[its_ethan]

For what it's worth, by 1945 (Hiroshima) the Japanese army had grown from 1,700,000 (1941) to 6,000,000 (1945). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army#World_W...

Also to say it was just some barbaric test sort of ignores the fact that Japan did not surrender after the first bomb was dropped, they weren't some innocent bystander, they were actively running offensive military campaigns through 1944, and their intention was to continue fighting the war - until the US proved that they had the resources to do it a second time (and therefore unknowably many times, as far as Japan knew).

There's also a credible argument to be made that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan might've had a net positive effect on total lives lost if the war continued another 6 months. You can absolutely debate which lives were lost versus saved, and the ethics of either route - but to just pass it off as some "barbaric human experiment" seems a little disingenuous.

[hnu123]

> For what it's worth, by 1945 (Hiroshima) the Japanese army had grown from 1,700,000 (1941) to 6,000,000 (1945).

Yes. A bunch of elderly and young boys 'armed' with broomsticks. That you have to resort this level of nonsense should tell you something...

> they were actively running offensive military campaigns through 1944

You do know that hiroshima occurred in the latter half of 1945 right?

> There's also a credible argument to be made that the US dropping nuclear bombs on Japan might've had a net positive effect on total lives lost if the war continued another 6 months.

There is no credible argument. Just propaganda.

There is no defense of genocide and war crimes period. Doesn't stop evil people who rationalize the genocide of the native americans, hiroshima/nagasaki, holocaust, etc. But then again the genocide of the native americans, hiroshima, nagasaki, etc happens because of evil people in 'civilized' nations.

It's amazing that you fail to realize that you are proving me correct. Evil and barbarity is alive and well today. Just like in ww2. Just like in the days of caesar and augustus.

[harimau777]

It's bad practice to simply dismiss arguments as "propaganda" without engaging with them. The dropping of the atomic bomb was significantly more nuanced that what you are suggesting.

You are correct that the Japanese government had lost at least much of it's will to fight. However, the US believed that the military was likely to stage a coup if the government attempted to surrender.

If the Allies had to engage in an island hopping campaign, then the lives lost likely would have outnumbered those lost to the atomic bombs.

The US wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union had time to get involved and start gaining territory; which they would likely have annexed. In the long term, it has probably been a good thing for Japan that they did not get that chance.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets under the then accepted doctrine of total war.

[hnu123]

> It's bad practice to simply dismiss arguments as "propaganda" without engaging with them.

Sure. If you are new to the discussion. But I'm not. I've come across all the rationalizations and of course the propaganda all my life. It's always the people peddling debunked propaganda who demand that propaganda be taken seriously.

> The dropping of the atomic bomb was significantly more nuanced that what you are suggesting.

Who cares? It's genocide. It's a war crime. It is pure evil. No excuse for it.

> If the Allies had to engage in an island hopping campaign, then the lives lost likely would have outnumbered those lost to the atomic bombs.

Are you seriously arguing the most racist nation on earth ( US ) cared about a bunch of non-white japanese lives? You do realize that the US had banned japanese immigration decades earlier because the japanese were inferior asians right? The genocidal firebombings of much of japan and hiroshima/nagasaki prove that the US did care about japanese lives.

> The US wanted to end the war before the Soviet Union had time to get involved and start gaining territory;

If so, the US would have accept japan's surrender in 1944 when japan start offering peace terms.

> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate targets under the then accepted doctrine of total war.

No they weren't. If japan or germany had nuked the US, those involved would have been tried and executed for war crimes/crimes against humanity.

You are just regurgitating debunked and pathetic propaganda I've heard many times. All one has to do is think to see through the nonsense.

How pathetic do you have to be to believe a white supremacist nation/government cared about saving japanese lives? The rationalization of evil. It's always evil that rationalizes the most. You sound more ridiculous than nazis who claim hitler tried to save the jews from the soviet communists. Imagine believing we nuked the japanese civilians to save japanese lives. That's beyond dumb and evil.

[harimau777]

> Who cares?

You should. Being able to understand that the world is nuanced, entertain positions that you disagree with, and consider different views is an important life skill; both when forming one's worldview and in normal social interactions. Ironically, it's precisely those sorts of skills that we need to prevent an atomic bomb from ever being dropped in the future.

[lotsoweiners]

Maybe but I’d sure rather be on the side doing the genocide, nuking, etc than the other side. In many scenarios the group that was decimated lacked the hubris to understand it was beaten. No matter I don’t see all of the people e of the world with their varying interests coming together around the camp fire to sing kumbaya anytime soon.