You wouldnât do shit @Fitzy - Youâre one big bleeding heart, On here banging on about gay rights, black rights, Tipp rights⌠You wouldnât drop a good bomb in the jacks youre so harmless.
Anybody who grew up in the 1980s will know the threat of a nuclear Armageddon hung over us every day. It was a cross we bore with the spirit of the Blitz.
Lads who were born later can come at this from a more detached and frankly hypotethical point of view but we fought and won the Cold War so any position we hold trumps your armchair position.
Thatâs possibly a fairer question and Iâd say had more to do with the two parallel projects developing different types of nuclear weapons and validation of that. The only thing that can be argued is that the Japanese surrendered after the second one, not the first. Perhaps after the second one they presumed the US could keep on dropping these every couple of days.
It was no worse than the fire-bombing of Tokyo, so in many ways it shouldnât be divorced from the question of whether or not the carpet bombing of cities was justified.
The Americans probably wanted war in the Pacific but at the same time Japan was a lunatic state, entirely swept up in nationalist militarism, and it had made no effort to make peace on acceptable terms.
The hardline military elements still had huge influence, and while elements within the civilian authorities were inclined towards bringing the conflict to a close, the dominant paradigm was an all out defence that would cause massive Allied casualties and create peace on better terms.
Again that doesnât mean incinerating a few hundred thousand people is justified, but the argument that the Japanese were about to surrender doesnât have a basis in historical fact to the best of my knowledge.