Japan was already seeking surrender even before the first bomb. They were ready for almost unconditional surrender, with their only condition being immunity for the emperor. The USA wanted full unconditional surrender and also to keep USSR from the negotiations, so they dropped the bomb. Then they dropped the second bomb, even though Japan tried to surrender again after the first one. I would say this counts as a lie when people say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in any way necessary to bomb. The war was won at that point.
The claim was that “the bomb probably saved more lives than it killed”. Not that it was necessary to make the Japanese surrender. Mutually assured destruction via nuclear warheads is what kept the Cold War cold. Who knows how many people would have died all over the world if the USSR and the USA went into direct armed conflict?
Maybe it’d have been less than the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, though I doubt it. My point is that there’s no way of knowing.
You’re arguing in bad faith. My entire argument is about the proportion between the people who did die and the people who could have died, so how can anyone make that argument while forgetting one of the two groups and focusing only on the other? A proportion implies both groups.
Japan was already seeking surrender even before the first bomb. They were ready for almost unconditional surrender, with their only condition being immunity for the emperor. The USA wanted full unconditional surrender and also to keep USSR from the negotiations, so they dropped the bomb. Then they dropped the second bomb, even though Japan tried to surrender again after the first one. I would say this counts as a lie when people say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in any way necessary to bomb. The war was won at that point.
The claim was that “the bomb probably saved more lives than it killed”. Not that it was necessary to make the Japanese surrender. Mutually assured destruction via nuclear warheads is what kept the Cold War cold. Who knows how many people would have died all over the world if the USSR and the USA went into direct armed conflict?
Maybe it’d have been less than the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, though I doubt it. My point is that there’s no way of knowing.
This is what propaganda does to s person. U go on forget about the innocent people who were killed needlessly. ONLY imagine how much worse it could be
You’re arguing in bad faith. My entire argument is about the proportion between the people who did die and the people who could have died, so how can anyone make that argument while forgetting one of the two groups and focusing only on the other? A proportion implies both groups.
No. You’re a propaganda mouth piece now without knowing it.
You don’t have another group to compare, you are NOT making a comparison. You are speaking only in hypotheticals, NOT comparison at all.
You are not talking about two groups that died. You are talking about a group that was killed, by the USA. You are talking about ONE group.
You are arguing in bad faith, without knowing it.
Sure, buddy. Whatever helps you to sleep at night.
Feeling bad about killing a city full of Japanese innocent people who were about to surrender does.
Enjoy the warm feeling of pride in your country’s murder.
Oh, did Peru drop any nukes in Japan? That’s news to me.
This is what I mean