The Nuking of Japan

[System of Solace]

Here is some things I found on the internet:

Cool. I've found many things on the internet about this same subject that have proved to be faulty and without evidence. The "Japan-US" peace messages is considered a conspiracy theory by some.

I've also heard verified sources say otherwise. That the emperor and the Japanese people were far from surrender and would fight until end unless commanded otherwise by their emperor.

Anyways, the Japenese were willing to surrender upon one condition. The emperor remains. They were willing to make all sorts of concessions.

Now the Emperor was sort of god to them, they didn't want to lose that way of life for obvious reasons that it was rooted in their culture.

The first question is why not compromise, why force them to surrender only on your terms?

Same reason the Nazi Flensburg government was not allowed to rule. They would establish the same sort of country, maybe less militaristic, but they would not take the chance of having another Nazi Germany/Facist Japan rise.

Another is, with this statement:

The nuclear blasts were designed to shock and terrify the public and the leadership into realizing that they could, and would, be annihilated...without ever being able to even put up a fight. Better to surrender and live, than to die without even the dignity of a fight.

This is saying "nuking you and annihilating you" is FINE AND MORAL from US point of view.

Who said that? And part of this is true, it terrified Japan into surrender.

This one issue I have with it. When you force a person to do chose between two options, whatever the "punishment" for the wrong choice, it should be "moral" yet.

Basically, it's saying if they didn't surrender, then it is justified to nuke them till they are annihalated.

Basically this is the fear US wanted Japan to have of them, well congratulations, that is the monster much of the world sees now.

A country willing nuke a country to annihilation if they don't get the exact surrender on their own terms.

IF it's all about saving lives, why couldn't the Japanese have been allowed to surrender on the terms they suggest (everything agreed upon except they get to keep the Emperor).

There you go with the "If they didn't surrender". I was arguing the morality of the nuking, not the morality of doing something that we didn't do because of something that didn't happen.

If a terrorist organization says you support killing civilians (like drones killing civilans in Pakistan + like supporting Israel bombing civilains for a few soldiers captured/killed, as a measured response) and you support sanctions that are destroying the lives of our people, and if you don't stop, we will kill your civilians. We see no way to stop you but force you to stop because your civilians will continuously get killed.

Right now, most people condemn terrorism and see no justification to it.

But if we go by the logic of these two nukes being justified as a means to an end, I don't see how you can condemn one and not the other.

IF you say a few killing of civilains here and there, won't cause US to deter, then what if billions of people are convinced terrorism is not "evil" but "justified" from the perspective of ends justify the means, like nuking two cities to force surrender in the case of Japan which would save lives ofcourse if and only if Allies and US didn't accept the surrender proposal of Japanese...

This.....it's just plain stupid. More "what if" arguments. ONCE AGAIN, I was arguing on with you on the morality of what happened, not the morality of what did not happen and what would be very unlikely to happen. I don't support our overseas occupations. I don't support US drone strikes killing citizens (obviously). Neither do I support Israeli actions. Pakistan and Israel. The crimes on both sides committed by who? Radical theists.


And one more thing, remember how much the Japanese loved MacArthur? I'm sure if the US was as evil as you claim he would have been a dictator and punished and oppressed them.