Do you think the atomic bomb drop during WW2 was inevitable?

mdchachi · 10 Apr 2026

Achilles 1-1 said:
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.

First of all the U.S. Constitution gives no support for the president performing offensive military operations like this. You're confusing the Constitution with the federal laws put in place much later. Secondly, the Constitution has nothing to do with the international rules of war that were in place in 1940. The 1907 Hague Convention doesn't say, oh, it's fine to start a war as long as long as the strikes are surgical and it doesn't last 40 days.

Achilles 1-1 said:
And again, Nagasaki was pre-selected, it was going to be bombed no matter what, so I don't see your point.

The point is that it's not justifiable under any kind of moral framework you can possibly think of. There's no way to prove it was required to save American lives or somehow had to happen in order to prevent worse outcomes.

Achilles 1-1 said:
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.

You're confusing reasons with justification.

Achilles 1-1 said:
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.

Yes. Three days was hardly enough time for word to get around.

Achilles 1-1 said:
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.

Again you're talking reasons. That's still doesn't justify it. Basically you're saying even with the benefit of hindsight the extra 70,000 people killed was all justified and reasonable and really couldn't have been avoided. BTW even if you don't care about Japanese deaths, hundreds of allied POWs were killed from the Nagasaki event.

Achilles 1-1 · 10 Apr 2026

mdchachi said:
First of all the U.S. Constitution gives no support for the president performing offensive military operations like this. You're confusing the Constitution with the federal laws put in place much later. Secondly, the Constitution has nothing to do with the international rules of war that were in place in 1940. The 1907 Hague Convention doesn't say, oh, it's fine to start a war as long as long as the strikes are surgical and it doesn't last 40 days.

The point is that it's not justifiable under any kind of moral framework you can possibly think of. There's no way to prove it was required to save American lives or somehow had to happen in order to prevent worse outcomes.

You're confusing reasons with justification.

Yes. Three days was hardly enough time for word to get around.

Again you're talking reasons. That's still doesn't justify it. Basically you're saying even with the benefit of hindsight the extra 70,000 people killed was all justified and reasonable and really couldn't have been avoided. BTW even if you don't care about Japanese deaths, hundreds of allied POWs were killed from the Nagasaki event.

The international rules back in the 40s said nothing on nukes, since nukes weren't invented, meaning it couldn't be a war crime. Maybe it isn't justifiable. But it happened. America could do it because of the law at the time, and it was decisive in ensuring unconditional surrender. I doubt Japan would've surrendered if America stopped at Hiroshima. And the total of 140,000 deaths or even just 70,000 in Hiroshima is far better than 5-20 million. You have to think of what the lesser of the two evils are.

And even two nukes weren't even enough, when Japan was surrendering, military officials staged an unsuccessful coup to prevent the surrender. Just by that, the bombing of Nagasaki is justified.

And here is a fact: If Japan hadn't surrendered the next city to be nuked would have been Kokura. Tokyo was saved because it was already leveled by firebombing raids. Kyoto was spared, it was originally target number one, when Secretary of War Henry Stimson personally had it removed because he had visited Kyoto and said it was far too culturally significant to destroy.

I ask you this, is the Firebombing of Tokyo, the single deadliest air raid in human history, not just as bad in your eyes as the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

mdchachi · 10 Apr 2026

I didn't say anything about war crimes and the nuclear bombings. In any case, you're just parroting justifications and history whitewashing that with the benefit of hindsight are completely false. The 5-20 million death estimates were military planners' worst case estimates. Even at the time, American leadership thought the bombs weren't necessary to end the war.

Most high ranking Allied military leaders were appalled by the use of the atomic bombs. General Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe, recognized that Japan was ready to surrender and said, "It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." General Hap Arnold, commander of the US Army Air Corps pointed out, "Atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse."

Admiral William Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, put it this way: "The use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender. In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to barbarians of the Dark Ages. Wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

source

Achilles 1-1 said:
I ask you this, is the Firebombing of Tokyo, the single deadliest air raid in human history, not just as bad in your eyes as the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Of course it's just as bad if not worse. All of the events of the war led to Geneva Conventions to try to prevent these terrible actions and outcomes.

Achilles 1-1 · 10 Apr 2026

mdchachi said:
I didn't say anything about war crimes and the nuclear bombings. In any case, you're just parroting justifications and history whitewashing that with the benefit of hindsight are completely false. The 5-20 million death estimates were military planners' worst case estimates. Even at the time, American leadership thought the bombs weren't necessary to end the war.

Of course it's just as bad if not worse. All of the events of the war led to Geneva Conventions to try to prevent these terrible actions and outcomes.

But what matters is that other, more important (in the sense they were advisers) thought it either was necessary or thought they needed a test subject and decided that if Japan wanted to play soldier they would pay the price. Whitewashing history is pretending that the Japanese military—which was literally teaching schoolgirls how to kill Americans with sharpened bamboo poles—would have just surrendered. Again, the failed coup proves that the nukes were justified the nukes honestly weren't enough if you think about it, who stages a coup so they can keep fighting after two nukes?

mdchachi · 10 Apr 2026

Achilles 1-1 said:
But what matters is that other, more important (in the sense they were advisers) thought it either was necessary or thought they needed a test subject and decided that if Japan wanted to play soldier they would pay the price. Whitewashing history is pretending that the Japanese military—which was literally teaching schoolgirls how to kill Americans with sharpened bamboo poles—would have just surrendered. Again, the failed coup proves that the nukes were justified the nukes honestly weren't enough if you think about it, who stages a coup so they can keep fighting after two nukes?

The failed coup proves those guys didn't have the support they needed. They were in the minority. The fact that the U.S. knew they were talking about surrendering (they had cracked their communication codes) even before Hiroshima makes clear that they had other options other than incinerating over 150,000 people in a hurry.

thomas · 10 Apr 2026

In hindsight, the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 indicates that their use is generally considered unjustifiable, which also raises questions about the justification of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Besides, I agree with @Majestic and @Grandpa Frank that the bombs were primarily a warning to Moscow. The Cold War had already begun.

Achilles 1-1 · 10 Apr 2026

mdchachi said:
The failed coup proves those guys didn't have the support they needed. They were in the minority. The fact that the U.S. knew they were talking about surrendering (they had cracked their communication codes) even before Hiroshima makes clear that they had other options other than incinerating over 150,000 people in a hurry.

Of course, Operation: Downfall was a thing. Why kill 150,000 when we could've killed 5-20 Million? Yes, thats the worst case predictions, however military planners must take into consideration and account for for the worst case scenario. Either way, blood would have been spilt. Kill more, or kill less, whats more morally justified? Japan wasn't just going to give up without a big fight, or two bombs.

Ah, but the US gave them one chance to surrender unconditionally and issued a major threat when told no, so thats not Americas fault. One chance is all they needed. What they did with that chance was not the USs' concern, only what became of that chance.

Also, under the Volunteer Fighting Corps, everyone in the age range, man and woman, was officially classified a combatant in Japans and Americas eyes.

mdchachi · 10 Apr 2026

Achilles 1-1 said:
Japan wasn't just going to give up without a big fight, or two bombs.

That's already been proven incorrect. Or, at best, inconclusive. Why do you persist with these AI bot-like hallucinations?

Achilles 1-1 · 10 Apr 2026

mdchachi said:
That's already been proven incorrect. Or, at best, inconclusive. Why do you persist with these AI bot-like hallucinations?

Funny how you only target that. Why do you persist in only answering the weakest points of my responses? It's cheap to talk about surrender. Providing bombs to strap to people and teaching them to roll under tanks at the same time of this talk of 'surrender' is expensive. Talking just to talk is what they seemed to be doing.

Kulern · 10 Apr 2026

thomas said:
In hindsight, the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945 indicates that their use is generally considered unjustifiable, which also raises questions about the justification of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Besides, I agree with @Majestic and @Grandpa Frank that the bombs were primarily a warning to Moscow. The Cold War had already begun.

Its more geopolitical reasons to it. Than a moral reason for it.

If USA, France, UK etc where to nuke this country. Then you could see a nuclear response from Russia or China
If China or Russia where to nuke this country. Then USA, France, UK could respond to that with a nuke aswell

Basically it would be a war nobody would win.

Lothor · 10 Apr 2026

Kulern said:
Its more geopolitical reasons to it. Than a moral reason for it.

If USA, France, UK etc where to nuke this country. Then you could see a nuclear response from Russia or China
If China or Russia where to nuke this country. Then USA, France, UK could respond to that with a nuke aswell

Basically it would be a war nobody would win.

That is true. However, there is a small risk that a leader of a country with nuclear weapons will come along who is unable to think rationally and whose country's interests are far down in his priorities. We're currently at a greater risk of nuclear war than we have been for a long time.

mdchachi · 10 Apr 2026

Lothor said:
That is true. However, there is a small risk that a leader of a country with nuclear weapons will come along who is unable to think rationally and whose country's interests are far down in his priorities. We're currently at a greater risk of nuclear war than we have been for a long time.

All we can hope for now is that the people with the actual keys/codes have a little sanity and humanity left.

Kulern · 3 Jun 2026

I guess this might be reason why Miyazaki likes this movie. I didnt realize first time that this had relations to WW2.

USS Indianapolis (CA-35) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Do you think the atomic bomb drop during WW2 was inevitable?

mdchachi

Moderator

Achilles 1-1

Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.

mdchachi

Moderator

Achilles 1-1

Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.

mdchachi

Moderator

thomas

Unswerving cyclist

Achilles 1-1

Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.

mdchachi

Moderator

Achilles 1-1

Destined Among Shadows: The Indama Chronicles.

Kulern

Sempai

Lothor

Freelance proofreader

mdchachi

Moderator

Kulern

Sempai

USS Indianapolis (CA-35) - Wikipedia

Similar threads