Partydevil, I'm just going to end this all right here. Let's review what you've said since page 5. I'll thoroughly review your given reasons for why you're condemning the use of the atomic bombs.
the cost of 2 million lives should be choosen. if we all just drop a huge bomb on every place we dont like because it's more easy then having a war then we all are dead.
You're arguing for over 10x the deaths caused by the bombs, on the assertion that everyone will suddenly start nuking everyone. No nukes have been used in war since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Thus, your assertion is invalid.
japan was already defeated and they tryed to surrender to russia. who refused because it had agreed whit the usa to get alot of land in east asia after japan and china were gone. these agreements were made in the yalta conference.
You are saying that there was no reason for the bombs because Japan was trying to surrender to Russia.
if the usa really didn't want to kill people why they didn't drop it a few miles of coast to SHOW it. why drop it on a city?
No explanation needed.
sure it would not have made them surrender. (neither are the bombs the reason why they did.) but if they didn't drop it then russia would have invaded japan. so the saving of 2 million man is a straight out lie anyway.
Asserting that Russia would have accepted Japan's surrender, even when it already clearly wasn't. You've previously said multiple times that Japan would have fought to the last man. How is it a lie that less lives were lost through the bomb than the alternatives?
ofcours they had the surrender to the usa now russia betrayed them. russia was no longer a option.
Russia was never an option to begin with, if it were, they would have accepted it before the bombs were ever dropped according to your scenario.
and if we justify these bombs then there sure is a other time and other place where it will again be seen justified. and then it does end the human civilization.
Literal slippery slope fallacy.
tell them to keep the air alarms on for 45 mins.
easy as that.
even in the 40's long distance communication was available.
Thus stands your entire argument self defeated, because apparently it would have been all good to drop the bombs as long as Japan kept their alarms on 15 minutes longer.
it wouldn't come that far. russia had to invade befor that time already. (yalta agreement)
then they knew their option was gone and would have surrendered to usa.
Direct contradiction to earlier statements that Japan would fight because of their honor code.
After reading through everything, you have reasons.
1) Japan would have surrendered to Russia without the bombs.
2) Japan would not surrender because of their honor code.
3) The bombs did not need to be dropped on populated cities to demonstrate power.
4) It would have been okay to drop the bombs if the sirens had been on for 45 minutes.
5) Fear of escalation in future due to same reasoning.
6) Less lives would have been lost if the bombs had not been used.
Of your reasons, 1 and 2 contradict along with 3 and 4.
Number five has been proven false, because no nuclear bombs have been used on another nation since and it is internationally agreed upon not to use them.
Number six has been proven false because of your previously statements on Japan's honor code along with Russia and the USA's agreement.
If the bombs had not been used, Japan would have continued to fight in hopes that the cost was deemed too high. EmperorPalpatine's quote on the previous page proves that.
Overall, your biggest reason is that the bombs were unnecessary.
You have been given plenty of links and quotes stating various death totals far exceeding that which the bombs caused from various situations. You have admitted that Russia is the "spider in the web" and thus would not have accepted Japan's surrender, because of their agreement with the USA. You have admitted that the Japanese were trying to keep the emperor on the throne and did not want to surrender if that was not in the cards.
Objectively, the only thing I can see from the situation is this: Japan would have continued to fight Russia and the USA as they invaded, resulting in millions of lives lost pointlessly. The bombs provided a large enough form of intimidation that it made Japan forget the idea of resistance, because they could not do anything to defend against nuclear bombs and the USA had already proven themselves willing to use them on populated cities.
You wonder why we continually assert that your main reason for being against the bombs is that the USA dropped them, so let me show you why. Since the very start of this argument, you've continually included your dislike for the USA, which should be irrelevant to the issue at hand. You are obviously biased in the matter, bringing your personal view of the USA into a debate about the situation in a way that is irrelevant to the argument.
it's also known that the usa is the only country that had used a nuke against innocent people.
i can't trust a nation on this field when they have done such a thing.
i throw out the mud to cover the loving-usa bs that the americans are spreading out over the world.
you killed innocents whit that attack. not people that chooses to die in the war.
you are/were the 9/11 for them. but then a thousand times bigger.
and i really gotta laugh at the way you guys try to justify a nuclear attack.
but when 1 is aimed for you then you cry like a baby.
i justify nk to nuke the usa. it's much easyer for them to just nuke you then to attack you.
reason why i can't trust them.
+ they started the cold war. well done.
this justifies nk to nuke the usa.
but let me guess. your not behind that.
Then, there's this statement which pretty much proves there's a bias.
it might interest me less indeed.
In conclusion, all of your reasons have been either debunked or shown to be contradictory. Your continued assertions that it was wrong/unnecessary have been proven incorrect by various sources and quotes. At this point, you appear to only be fixated on the subject because it was the USA that dropped the bombs. I'm not saying that you are arguing that it's wrong because it was the USA, but that you are unwilling to accept all the provided information because the USA would no longer have committed an unnecessary action that resulted in ~144k deaths. It is your motive (from what I can see) to argue that it was unnecessary because it is the USA which dropped them.
If anyone thinks I'm not being objective after all this, please point out where. I looked through all of the posts in this thread multiple times and spent almost two hours compiling this post, so I'd be interested if anyone had a problem with anything I've said.
