decided the only way to expand into Southeast Asia and conquer it was to bomb a major naval base of a country that it was technically at peace with, while, in fact, peace negotiations were ongoing. Emperor Hirohito had zero backbone. While I understand that the Japanese Navy and Military were basically running Japan against the Emperors wishes, and I understand he desperately wanted to avoid the war, he cannot be excused for not enforcing his authority upon his corrupt military leaders.
It was NOT a war crime, the US told Japan they would face "Prompt and utter destruction" if they did not unconditionally surrender, further, after the Hiroshima bombing, American forces dropped leaflets on Japanese soil warning of the bombs destructive power, and urging for surrender to spare from additional destruction. Japan received a fair warning.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected because they were relatively undamaged, and held significant military importance in Japan.
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who was later shot down and killed when U.S. Army Air Forces P-38 Lightning fighters shot down his transport aircraft over Bougainville Island in the Solomon Islands by Thomas Lanphier, (later awarded the Navy Cross for his actions) when Admiral Chester Nimitz authorized the attack with two simple words: "Kill Yamamoto." Anyways, Yamamoto was very well aware of the fact, having studied at Harvard, that Japan simply could not ever hope to beat the US in a war, famously saying that he feared Japan had woken up a monster and filled him with terrifying resolve, and that after six months, he had no hope to beat America.
So, what do you prefer? The 140,000 the bombs had killed by the end of 1945? Or the projected deaths 1 million American troops, and the projected 5-20 million deaths by Japanese soldiers and civilians alike, due to the "100 Million Die Proudly" strategy?
In short, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the catalyst for WWII, and eventually the justification for the atomic bombs. I encourage you to discard anything Nanjing related when it comes to the bombing of Japan. The "America First" movement was very strong back then, and no amount of news of rape or murder, however terrible, was going to convince Americans to send their sons to die in Asia for a problem that, if we're being completely honest, didn't have anything to do with America, and something Americans then and now generally don't know nor care about. America did not sympathize nor care about China enough to nuke a country for rape and murder, or any crime. Iran would be nuked 500 times over if THAT was the case.
It was NOT a war crime, the US told Japan they would face "Prompt and utter destruction" if they did not unconditionally surrender, further, after the Hiroshima bombing, American forces dropped leaflets on Japanese soil warning of the bombs destructive power, and urging for surrender to spare from additional destruction. Japan received a fair warning.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected because they were relatively undamaged, and held significant military importance in Japan.
Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who was later shot down and killed when U.S. Army Air Forces P-38 Lightning fighters shot down his transport aircraft over Bougainville Island in the Solomon Islands by Thomas Lanphier, (later awarded the Navy Cross for his actions) when Admiral Chester Nimitz authorized the attack with two simple words: "Kill Yamamoto." Anyways, Yamamoto was very well aware of the fact, having studied at Harvard, that Japan simply could not ever hope to beat the US in a war, famously saying that he feared Japan had woken up a monster and filled him with terrifying resolve, and that after six months, he had no hope to beat America.
So, what do you prefer? The 140,000 the bombs had killed by the end of 1945? Or the projected deaths 1 million American troops, and the projected 5-20 million deaths by Japanese soldiers and civilians alike, due to the "100 Million Die Proudly" strategy?
In short, the bombing of Pearl Harbor was the catalyst for WWII, and eventually the justification for the atomic bombs. I encourage you to discard anything Nanjing related when it comes to the bombing of Japan. The "America First" movement was very strong back then, and no amount of news of rape or murder, however terrible, was going to convince Americans to send their sons to die in Asia for a problem that, if we're being completely honest, didn't have anything to do with America, and something Americans then and now generally don't know nor care about. America did not sympathize nor care about China enough to nuke a country for rape and murder, or any crime. Iran would be nuked 500 times over if THAT was the case.
Last edited:
Kulern
Sempai
- 26 Feb 2026
- 184
- 192
Well said. USA wanted to be neutral. But Japan was the one who brought USA into WW2 on the side of the allies
I saw this series called "The Pacific" years ago, which was a good made TV series. Think it was also same people who made "Band of Brothers"
- 6 Mar 2003
- 9,317
- 9,444
So your claim is that Americans kill noncombatants indiscriminately as payback when they are wronged?
Kulern
Sempai
- 26 Feb 2026
- 184
- 192
Two options
1: The hard way of losing American soldiers. And not use nuke. And likely killing civilians in the process
2: The more effective way. Lose less American soldiers or likely NONE, but also bombing the military industrial powers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Which also is likely to kill civilians) in order to force Japan to surrender
Which one do you prefer when you are at war?
- 6 Mar 2003
- 9,317
- 9,444
It wasn't a binary choice. Even if you agree with the general American narrative it's difficult to justify the bombing of Nagasaki before Japan had a chance to digest the situation in Hiroshima and respond.
Achilles 1-1
Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.
- 21 Aug 2024
- 1,041
- 589
No it's not. It held military importance, and needed to be erased. The entire reason was to force surrender.
No, but Americans will clear collateral damage if the enemy does the same. Civilians also died in the Pearl Harbor attack, so as far as I'm concerned, America didn't do anything Japan didn't do, however, they did do it on a MUCH larger scale.
- 21 May 2003
- 14,310
- 4,404
I think a small reason for use was to show Russia we had it and could/would use it against them if needed in the future.
Achilles 1-1
Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.
- 21 Aug 2024
- 1,041
- 589
Thats also true, it served two purposes. Three, if you count that nobody ever wants nukes used, except for (probably) China and North Korea.
Kulern
Sempai
- 26 Feb 2026
- 184
- 192
Interesting fact. Douglas MacArthur (Who also was presence during the Japanese surrender in WW2)
He was a war general in the Korea war. He actually wanted to use nukes on China. But the president at the time said no (For obvious geopolitical reasons)
When MacArthur didnt back down, this got him removed from the war fronts and replaced with another general.
Last edited:
- 6 Mar 2003
- 9,317
- 9,444
False. If it was so important why wasn't it targeted previously? Also it was a backup target. It was only bombed because the weather wasn't favorable. You could make the argument it was needed to force surrender if they had waited a bit longer or if the Japanese had responded belligerently after Hiroshima. They bombed it only 3 days after Hiroshima. There had been no communication between the U.S. and Japan during that time.
So now your claim is that if their enemies don't adhere to human decency or basic rules of war or avoid collateral damage, the U.S. should not either?
You really like speaking confidently about things you don't know much about don't you? Perhaps you've been a rogue, hallucinating AI this whole time...
- 21 May 2003
- 14,310
- 4,404
I'm old enough to have listened to stories from men , like my dad , who fought in WWII against the Japanese. At that time with all the Americans killed , all Japanese were considered as sub-human cockroaches whose death was well deserved , citizen & military. The way people think now is very different.
- 6 Mar 2003
- 9,317
- 9,444
False. If it was so important why wasn't it targeted previously? Also it was a backup target. It was only bombed because the weather wasn't favorable. You could make the argument it was needed to force surrender if they had waited a bit longer or if the Japanese had responded belligerently after Hiroshima. They bombed it only 3 days after Hiroshima. There had been no communication between the U.S. and Japan during that time.
So now your claim is that if their enemies don't adhere to human decency or basic rules of war or avoid collateral damage, the U.S. should not either?
You really like speaking confidently about things you don't know much about don't you? Perhaps you've been a rogue, hallucinating AI this whole time...
If only that were true.
- 26 Sep 2015
- 2,612
- 3,543
Unfortunately, the thinking of a sizeable number of people has not changed.
Referring to Koreans as cockroaches is a common trope among Japanese ultranationalists. In the spate of anti-Korean protests in Shin-Okubo during the early part of Abe's second premiership, I remember seeing one protester holding a banner with a defaced Korean flag that had legs added to the circle to make it look like a cockroach.
The expression 'collateral damage' is only slightly better. It's only used to refer to enemy deaths, whereas it's a terrible tragedy when one of 'our boys' is slain during war. They are not humans but we are.
However, we have (until recently) got a bit better at preventing the worst people from rising to the top and pursuing policies based on this kind of thinking.
Last edited:
Kulern
Sempai
- 26 Feb 2026
- 184
- 192
I wonder why there is hate between Japanese and Koreans? I guess i just don't get it since i don't live in Asia.
- 12 Oct 2013
- 4,071
- 5,023
I think this was a fairly big, if not publicly admitted, reason.
- 26 Sep 2015
- 2,612
- 3,543
Most importantly, there is not hate between most Japans and most Koreans, and the relationship between the two countries has improved recently.
However, some Koreans feel anger at Japan's treatment of them during the colonial era and attempts by nationalist politicians in Japan to downplay or deny this. On the other side, some Japanese people feel that Koreans use this as a stick to beat them with, despite these events happening generations ago.
Kulern
Sempai
- 26 Feb 2026
- 184
- 192
I have had these issues too when it comes to people that insults me. Without being too preachy, i tend to go with what Jesus said "Bless those who curse you". Or thats what i try to think about if i get angry or want to insult someone back.
And sometimes this can be difficult when it comes to holding your tounge.
Likely because of political quarrelings and other factors relating to it. But when i think of, whats the strongest? I try to remove the things that clouds behaviors.
Or as the villain in Matrix Resurrections movie said
"Feelings are easier to manipulate than facts"
edit:
Maybe off topic but. This scene always gets me.
The trilogy of early 2000s Spiderman films were great!
Last edited:
Achilles 1-1
Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.
- 21 Aug 2024
- 1,041
- 589
So what if Nagasaki was a backup target? The real target, Kokura, was indeed too cloudy for a bomb run, so, the US pivoted to another one of the four selected potential bomb targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki. Kokura was too cloudy, yes, and Niigata was too far and impractical as it was 400+ miles away. Yes, you read that right. Nagasaki was pre-selected in the event that the main target was unavailable, so yes, it's justified. Two waves of planes. Two bombs.False. If it was so important why wasn't it targeted previously? Also it was a backup target. It was only bombed because the weather wasn't favorable. You could make the argument it was needed to force surrender if they had waited a bit longer or if the Japanese had responded belligerently after Hiroshima. They bombed it only 3 days after Hiroshima. There had been no communication between the U.S. and Japan during that time.
So now your claim is that if their enemies don't adhere to human decency or basic rules of war or avoid collateral damage, the U.S. should not either?
You really like speaking confidently about things you don't know much about don't you? Perhaps you've been a rogue, hallucinating AI this whole time...
If only that were true.
Yeah, they did bomb it only three days after. That was the plan all along. There is a reason there wasn't any communication. America, (back then, at least) didn't do anything halfway. The planes were deployed one after the other. It's not like Truman was going: "SEE!? See why you should surrender!?" Two cities were selected for the two bombs, there doesn't have to be any more reason than that.
Here is a very fun fact for you: the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor was determined to be a War Crime by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (the Tokyo War Crimes Trials) after World War II. The attack was completely random, the 1907 Hague Convention (III) requires that hostilities must not commence without a "previous and explicit warning," in the form of a declaration of war or an ultimatum. Japan and the U.S. were still engaged in diplomatic negotiations, leading to the expectation of a warning before any rupture. While yes, the Japanese government intended to deliver their note breaking off negotiations before the attack, but, due to "delays", the message was delivered over an hour after the bombs fell. The message of an attack of that magnitude should have been delivered may days in advance, and either way, the message only said they were breaking off peace negotiations, not organizing an attack.
And Here's the Best Part:
Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the attack, reportedly understood that if Japan lost, the lack of a proper declaration of war would make the attack a war crime.
And let me guess, you're going to argue that "Well, the Americans cut off Japanese oil supply, forcing Japan to react."
Yes, Americans did that. However, they only did that AFTER Japan either invaded, or made plans to invade, French Indochina, threatening Americans supply of Rubber, and Tin, leading to the non-hostile act of imposing a complete oil embargo and freezing Japanese assets in the US, in response to Japans occupation of American airfields in French Indochina.
- 6 Mar 2003
- 9,317
- 9,444
Pearl Harbor is not relevant to the discussion. By the same standard (no formal declaration of war was given hence it was a war crime), Trump's attack on Iran was a war crime too. It was also illegal because only Congress has the power to declare war. (But all recent presidents have gotten into the habit of making wars without calling them wars.)
We can't say that Nagasaki was justified as being necessary to end the war with any certainty given the timeline. So then what was justified?
You're saying the justification was payback for Pearl Harbor?
We can't say that Nagasaki was justified as being necessary to end the war with any certainty given the timeline. So then what was justified?
You're saying the justification was payback for Pearl Harbor?
Achilles 1-1
Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.
- 21 Aug 2024
- 1,041
- 589
Actually, it's not. Under the US constitution, the president has the power to preform short-of-hand operations, which includes surgical strike bombing, for up to a period of forty days, I believe. So no, it's not a war crime, it's legally allowed under US constitution.
And again, Nagasaki was pre-selected, it was going to be bombed no matter what, so I don't see your point. It's not like they're bombing Tokyo, then, for that, there would be no justification, and, Tokyo was already being fire bombed, we didn't need to nuke Tokyo.
Pearl Harbor is perhaps the largest indirect factors in the Atomic Bombing of Japan. It brought total war to America, and fed the American drive for unconditional surrender.
FURTHER, the Japanese military not only didn't surrender before the bombs were even dropped, they also hindered the news of how bad it was and lied to the public and emperor about it.
Lastly, the bombing on Nagasaki was also to make the Japanese believe that the US had hundreds of these bombs and would continue to delete Japanese cities every few days, when in reality America didn't have another core ready until late August.
Last edited:
