strawman fallacies will not convince me we should have nuked japan.
[media=https://youtu.be/axX3n_GCUns]
trollslayer · 51-55, M
I don’t buy the excuse that invasion of mainland japan would have been a disaster. I see that as revisionist.
The reality is:
1) bombing civilians was commonplace in WWII and considered justified
2) the effects of an atomic bomb were unknown, and it was seen as just one big bomb that took the place of thousands of smaller bombs.
3) the USA had a bit of a “white supremacist” view in which white soldiers>Japanese civilians. The USA looked at japan as less civilized, and that provided justification.
Given that, the decision is understandable. Inevitable? Probably. Necessary? No.
Japan was mostly defeated. They had few planes left. Few ships. They were defeated everywhere except their homeland. Just blockade the island and there is no reason to invade, and no reason to nuke.
I think it was impatience coupled with the belief that nuking them was no worse than other actions that had been already taken.
The reality is:
1) bombing civilians was commonplace in WWII and considered justified
2) the effects of an atomic bomb were unknown, and it was seen as just one big bomb that took the place of thousands of smaller bombs.
3) the USA had a bit of a “white supremacist” view in which white soldiers>Japanese civilians. The USA looked at japan as less civilized, and that provided justification.
Given that, the decision is understandable. Inevitable? Probably. Necessary? No.
Japan was mostly defeated. They had few planes left. Few ships. They were defeated everywhere except their homeland. Just blockade the island and there is no reason to invade, and no reason to nuke.
I think it was impatience coupled with the belief that nuking them was no worse than other actions that had been already taken.