The decision to nuke japan was based on factors entirely different than any possible factor to nuke gaza.
Pretty sure we're still handing out the purple hearts that were made in case a ground invasion was necessary.
Like, those stories about Japanese soldiers hiding for decades and never believing Japan surrendered? That was the common sentiment.
And loads more civilians were killed in traditional bombings.
It was the fact that one atomic bomb could do so much damage, and the Japanese had no idea how many we had. You could rebuild buildings destroyed conventionally. But atomic bombs could literally make land uninhabitable for generations.
That's what it took to make Japan surrender.
It was brutal and I hope it never happens again, but it was the best hand we could have played.
This is an interpretation of what happened. It's the one that paints America in the most favourable light, for sure.
Another one is that the "no surrender" mentality was a direct result of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration which demanded "unconditional surrender" from Japan. Japan knew they had lost, they were just hoping to fight for the SPECIFIC surrender condition of the preservation of the Imperial line (aka, let the Emporer still be the Emporer, preserve the family).
Had the Potsdam Declaration permitted that concession, it very well may have been the case that no nukes would have been necessary.
Anyways: tough to understand the exact truth of any hypothetical situation. I just think it's unfortunate that the "The USA HAD to, though" argument is so often repeated without a very full context of the surrounding political realities. It's a very bite sized explanation, and it paints the USA in a fantastic light.
It's perhaps not a coincidence that it was AT Potsdam that the west hinted to Stalin of the existence of the nuclear bomb.
What's the point of building the thing if you can't prove to the world you have it, and are willing to use it?
Another one is that the "no surrender" mentality was a direct result of the terms of the Potsdam Declaration which demanded "unconditional surrender" from Japan. Japan knew they had lost, they were just hoping to fight for the SPECIFIC surrender condition of the preservation of the Imperial line (aka, let the Emporer still be the Emporer, preserve the family).
It should be pointed out that this is what ended up happening anyway. The emperor stayed in power and lived until like the 90s. So whoopsie daisy on the whole nuke thing
You are leaving out the historical context of hyper violent insane independent action for honor mindset of the soldiers within the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy (IJA/IJN).
This culture of insubordination included a widespread belief that they did not to have obey civilian commands, and is largely responsible for ground level soldiers deciding on their own to kick off the war in Manchuria.
It's entirely reasonable to envision a counterfactual version where either one of, or both the IJA and IJN refuse to surrender, or even just large contingents within either.
I'm not saying this to invalidate anything you've said, but I do think it's highly relevant context when considering any alternative ways that could have gone.
Internment camps are also war crime AFAIK. So it seems like the situation is just that the US government did not believe Japanese people were human and decided to do war crimes and human rights violations.
Ahh yes, dropping nuclear weapons right next door, risking fallout in your own territory and pissing off every country around you, as well as all your allies. Why not?
How dare you question the blinding brilliance that is Lindsey? I'm sure his masterplan accounts for things like inciting a global nuclear war with some clever solution that isn't just waiting it out in a congressional bunker with all his cowardly friends while we all die horribly, right?
Imagine how much better the world would be if there was just a simple process of psychological screening for would-be politicians, and psychopaths were barred from holding office.
Ya know, if post Civil War reconstruction had actually happened and we'd de-confederated the South like we de-nazi'd Germany and Japan the GOP wouldnt exist today.
Well, kinda, since the parties swapped roles in the Southern Strategy as a response to the civil rights movements, back then the democrats were the overtly racist ones. So we could assume the GOP would still exist but it would look nothing like the "modern" (hah) version.
Yes, the nuance of the party swap in the 60s is lost on most people.
Thats how my ultra-maga relatives get to prpudly post on FB how theyre the party of Lincoln and in the very next post proclaim their hatred anything farther left than the taliban.
Democrats better get busy filling those Supreme Court seats, now, if we are going to have any chance at stopping Donald Trump, Jr. from taking over in 2040.
People like Graham are oblivious to the huge opportunity WWII gave us to dominate markets because Europe and Asia had been destroyed. They think it was American Exceptionalism all the way. Their inability to grasp this is why they are ineffective at leading now that other nations have caught up.
I mean, yes and no. Pearl harbor wasn't the only place hit 12/7. Philipines, Guam and Wake were all hit as well
Hong Kong and Singapore were also attacked and the empire invaded Malaysia.
America took a sharp hit square in the face, but Britain got sent home in a body bag at the end of 1941. By Feb 1942 the UK had lost all of Malaysia, lost Hong Kong and lost Singapore. They lost 12,000 troops, the rest surrendering. Zero soldiers made it home. Out of 120,000. Australia and New Zealand were in extreme danger and the Raj was expecting assault at any moment. I'm the spam of a few months Japan had sunsetted the largest empire the world had ever seen.
America had never been pit against such an enemy. You have to take all of WW2 into that context. Fuck in WW1 they played soccer across no-man's-land on Christmas. The next year the Canadians had arrived and...well...I'm not saying shit about canuckistani military just that over half of the geneva convention exists because of Canada.
The us was very much in an existential threat at the time. We had just lost almost our entire navy, which compared globally, not a single branch of our military held any high esteem. Our equipment was run down and I'll maintained and our factories were not set. We weren't mobilized. We didn't even know if Japan was gonna stop. The emporers men invaded the aluetians too, taking two islands (and digging in hard on one).
So we effectively lost our Navy, then the UK and the Dutch lost the rest of South Asia. The UK lost 60x more men between 12/41 and 2/42 then we did. Can you even wrap your head around the amount of pain that causes a nation? Can you even imagine 120,000 ANYTHING? McCarthy was dug in in Manila and they are expected to fight down to the last man, as we didm't have the means to get them reinforcements, if we even had the men we could somehow spare. If Japan has focused on us and not China then it's doubtful we'd exist today. China only lost what...20million people in those 8 years? Chinas lost an estimated 100,000,000 people in the 20th century.
Man if that's not under threat, idk what is. The fear is on full display, look up the Battle of Los Angeles.
It's easy with hindsight to pass judgement from your current position with absolute knowledge. It's also immature, foolhardy and you discredit yourself displaying your unawareness towards empathy, let alone forgiveness, compassion or understanding, to say such things. I was 17 once too and thought I knew everything. We all were, that's the thing.
I'm not trying to hate on ya guy, it sounds like you're being consciously reductive and overly critical, which implies you're arguing in bad faith or, as I'm assuming, you are young and just don't know what you don't know because you can't know. Wisdom takes time to develop, no way around it.
How is loosing territories some 5.000-10.000 km away an "existential threat"? Even if they wanted to, Japan had no means of successfully invading main land US.
The US justifies dropping the Nukes with it preventing an extraordinary loss of life if they had to stage an amphibious invasion of main land Japan. But at least the US could stage much closer to Japan, than Japan could to the US.
In the same wake the Britains loosing their empire was not an existential threat to the US just as much as the genocide against China was not an existential threat for the US just as the Holocaust and the genocides in eastern Europe weren't an existential threat to the US.
It's very hard for people (well, neurotypical people) to understand what real destruction means when that contests their system of considering themselves (and their friends, their country etc) very cool.
Most of those advocating for bombing cities and big wars would turn into whining piss-smelling sacks of shaking meat the moment they meet one person not weaker than them angry at them in a back alley.
Ah, Lindsey graham, still giving idiots around the world hope that they too could be a US senator one day.
We have 2000kg guided munitions now, we don't need to nuke Gaza. As barbaric as that seems, we really have moved on pass nukes.
Nuking Gaza would mean radiation for everyone else. Including Israel. Generations of Jewish people would battle cancer for 2-4 generations.
They are children you bloody nutter. What is seriously the worst thing a 6 year old can do that would warrant a nuke? Unless you have blueprints of a cyborg-ninja 6 year old, I don't want to hear it.
Waste of US resources and good will for..... nothing?
#4 is to start the apocalypse so that Jesus will come back and kill all the Jews who don't believe in him.
I've literally heard that exact reasoning from nutjobs who know just enough about geopolitics to know that using a nuke in that region would start WW3. Anyone using a nuke in that region would start it. Unless it's someone like North Korea. That would just mean the end of North Korea as everyone else banded together to take them down.
Anyway, beside the point because no one is insane enough to listen to Lady G.
