Now that the nuclear dust has settled, can we all agree that they deserved it?

Now that the nuclear dust has settled, can we all agree that they deserved it?

Attached: nagasaki1.jpg (620x465, 65K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/k2NZVQzfAbo
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Should have dresdened them desu

No, innocent civilians didn't "deserve" to die in a horrifying way in one of the worst war crimes in human history.

Clearly two nukes weren't enough, look at the state of japanese degeneracy

yes

japanese killed people in a horrifying way
>war crime

>implying that the average Japanese citizen didn't support everything the state did

>japanese killed people in a horrifying way

Do you believe in a collective guilt by ethnicity?

Now that the rape babies have grown up, can we all agree that they deserved it?

Attached: rape-propaganda2.jpg (506x415, 33K)

No, but I bet he blames the Japanese government for the bombings.
They chose such bold actions, and their poor citizens paid the price.

I don't know about what innocent Japanese civilians thought about unit 731 or whatever but I do know that Americans by large supported killings of innocent Japanese civilians which makes Americans a barbaric peoples.

b-but they were your allies hans?

Yes, they completely deserved it

The country deserved it, but peopled who died there didn't.

this
5 nukes might do the job

no but this was a good way to stop the evil japanese who continued killing innocent people

i hope they learned from the past

The people who died there did not deserve it.
It was an extremely unfortunate circumstance, and I'm sorry that citizens died.

Berlin was planned to be nuked as well, but Hitler was too much of a pussy and anhero'd before that could happen.
I cry thinking about what could have been.

One was okay but two was too much.

>japan carefully selected and attacked only military installations like pearl harbor for fear of civilian collateral damage
>japanese navy didn't even launched a commerce raiding campaign for fear of civilian collateral damage despite its formidable submarine fleet and legendary oxygen torpedoes, which is said to be a big strategic blunder

>all what america did in return was targeting japanese civilians as much as possible

WTF america, seriously?!!!!!

Attached: 1509172216150.png (480x527, 267K)

>we need to kill innocent people to save innocent people

Wow, cool logic

Way she goes bud, payback is a bitch.

>japan carefully selected and attacked only military installations

Not in China Japan didn't

>I-it's just military installation guys...
>I don't mean to attack you or anything hehehe

japanese joined the evil side
blame the japanese, not the americans

Yes, and America attacked the civilians.
It's a cheap shot, which all of America acknowledges, but it worked.

well, it worked

How did those innocent civilians killed in Hiroshima or Nagasaki 'join the evil side'? They weren't military, they were just civilians minding their own business.

>agree that they deserved it?
difficult

but it can be fairly justified imo
I think there's a little difference between deserved and justified

Yes, absolutely you fucking kike.

Japan wan't in a position to kill innocent people in fall of 45.

you are a troll

You realise the bombs weren't actually.necessary due to soviet victories in Manchuria, and in fact were used to ensure that Japan would be part of the american sphere of.influence as a satellite state?
As an algerian, I would have thought that you were against imperialism in all forms, or do you wish for the days of french rule?

You are an evil person but at least you are honest and I can respect that.

Much more would have been killed in "horrible ways" had the bombs not been dropped. The US was against damaging any of the proposed five cities so they could assess the full damage potential of the bombs. They could have just as easily bombed the shit out of Kokura, Yokohama, Niigata and Kyoto before the bombs dropped adding many more to the casualty list.

Even then, all of the targets selected were based off military instillation and production. They didnt pick the citites because it had more people to kill, they picked cities based off military usefullness, military output and overall shock value to give Japan no choice to but surrender.

If the US wanted to murder innocent civilians, it could have dropped many more bombs in many different places. Civilians are collateral.

Cool argument brah. Being against bombing civilians is apparently trolling but seeing your flag I think that position may really be difficult to understand.

No chang, 'much more' people would.not have died, as the japanese were on the verge of collapse due to.their virtually unguarded northern islands and the advance of the soviets.
Japan was ready to surrender, and if you follow through on this logic, why wasnt sufficient time allowed between the bombings of hiroshima amd nagasaki to allow for a diplomatic response?

>Much more would have been killed in "horrible ways" had the bombs not been dropped. The US was against damaging any of the proposed five cities so they could assess the full damage potential of the bombs. They could have just as easily bombed the shit out of Kokura, Yokohama, Niigata and Kyoto before the bombs dropped adding many more to the casualty list.

So you are saying that killing innocent civilians was ok because US could have killed even more innocent civilians? To me that seems like strange logic, maybe US could have abstained from killing innocent civilians?

>Now that the nuclear dust has settled
not really

Attached: 1522310967301.jpg (400x500, 27K)

You can be a weeb and support nukes

youtu.be/k2NZVQzfAbo

based Manhattan scientists and engineers putting the jap in their place

Are you a liberal, an American soldier or a muslim?

Also, Germany didn't capitulate in 1945, it wouldn't have been Nagasaki and Hiroshima, it woulb have been Berlin and Munich.

Your people kidnapped, raped and pillaged Europeans in horrible ways from the times of The Almohads to the Barbary states, so by that logic, colonizing and exterminating you is justified.

Thank you

>can we all agree that they deserved it?
First of all, it was war. Secondly, the Americans dropped the bomb on two major slum areas the Japs don't even care about. The bomb made it easier for the richer Japs to rebuild the whole place into their own liking and plans without interference from their slum people.

Japan, meanwhile, bomb port/major areas and cities, trade routes, and destroyed the economy of the nations they invaded. Blew up 99% of infrastructure leaving most civilians in hunger crisis.

Do Japan deserve the nukes? No, it was too convenient and useful for them, at least the civilians don't have to suffer hunger and rape from the Americans. What these monkeys should deserve is that all their cities should've been firebombed 50x than the total bombs dropped in Dresden.

Now it's ridiculous that they got reparation money from the US and left whatever the nations they invaded in dust. Allying with Japan is a huge dick move to our ancestors that suffered from Japanese atrocity.

>Watching japanese suffering

Really, what more do you need?

>as the japanese were on the verge of collapse due to.their virtually unguarded northern islands and the advance of the soviets

And the bombing of Hiroshima was to cripple the defence of all of southern Japan. You have to cripple ALL capabilities in wartime to allow for an absolute victory. As long as Japan had armies in the homeland and no foreign force invaded, it would have kept fighting, because only when you have no one left to fight with, does the realization of losing set in, just like the Nazis did.

>Japan was ready to surrender
So why didnt they? They had the Potsdam Declaration sent to them 2 months before the first nuke dropped which outlined the terms for Japanese surrender. If they were ready to surrender, why didnt they surrender then? Sounds to me like what I said before, they were still ready to fight because for them, they hadnt lost yet.

> if you follow through on this logic, why wasnt sufficient time allowed between the bombings of hiroshima amd nagasaki to allow for a diplomatic response?
The Allies were stationed and sent the bombs from Tinian, six hours flight from japan, Had the japanese need to send communications all the way to Washington, I'd agree, but it took the Japanese 3 days and 21 hours to come up with a decision and send a message 6 hours away. It took the Nazis one day to tell the allies they surrendered after Hitler died.

>So you are saying that killing innocent civilians was ok because US could have killed even more innocent civilians?
Killing civilians isnt okay, but its war and its the lesser of two evils here. Killing 400,000 (civilian and military) in a short time with nukes is times less destructive than killing many more over an extended and prolonged amount of time. Again, killings civilians isnt okay, but it's war, it happens.

>two major slum areas
yeah no

>Watching japanese suffering
>suffering

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo

Attached: 1517691803292.png (499x499, 155K)

>First of all, it was war. Secondly

rolf. first of all it was a fucking crime against humanity. secondly who the fuck are you to talk about?

>secondly who the fuck are you to talk about?
My grandparents were victims of Japanese atrocities. My grandpa took 81 Japs to the grave before the war ended with just a bolo knife. They lived knowing the commander who ordered the killing of their parents and neighbors ended up being a peaceful librarian in Kyoto.

At least with a war of attrition, Japanese citizens can have an option to surrender to the Allies to occupied areas if they really feel that there is no hope of winning and let the others that want to fight to their death do so. Fortunately, you Germans had that option to either "surrender to the West" or die fighting for Hitler until the end.
Nukes were chosen simply because of American imperialism; they needed the quick, decisive victory not because they actually care about potential casualties of a war of attrition but because they wanted the Soviets to back off Japan.

It was an experiment to show a new weapon to the Soviet Union.
It was racial discrimination.
The Japanese satisfied of it.
But I cann't permit the American wrath of Heaven thought.

Oh Full of chicken and puppet guys Swarming wwwwwwwwwwwww(^0^)wwwwwwww.

Why more dancing??

Your Chiken Allstars's madness are such a cotton grovyyyyyy so much?wwwwwwwwwwwww

hahaha more bully me!! more more more dancing!!


I should never follow YOU GAYS like a SWARMYYY PUPPETTERS!!wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

Attached: ote.jpg (1776x756, 176K)

I don't know, but that would have been a really long war if we did not nuke them

Not use it in Vietnam( ̄ー ̄)b!

Nope, you were the lucky ones

They didn't you dumb shit

We saved the best for our favorite Asians :)

Did the country deserve it? Yes and far more. Did the citizens deserve it? No.

whats the Nnaking massacre?
why 4 million vietnamese civilians and 4 million indonesian civilians were killed during the japanese occupation?

Getting incinerated is considerable less horrifying than being tortured (with the pretense that it isn't torture). Which is what Japs did to many.

>flag
the irony

Zhang, how much do you get for your each post?

Attached: beijing proxy.jpg (422x422, 77K)

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/08/03/were-there-alternatives-to-the-atomic-bombings/
>For the Japanese leaders, one could no more get rid of the Emperor system and still be “Japan” than one could get rid of the US Constitution and still be “the United States of America.” During the summer, those who constituted the “Peace Party” of the high council (as opposed to the die-hard militarists, who still held a slight majority) sent out feelers to the then still-neutral Soviet Union to serve as possible mediators with the United States, hopefully negotiating an end-of-war situation that would give some guarantees as to the Emperor’s position. The Soviets rebuffed these advances (because they had already secretly agreed to enter the war on the side of the Allies), but the Americans were aware of these efforts, and Japanese attitudes towards the Emperor, because they had cracked the Japanese diplomatic code. No lesser figures than Winston Churchill and the US Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, had appealed to President Truman to clarify that the Emperor would be allowed to stay on board in a symbolic role. Truman rebuffed them, at the encouragement of his Secretary of State, James Byrnes, believing, it seems, that the perfidy of Pearl Harbor required them to grovel. It isn’t clear, of course, that this would have changed the lack of a Japanese response to the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the atomic bombings, the Japanese still tried to get clarification on the postwar role of the Emperor, dragging out hostilities another week. In the end, the Japanese did get to keep a largely-symbolic Emperor, but this was not finalized until the Occupation of Japan.
Muh Pearl Harbor, muh day of infamy

time to drop a (chinese) space colony

Attached: sydney.gif (500x281, 904K)

Why is it that in every thread related to atomic bombings you are there, shilling for the nips.

This might be true, but going by the "rules" of WW2, there wasn't anything morally any worse in using nuclear bombs.
The hysteria against nuclear bombs is played up because their destructive power makes it easy for the westerners to brush off the fact that regular bombs were (and never stopped being) used against civilians. Not to mention the Soviets' interests in not being targeted by nuclear missiles, and no longer having the option to "spread world revolution" through conventional weapons.

The actual effect of nuclear bombs on history has in fact been mostly, if not totally, positive, at least in terms of keeping peace between countries which have conventional weapons capable of killing many many more people than the two atomic bombings did.

The only thing which nuclear bombs are worse in than normal bombs in a moral sense is that using them would potentially lead to massive ecological destruction and pollution.
But even then, just the day-to-day running of modern society does the same thing, and when you look at the "conventional" weapons they use more freely than they ever would nukes, (agent orange, depleted uranium, white phosphorous, nerve gas), you see that that's not actually something unique to nukes.

This is the second Hiroshima thread I've ever posted in here, Billy Bob. Sorry if I hurt your burger feels

It was total war faggot, everybody that follows the state is an enemy. Germany bombed and killed millions apon millions if civiliabs across Europe because they knew that they were directly affecting their enemies's ability to engage in war. Uk did it, russia did it, italy did it, japan did it, and the US in no different.

Nigger I can explicitly remember at least 5 threads about them, over the past month, where there is Finnish poster in it complaining about the nukes, and saying it was the "worse war crime in human history"

tldr:
>start shit, get nuked

There are multiple Finnish posters in this thread, cumskin.

There are more than one finn posting on Jow Forums.

t. different

Nukes have done more good than bad

I am Greek

I'd agree with you if you'd allowed Patton carpet nuke Russia

I think that terror bombings with conventional bombs were a war crime too.

It's not a warcrime if both sides are doing it

I wish

what? Yes it is. Killing innocent civilians is a war crime no matter who does it or if all sides do it. Bombing of Rotterdam, London, Dresden or Tokyo were all war crimes.

Who's to persecute these crimes if everybody was ok with it

Right
>One of the charges, brought against Keitel, Jodl, and Ribbentrop included conspiracy to commit aggression against Poland in 1939. The Secret Protocols of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 23 August 1939, proposed the partition of Poland between the Germans and the Soviets (which was subsequently executed in September 1939); however, Soviet leaders were not tried for being part of the same conspiracy.[82] Instead, the Tribunal proclaimed the Secret Protocols of the Non-Aggression Pact to be a forgery. Moreover, Allied Powers Britain and Soviet Union were not tried for preparing and conducting the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran and the Winter War, respectively.

the axis went in gung-ho they were going to be the next new hot shit around town and got bitchslapped by the USSR and America, it isn't hard to believe their own citizens felt it was their rightful turn to run things around the world regardless of the human cost, and thus probably why people don't think the firebombings or nukes were purely evil

Killing innocent civilians is wrong even if the perpetrator gets away with it.

t.cuck

You sound like an underage who doesn't understands how the world works

Nice argument retard.

Japan's elites and general ruling class still believe in this warrior-superiority code, that is why only after being ouright nuked did they start bootlicking

>heh kid, might makes right

So if nazis had won the war, holocaust would not have been morally evil? Not really stable moral code there bud.

That was geopolitics talking. The Soviet Union-anglo aliance was extremely shaky directly after ww2 and nobody wanted to see another war

>The absolute state of Nip apologists
Why don't you stop sucking microscopic Jap cock and realize that Japan deserved this and more for the crimes they've committed?

I agree that they're of the same moral nature. The thing is, that the real cynicism or massive blind spot is in how "anti-nuclear activistm" focuses more on the technology of nuclear bombs rather than the moral element of specifically targeting civilians (with any kind of weapon). It allows them to pat themselves on the back as if they were the most morally brave and clear-thinking people going, but it's not clear thinking at all because it lacks the distinction-making power to make people aware that killing civilians is bad. Instead, it comes across like the nuclear bombs are a totemic idol in a movement of para-religious frenzy. Specifically "anti-nuclear" just creates a terrifying demon in the minds of the public, whose existence is a blight on the supposedly pure and noble human race, and the hardcore protesters very clearly get an unstated sense that their "god" is a cruel one, whose true ramification only the "enlightened" can understand properly, rather than the "sheep".

It's not a "brave" thin either, because anti-nuclear agitation served Soviet propaganda interests, when they had no desire to give up their own weapons, and had nuclear weapons not existed, would probably have invaded western Europe with overwhelming and unrestricted conventional force. Even within western societies it wasn't truly brave either, because as I said, the actually challenging thing is to attack the moral underpinnings of the system that keeps the bombers in power, but instead the focus on the technology was a tacit submission to the idea that mass-murdering civilians is fine so long as it's not with nuclear bombs. (Something which I as a cynical person believe most politically-engaged people would actually be fine with doing, if they could get away without mutually assured destruction.)

It would have been justified because everybody that matters says so. It's the same reason why stalin got away with killing millions of civilians and same with Mao.

So you believe in collective punishment based on ethnicity of a person?

nukes are entirely why we call it a cold war

Exactly.

Well just have to agree to disagree here. I think that morality stems from more than what people "who matter" say. I think that Stalin and Mao were genocidal war criminal even if their just desserts never came in Hague or where ever.

>innocent

We did the world a favor.

Kill yourself “takeshi” John Hirohito

>it woulb have been Berlin and Munich.
it really wouldn't of been, the reason they nuked you fuckers is because you made civilians into guerrilla soldiers and attacking the mainland would of been way to costly comparatively. With germany is was not the case because the entire place had pretty much been captured anyway

Morality of society and the people only comes into consideration in democracies. War is entirely bureaucratic and the people have no say in what happens during battle. Why does it matter what you think as an individual in something that you have no influence or business with. Almost all americans were prefectly contempt with hiroshima and nagasaki anyways because war is tribalism at it's best. There was no thought about the civilians, only the enemy. It's a human defense mechanism built deep into our instinct.