[woodman]

> So the US killed 500,000 civilians because they didn't weren't willing to negotiate

That is debatable, but not by you, as you seem to be missing the point. Negotiating with irrational actors is risky - burning them to death, or until they say uncle, is pretty safe.

> ... and you think that that's funny. That says a lot about you.

I have to admit, watching a frustrated care troll twist does put a smile on my face - but it gets old fast. The topic at hand is logical justification, so appeals to emotion are comically out of place here.

[darkmighty]

An appeal to emotion is not out of place here. This is not a simple matter of "logical justification", there's no logical axiomatic framework that deals well with ethics. So appeal to purely "logical" justification is out of place here, sadly, not comically though.

[FeeTinesAMady]

> watching a frustrated care troll twist

What are you talking about?

> Negotiating with irrational actors is risky

They never even tried it.

I'll make this simple. The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war. However, the US never even tried to negotiate, nor did they try to communicate to the Japanese that they would be willing to allow the Emperor to remain nominally in power. They could have used that to end the war far sooner.

So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means? I'm sure you'll say that that wouldn't have worked, but how would you know? The lack of any attempt shows that the US wasn't interested in ending the war: they wanted revenge, and therefore the bombings were not justified.

[woodman]

> The only justification for the fire bombings and nuclear bombings that has any possible merit is that they were necessary to end the war.

That doesn't work in real life. In order to know what level of force is necessary, one has to have a perfect knowledge of the opposition. That isn't possible, so you always respond with more force than you think in necessary - overengineering the carnage.

> So how could the bombings possibly be necessary to end the war when the war might have been ended by other means?

If we are going to play the what if game, why stop at the firebombs? What if Japan didn't attack? What if the US didn't apply economic pressure? What if Japan didn't stomp all over Asia? The what if game is pretty boring.

[FeeTinesAMady]

> That doesn't work in real life. In order to know what level of force is necessary, one has to have a perfect knowledge of the opposition. That isn't possible, so you always respond with more force than you think in necessary - overengineering the carnage.

That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to global nuclear annihilation, and when that consequence became clear, intelligent people finally realized how wrong it is.

But your argument is wrong anyhow. Either you're trying to end the war, or you're not. If you are, you try all avenues, including negotiation. If you don't try negotiation, you aren't trying to end the war, you're trying to prolong it. The US leadership knew they couldn't lose at that point, so they weren't trying to end it.

> The what if game is pretty boring.

It sure is when you lose right away, due to the US never trying to negotiate. Earlier you said that it was "risky" to do so. How?

And It doesn't matter that we don't know what would have happened if the US had attempted negotiations with Japan. It only matters that they never did.

[woodman]

> That's exactly the kind of thinking that leads to global nuclear annihilation ...

That is the kind of thinking that ends wars. Compare the results of this method in WWII to the results of modern warfare, where force is much more restrained.

> Either you're trying to end the war, or you're not.

It isn't as simple as that, you aren't just trying to end the war - you are trying to end the war while maximizing your return on blood and treasure. If your goal is to completely dismantle the enemy's war machine, and head off another war with them in a few years, then you are most likely going to want an unconditional surrender. So if your enemy announces that isn't in the cards, then why bother with negotiation?

> Earlier you said that it was "risky" to do so. How?

Because irrational actors can't be understood, you can't negotiate without understanding.

> It only matters that they never did.

I don't try to negotiate with salesmen when they announce a hard price, the resulting lack of negotiation is on them - not me.