Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by Usa

Oh we don't know that then thanks to Usa for murdering the Japanese children , innocent civilians and all the living things in two cities ! , the preemptive strike theory can explain everything then.

 

Innocent Japanese:

 

Obamanation War take place between military forces , attacking the civilians and killing children is a war crime.Even catching criminals has rules.And on this event your army made a mass killing of innocents.If your defence can be acceptable than someone attacking Usa civilians can say they killed the innocent japanese , like you did for defending this act.

 

MILLIONS? Only if everyone there died 4 times
Both cities together had a little over half a million people (including 43,000 soldiers at the base in Hiroshima, home of Japans 2nd army as well as other targets) The probable combined death toll was in the 180 - 250k range, with more dying later from the effects.

The Targets
It was hoped after Hiroshima was hit the Japanese government would capitulate, but the Emperor was assured by his staff that the allies had only one such weapon.

The strike on Nagasaki was next, and it was not the primary target that day, it was the backup. The primary target was Kokura, which had a large collection of war industries. Kokura was obscured by smoke and clouds and further protected by inclement weather and after a bit of time trying to view the target, heavy anti-aircraft fire.

Nagasaki, the home of the Mistubishi Arms & Steel Works and the Mitsubishi-Urakami Torpedo Works, and was a major port. It was a standard practice in WW2 on all sides to take out industrial targets that produced the implements that enabled the war effort. Smart bombs hadn't yet been invented. There was a considerable amount of bombing of population centers by the Axis powers (the Japanese in China and the German practice of softening invasion targets as in Battle of Britain). The allies DID respond in kind. It was an ugly war.

The Result
The Japanese Empire surrendered after the second attack, the one where the bomb exploded over the industrial district of Nagasaki. The bomb detonated at altitude roughly halfway between the steel works and the torpedo plant. Yeah, civilians died in large numbers. The war was fought on the terms of the time.

Would the Alternative Have Been Better?
The estimated death toll just on the allies side in the event of an attack on the Japanese mainland would have been multiple times the death toll for both cities, and if the battle to take the islands of Iwo Jima or Okinawa was an indicator, the Japanese deaths would have been multiple times those on the attacking side. The Japanese defense plan included civilians (including children and women) armed with sticks... not just soldiers.

Bottom line, civilians were going to die either way. It was a terrible war. It isnt something anyone should want to see repeated. It also ended with less deaths on both sides because of those two bombs. Not a pretty fact, not a decision I'd care to have to make, but in the end, probably saved more lives than the bombs took. It ended the war cold right there.

So if you want to make snarky remarks about those imperial minded Brits or warlike US SOBs, or the evil Aussies, Canadians and others that fought and won that war... try to remember you have the right to criticize them because of the sacrifices they made. They didnt choose the war, they were attacked. A lotta people in this forum would be speaking a different language at home were it not for the efforts of men 70 years ago who left their homes and either died or lost their friends and kin in order to give you the freedom to question how they won.

 

I suppose that makes the NATO forces in Afghanistan war criminals, yes? After all, there are consistently a few civilians who die in the bombings.

Not just us, and not this event, as I've already pointed out. Practically every party to WWII practiced bombing of civilian cities. It was an accepted part of war waging in that day and age. The folks in the UK had lived under falling German bombs long before the US got around to Nagasaki or Hiroshima. The allies bombed Dresden killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in the fire that ensued.

I noticed you used the word "innocent" and Japanese in the same sentence again. Did you not read my previous links showing the Japanese killed more truly innocent civilians than Hitler? 10-20 million. At the pace the Japanese were killing innocent civilians, it is very arguable that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives than it took by bringing the war to an instant end. We didn't start the fight with the Japanese, but we certainly finished it and it'll be a cold day in hell before we apologize for it. I wonder if the previous Taliban governance thought about that before they sponsored Bin-Laden.

The humorous thing about this thread is that the Japanese are some of America's closest allies now. It would seem a horrific fight leaves a lasting peace. Perhaps the escalation of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict will be the thing to finally bring that idiotic 60 year long conflict to an end.

Nobody said war is pretty. Its war. If it weren't ugly, we would wage it more often.

 

TBH - the Brits deserved it.

They had their ugly arm in every World War, and when they were on the verge of losing it, needed the Americans to bail 'em out.

I don't think the Brits were any better than the twisted Imperialistic Japanese, the Brits were just interested to holding on to their slave colonies which were making them and their Queen wealth.

 

Not sure why you have a bone to pick with the Brits, but they didnt start either of those wars, and the fact that the tiny island nation held off probably the most advanced war machine of the day long enough for us to be drawn in was an impressive feat. It would have been bad news for us if they hadnt. We were just further down on the menu.

There are no nations that are devoid of some less than altruistic history, but Great Britain in WW2 isnt one I'd use as an example.

 

Primarily because they raped half the countries in Asia and Africa off all their resources.

You get what you give at the end of the day.

The British Empire was not so tiny prior to WW2.

Moreover, they also happened to be one of the meanest war machines in the planet at the time; they ruled more than 20% of the world with this army.

Colonizing countries can never be justified, the British are no different from the Germans who wanted to invade the rest of Europe and use the "Non-Aryan" race as slaves to their Aryan overlords.

Sadly, most of the war-crimes of the British were not well documented, but I think there's still some of it out there on the web.

 

Many nations have a history of empire building... they're hardly alone in that respect. I also vaguely recall some mention of the Brits having two wars on this continent with us on the opposing side, but it doesnt have a lotta bearing on their actions in WW2.

 

You're right.

My first response was to primarily say that the decision to bomb H and N was not only American, it was British and Chinese as well.

I don't oppose the bombing of H and N, otherwise Emperor Hirohito and the Japanese Empire would have never ceased the war for another few years.