Why did America get away with bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Much as I do not want to admit it various evidence such as Jap Diplomatic cables say that Japan were willing to surrender.

Tbh a better course of action and one that was considered was to detonate the bomb on an uninhabited island this would show the soviets the power of the bomb which arguably the main reason for the use of the atomic bomb.

My post from the older thread:




Surprised no-one has said this yet.

No, they shouldn't.


Stop being ridiculous. We have no more right or ability to hold the US Government to account for the actions of those that went before them [some 70yrs before them] than we have the right to chastise the modern German Government for the Holocaust, the Mongolians for Genghis Khan, the Macedonians for Alexander the Great or Berlusconi for the Romans.

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

It's not unfortunate. It is called reality!

It's unfortunate that the world has become so messed up that lives need to be taken in order for lives to be saved.

Well at least we can agree on something!



Have a read of my post, it's a big read to get through most of it, but it's quite enlightening.



Times change from the era of mass slaughter of civilians. It's not the 11th century, you know.

It's people like you that would have left Saddam Hussein to gas more Kurds.

That's surprising, are you the user that was defending the use of white phosphorus on civilian population? Mmmh...

You f*ing moron!

It's people like you that would have left Saddam Hussein to gas more Kurds. You'd probably oppose an intervention to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Kosovo. You need help!

Why do the congress have inquires about it then?

What about all of the white people that got kicked off their land in Zimbabwe?
What about all of the Mao Zedong Killed (more then Stalin)?
Or did they not matter as much?


The truth is it was none of their business.

This is so stupid. Speak to any Japanese person, and you won't find a single bit of resentment in them. If they can get over it, why can't the stupid extreme left wing everywhere else get over it?!

What are you talking about? You would have clearly opposed the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I think your silence establishes that.

Why are you listing other questions to me? Do you think I am some government spokesman? Do you think by asking me questions you can hopefully avoid answering those questions?

I am listing other ****ed up things that have happened in the world, but America didn't decide to intervene, so what makes Iraq any different. You can't say the situation in Iraq is better off now that they're having a civil war anyway.

Do you play WoW or something?

This is so stupid. Speak to any Japanese person, and you won't find a single bit of resentment in them. If they can get over it, why can't the stupid extreme left wing everywhere else get over it?!


edit. Firstly, why the neg if you're not going to give me your opinion? I'll explain what I know as fact a bit more clearly for you, just so that you understand ^_^

In Japan, nobody likes the stance they took during WWII. The same way that Germans HATE nazis, and don't even think of themselves as being descendants of them. Thus, in Japan, people are of the opinion that anything that helped them get away from the brain-washed state that they were, and closer to the major world power and cultural paradise that they are now, is and was a good thing.

Now your turn.

Really? You actually think things were better under Saddam? You're probably opposed to the idea that Iraq can vote in presidents? You're probably opposed to the free speech the country has enjoyed once more? You're probably opposed to the ban on torture and executions? You probably regard it as wonderful that thousands of Iraqis were banned from ever entering their own country? And what about the 300,000 people he murdered? They're probably deserved it, right?

You come across as so confused! According to you we ought not intervene because there are worse out there. For starters, I'd like to see you argue that anyone was on par with Saddam. The only person I know to have also committed mass-execution by gassing his own people was Hitler. You'd probably oppose any intervention to get rid of him too? And why? Because there are worse out there.

How about this for a response:

[INDENT]What amazes me is how many people are happy for Saddam to stay. They ask why we don't get rid of Mugabe, why not the Burmese lot. Yes, let's get rid of them all. I don't because I can't, but when you can you should.
- Tony Blair[/INDENT]

Anyway, I don't have it in me to argue with those who stand on the side of Saddam Hussein.

Yes, I think others in this thread (and the older thread) would benefit from reading that material. I've found that people who haven't studied the event in depth tend to tag along with the US government's story of why it occurred. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were untouched before the bombs dropped so after the bombings (still the only time nuclear weaponry has been used in war) the whole world could see the complete, unadulterated level of death and destruction which occurred as a result of nuclear bombs and that the US were willing to use them given the opportunity. The opportunity was available to them because they were the only state to possess such weapons so there was no risk of a return attack of similar proportions (especially as they claimed they had far more nuclear weapons in stock ready to use). As you highlighted in that post, it had zero effect on Japan's decision to surrender but it would look good for both the US and Japan to claim as such.