And many thousands weren't. They were killed by the japanese without a nuke. Nuking them to force an unconditional surrender and hopefully break their spirit was the best option
Basically copy-pasting another reply: there is a false dichotomy and unfounded assumptions in that traditional defense for dropping the nukes on the cites. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo? It isn't simply "we blow up two large cities with manufacturering or we end up in an extended ground war."
Although the firebombing of Tokyo is usually used to justify the nukes, I'd argue that the firebombings help my position that large cities with civillian populations didn't need to be the target for the Japanese to surrender. As is oft repeated, the damage and deaths of the firebombings was greater than the nukes, yet the firebombing clearly didn't cause them to surrender. Thus, it logically was less the actual destruction of the nukes and more of the psychological terror of a mountain of fire capable of such destruction that lead to the surrender.
I get it, I used to think those cities had to be leveled -- it's what "the experts" have said since it happened -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
And how do you know the japanese would have surrendered unconditionally? There was a last minute coup attempt by people who didn't want to surrender and just wanted to keep going on.
I don't think it had to be those 2 cities had to be levelled. Could have been any other 2 cities in japan so on that point we agree.
And yes, it kinda goes back to my point about breaking their spirit
I had "?" at the end of those points because I'm posing questions, as we simply don't know, yet we are sold that false dichotomy. We don't even know that it has to be 2 cities; it could have been two isolated military bases, or 1 on Mount Fuji where everyone could see, then one on some military base.
The point is the first and only 2 bombs were on cities, we don't know what effect dropping them anywhere else would have had.
Many thousands of Korean and Chinese slave workers were killed by the nukes.
And many thousands weren't. They were killed by the japanese without a nuke. Nuking them to force an unconditional surrender and hopefully break their spirit was the best option
Basically copy-pasting another reply: there is a false dichotomy and unfounded assumptions in that traditional defense for dropping the nukes on the cites. How do we know the Japanese wouldn't have surrendered if the bombs were dropped on two other targets? What if one was mostly just a show of force that could be seen in the distance from Tokyo? It isn't simply "we blow up two large cities with manufacturering or we end up in an extended ground war."
Although the firebombing of Tokyo is usually used to justify the nukes, I'd argue that the firebombings help my position that large cities with civillian populations didn't need to be the target for the Japanese to surrender. As is oft repeated, the damage and deaths of the firebombings was greater than the nukes, yet the firebombing clearly didn't cause them to surrender. Thus, it logically was less the actual destruction of the nukes and more of the psychological terror of a mountain of fire capable of such destruction that lead to the surrender.
I get it, I used to think those cities had to be leveled -- it's what "the experts" have said since it happened -- but as I've thought about it over the years, I don't buy it wholesale. Like all good deceit, there is certainly some truth to the traditional defense of bombing those cities, but it isn't the whole truth.
And how do you know the japanese would have surrendered unconditionally? There was a last minute coup attempt by people who didn't want to surrender and just wanted to keep going on.
I don't think it had to be those 2 cities had to be levelled. Could have been any other 2 cities in japan so on that point we agree.
And yes, it kinda goes back to my point about breaking their spirit
I had "?" at the end of those points because I'm posing questions, as we simply don't know, yet we are sold that false dichotomy. We don't even know that it has to be 2 cities; it could have been two isolated military bases, or 1 on Mount Fuji where everyone could see, then one on some military base.
The point is the first and only 2 bombs were on cities, we don't know what effect dropping them anywhere else would have had.