The Nuking of Japan

[Mystic]

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.

So this can be a conspiracy but everything you are told by winner side that would never come out and say, we nuked them to show off our power, is reliable?

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.

This is how they present it, but what they mean by that, is surrender on total terms of US and Allies. This is a trick of semantics. They were willing to surrender.

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.

So basically you nuke two cities over a chance of Facist Japanese rising again?

So it's not all about saving lives, it's about getting everything your way.

Why not admit the other thing they got their way with the nuking? Power in the eyes of the world.

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

So your saying US was threatening Japan with something they believe was immoral? How does that make it better anyways?

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.

IT's something in the words of the OP, US would have done. Why is what US would have done any less worse then actually having done it?

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.

This is a red herring. If you can justify nuking two cities, you can justify terrorism easy.