Thank you for this.
I have a unpopular opinion on the bombs that were dropped. I understand how horrible it was for the Japanese people, however it was the only way to end the war...a war we didn't start and tried to stay out of. We get a lot of criticism from people who don't like us getting into wars in which we have no business in, but I believe that us not getting involved in this war only cost more lives...in the end we were pulled in. So it makes more sense to jump in before they spread all over and we have to get involved anyway. Of course not all wars...js this is why we started jumping in when we "had no dog in the fight" (figure of speech don't kill me I know it's terrible)
I wholly agree with you, and I am happy that America has not declared itself the greatest conquering superpower, but rather assists other countries and helps national relations, not for global domination like the nations it was up against.
7
·
Edited 8 years ago
deleted
· 8 years ago
Many people criticize the US for using those two nuclear bombs and killing many people. However, the number ofdeaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are less than the deaths caused by battles in Asia and the islands. Some Japanese even said that it wasn't the nuclear bombs that caused surrender, but the continuous losing of battles in the east (later in the war) and the bombing of islands. The nuclear bombs were just a catalyst. Anyways, many more Japanese people died by other means.
When they find mere outlines of mothers using their bodies to protect their babies, I have a really hard time thinking that could possibly be justified. Yes, many Japanese civilians were killed by other methods, but many of these (like the fire bombing) were also ethically questionable as well. The goal was to save American lives, not lives in general.
While I understand the United States tries to assist some other countries, it is usually only those with strategic and economic advantage. Syria was neither, so instead the country lies in ruins.
I don't mean to dis the United States, just to say, we do not have the moral high ground.
I am too...it's a tragedy! I hate it, but honestly when they made the decision it was based on how many American soldiers had already died, they knew they'd have to invade Japan to defeat them. They understood how many guys were going to die. Honestly I don't think they had any other options.
Just remember that they trained doctors to jump under tanks with satchel charges, and for the country's children to charge soldiers with sharpened sticks. They pretty much planned to go down kicking and screaming to the end.
I still can't figure out why they didn't empty those cities completely. I mean, the first one was somewhat understandable, but every time after that should have had double digit fatalities at most.
What is the point of this post? Yes, for months before Hiroshima the Allies were constantly bombing Japanese cities and also dropping these leaflets. And, after Hiroshima, the leaflets specifically mentioned the "atomic" bomb.
It's to tell people to get off their high horse when they talk shit about how terrible it was to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The allies knew how destructive it could be, but compared to the alternative, the least they could do was give plenty of advance warning.
You may also have forgotten that the US was brought into WW2 by the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbor and killing American soldiers/sailors/airmen WITHOUT a declaration of war. Look up "Rape of Nanking" to see how the Japanese treated those they conquered. Near war's end, they were ready to fight with women and children to defend their homeland. The US military planners anticipated tens of thousands American deaths by invading Japan, and hundreds of thousands Japanese deaths. Would that be preferable to the two A-bombs, as terrible as they were?
I have a unpopular opinion on the bombs that were dropped. I understand how horrible it was for the Japanese people, however it was the only way to end the war...a war we didn't start and tried to stay out of. We get a lot of criticism from people who don't like us getting into wars in which we have no business in, but I believe that us not getting involved in this war only cost more lives...in the end we were pulled in. So it makes more sense to jump in before they spread all over and we have to get involved anyway. Of course not all wars...js this is why we started jumping in when we "had no dog in the fight" (figure of speech don't kill me I know it's terrible)
While I understand the United States tries to assist some other countries, it is usually only those with strategic and economic advantage. Syria was neither, so instead the country lies in ruins.
I don't mean to dis the United States, just to say, we do not have the moral high ground.