The Nuking of Japan

[System of Solace]

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?

This sentence hardly makes sense. We would not nuke them to show off our power. We had no more nukes after Nagasaki. We had 3. 2 on cities, 1 desert test.

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.

"Who was the winning side vs. Who gets their preferred terms of surrender"

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.

Way to totally misrepresent what I said and attempt to use it against me, douchebag.

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

Not quite what I meant. But it's not immoral if it will cause surrender without any more casualties. It's just a bluff.

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?

How do you know they would have continued with the nukes? (I have to ask ONCE AGAIN)

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

This is fucking idiotic. Terrorism is mostly because some religious radical wants to kill for his god. The two situations are completely different.
"If you can justify shooting somebody who was about to stab your family, steal all your valuables, and burn down your house, you can justify gunning random people down in the street."
That is, of course, an exaggeration.


I'm done with this for now, I have things to do and people are posting faster than I can respond. Besides, I'm almost agreeing with Minimalist's "Position C" now. However, I still believe Position A to be more moral than B, which was really what I was trying to argue and why I said a few of Shell's idea may have been better if they could have worked.