Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Allen" data-source="post: 376664" data-attributes="member: 389">Yes, it was justified on the expected casualties alone (I believe the actual estimate was a million casualties including deaths and wounded).   As a leader you would always choose the fewer casualties if the outcome is the same.Now, there's always been the question on whether or not Japan would have surrendered if we had demonstrated the bomb on a relatively uninhabited area with the threat of the next one being in downtown Tokyo, but that is pure speculation and ignores the dedication of the ordinary Japanese to their emperor and country.There's certainly a LOT of moving parts when it comes to politics, and one of the moving parts here was the USSR.  They jumped in late to take a few islands, that they never gave back, and there was definitely a feeling that the Russians would have taken much more if the war had lasted much longer.  None of this even starts to describe the whole world's wish to end the war as fast as possible.  People were tired of war by this point and there weren't a lot of people asking if it was a reasonable way to end it until MANY years later.BTW, I spent over three years at a Marine Corps base about 20 miles from Hiroshima.  When I wasn't deployed elsewhere, I spent more than half of my weekends up in Hiroshima.  Beautiful city with a very American friendly population for the most part, I'd say that while the bomb was a necessary evil, the U.S. got exactly what it hoped for out of its rebuilding of Japan and making them an ally instead of an enemy.  Not unlike we did in Europe as well.I personally have a lot of fond memories of late nights up in Peace Park.p.s.  MacArthur's request was during the Korean War, just wanted to clarify that for our fellow members who might wonder why would have wanted to bomb China in WWII.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA