• Omega@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    No you would not be, USA had the resources to commit to a landing in japan and have less casualties over all

    You’re not immune to propaganda, do not believe that nukes were ever necessary

    • VeryFrugal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      16 hours ago

      What led to the rather tragic decision was the fact that the Japanese did not consider surrendering. Japanese high-ups used their elite pilots like one-off missiles rather than to surrender, and hoped that 100 million Japanese people would ‘shatter like a jewel’(一億玉砕), rather than, you know, be alive.

      Landing option the US had, Operation Downfall, also included bombing the coastal defense with nuclear bombs and literally obliterating Japan as a whole, so I’m not sure if that would have caused fewer casualties, not to mention it would have been a painstakingly long fight, ultimately leading to more painful exploitation for the victims like Korea and Southeast Asia. Even after the first bomb was dropped, they did not consider surrendering.

      I am not saying that the bomb was the only way the war could have ended(although that was something I implied jokingly), and I’m not ignoring the fact that countless civilians died from it. But I don’t think any other options would have had fewer casualties, especially from the viewpoint of one of their many colonies that was brutally exploited and suffered.