Well I'm no history buff but logically, it would seem Britain valued good relations with the United States more than it's alliance with Japan. Of course they already were allies struggling against Germany (England and the U.S. I mean) and this probably sealed the fate of the Anglo-Japanese alliance.
EDIT; as for the nuking of the two cities, it may seem awful (it was) but I think both sides would have taken heavier losses if a conventional invasion was launched.

@Okie the civilian casualties at Okinawa were so high because it was an amphibious assault; gaining a foothold will always result in a battle with huge casualties. Similarly; if a city(s) was situated along the beaches of Normandy, then it would hae been demolished with much of the civil population dead. However, once the fight moves further inland, it becomes less of a hairy situation (as we can see; not even close to 30% of the population of Western Europe was wiped out over the duration of the Western Front of the European Theater).

If they defend their land, and choose to fight thats fine, they chose that path. They may fight, they may not. But hey lets remove the chance some of them may not do that, and just bomb them.
All that does is garuntee civilians die.

Afghans dont like us in their country. We should nuke them too.

And again, its no different to the terrorists we are currently fighting.

I think fighting open war is a bit different than routing terrorist groups.

Never mind, it'd start an argument.

Politics, you brought them in big time. I foresee casualties. Of course I agree to a rather large extent though.

About the Nukes? It's war. It's not pretty. Ethics is usually one of the first things to go when war starts. Ethics and morality are a luxury. I'm not saying the bombs were justified but neither am I saying there was a much better or available alternative. War rarely has a good and bad decision. Just bad and worse.

Hey man, I didn't start it, just took it to the next level. However, I'll negate the post.

I agree with you, but Japan wasn't going to back down and the Americans didn't want to risk a drawn out campaign in Japan straight after their involvement in Europe.
Same reason they started using Agent Orange in Vietnam on a larger scale, most countries want a quick way to decisively end a war.

Yes but that dosent excuse it. You know what would be easier than a 10 year war in the middle east, nuking it. But we dont do that, becuase it would kill lots of innocent people, and if we did that. We wouldnt really be any better than the ones we fight.
Hell we would be worse, becuase we could have dont it in a way that minimized civilian casualties, but we decided to take the quicker option, that kills many innocents.


So what should I call people who bomb civilians ? The last few years, it earns you the label "terrorist".
Depending on how you look at it, you could actually see them as worse. They could have nvaded and just killed people who fought them, but nope.

Im glad your not in a position of power.
Humans may do some [censored] up [censored], but even we have limits. We have these things called war crimes you see. Saying ethics is one of the first things to go, is [censored].
You dont kill people who didnt choose to fight (civilians). Bombing a civilian area cannot be justified. Some may have fought if invaded, but they werent even given a choice, they were killed anyway. And for some people, it wasnt a pleasent way to die at all.


People can say whatever they want, but I wont change my view. Lots of civilians, who did nothing wrong were killed.
Sure maybe more people would have died if there was a land invasion, but I would rather more people die willingly (by choosing to fight, or suicide) than murdered.

Oh, I agree, I was just saying what the reasoning was.

And the reasoning for taking the quick way out is worse, essentially being American soldiers are worth more than Japanese civilians.

You think those embargos against Japan were enforced out of sympathy with China? You are incredibly naive. The Americans enforced the embargo (enlisted the help of European powers, including the Dutch, as well for that) because Japan was the only Asian power that had any chance at threatening American imperialist ambitions in the pacific. I would come up with more contemporary examples if I was allowed, but the well-being of the Asian peoples conquered by the Japanese was absolutely nothing the US government cared about. Hell, in the beginning of the war the Japanese were welcomed in many of the areas they conquered. Not in China obviously, but the Indonesians for example were very happy to see them drive off the Western oppressors. That changed of course when the tide turned against Japan and they became much more brutal in extracting resources from their conquered territories, but across Asia the Dutch, Americans, Australians and British were seen as colonial oppressors, not as angels to save them from the Japanese bad guys (though I am aware that some Americans post-war like to see themselves that way).
And that firebombing, the bombing of Dresden and the other terror bombings of German civilians have proven time and time again that Allied command didn't give a damn about civilian casualties in Axis countries. Should they have? I'm not going to judge that, but the Americans sure didn't drop the nukes to avoid civilian casualties, I can tell you that. http://www.google.nl/imgres?um=1&hl=nl&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org.mozilla:nl:official&biw=1760&bih=855&tbm=isch&tbnid=hyQzVETYJFvV8M:&imgrefurl=http://www.sloughsolicitors.co.uk/american-anti-japanese-propaganda-wwii%26page%3D4&docid=kyWdNyQdLJoHlM&imgurl=http://jewamongyou.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/anti-japan2.jpg&w=445&h=553&ei=D5KCT6WyMYmk0QWX3MXqBg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=183&vpy=310&dur=2094&hovh=250&hovw=201&tx=67&ty=96&sig=101099761757980055876&page=1&tbnh=152&tbnw=122&start=0&ndsp=37&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0,i:87 As far as I can tell, they used the nukes because Japan offered a nice opportunity to field test a new toy, to avoid American casualties and to intimidate the Soviets.

Interesting point; during the firebombing of Tokyo, the Imperial Palance compound was specifically listed as off-limits to all aircraft. This wasn't out of respect, it was expediency in anticipating that the emperor was one of the only things they could use to control Japan, when they invaded. Yeah, war svcks.

Wow, kind of took that the wrong way didn't you? I never said it was justified. But war times and war crimes are obviously bad and the decisions made in them do not provide a sense of justice except rarely. Name one Just war. Now whatever you're thinking of, was that war just for everyone?

You either do not understand what I was saying, i was not clear or you are naive. As for limits?! Yeah sure, normally. But when people are desperate or even when they are conditioned to believe something? They have very little limitations in what they will deem acceptable. Two entire nations of people allowed their governments to commit genocide on other peoples. Either because they were unaware, conditioned to not care, and/or were desperate. Imperial Japan AND Nazi Germany. They killed millions of civilians. The Nazis killed more than just 6 million Jews. They killed many more million people than that. The Japanese killed millions of Pacific Islanders. Samoans and many pacific islanders still are very racist towards Japanese for WW2. Seen it first hand and heard about it from others as well. That part of WW2 is not mentioned much though so maybe you didn't know? It is not just the Japanese or Nazis either. At multiple times throughout history you see many people not showing 'proper' ethical or moral limits. And it is almost always when their situation becomes desperate and many times it is just simply for advantage. Ethics and morals ARE luxuries. Enjoy them. That is why maintaining our societies is important. You are going to feel different about morality when it is your life and your people's lives on the line. When you are desperate and in duress. You will see things differently.

War is never Just. That's the truth. But as it stands the world cannot seem to operate without resorting to some measures like War. So looking for justice in war is nearly futile. However only relatively recently do we see the idea of war crimes develop. I don't believe that there even was a law prior to the end of the 19th century around like 1899 or so. The modern idea of War crimes was not really developed until after the Nuremburg trials iirc. Someone correct me if I'm wrong or off abit. I'm on a mobile phone typing this out so it's a wee bit inconvenient to go searching for any sites more reliable than my own memory.

About War Crimes. Does the pilot of a Predator bomber get slammed with War Crimes for destroying a civilian building and killing several people in the Iraq war if they were under orders? Does the person who have those orders get punished? Does anyone? I would like to know. Seems like unless the news is big enough or terrible enough no one cares or at least will not bother to make a deal of it. The US has killed quite a few civilians in the Iraqi war. however was any of it justified with today's technology? Is it justified to expend all our resources on a foreign conflict to ensure we do not kill many civilian people while targetting specific enemy people and the rest of our own people go broke and hungry in the pursuit of "justice"?

My point is that war and pretty much everything in it is hardly justifiable. Perspective changes things dramtically and if you have 3 humans in a room you have 7 perspectives and 12 opinions as it is said. There is usually another way to resolve things. However oftentimes that way is more effort than people are willing to give. Whether it has to do with pride, revenge, economics, etc etc. we just cannot get over it. Even when it hurts us and others. That is War IMO. Peace would mean the cessation of hate. If that happens we will no longer be human if you ask me. But I think it would be better

Yeesh this post became a lot bigger than I meant it too. If it offends or I am wrong I am not claiming anything I said is universal truth, just how I view it and am sorry. It is also waaaayyyy off topic lol.

So yeah. Anglo-Japanese alliance...

Alot of the civilian casualties in Axis nations due to actions of the Allies I can pin down on long standing grievances, the jingoism in Britain from the First World War probably stuck in British government. The sinking of the Lusitania in 1915 is an example. The Germans declared British waters a war zone and sunk many civilian ships with early U-Boats later on of course the Merchant vessels from the USA causing a Food Crisis in 1917. The allies really pushed civilian deaths to justify "hatred of Germany" in that War, as I'm sure they did during Blitzkreig in the second world war. Here's a passage from a site about the sinking of the Lusitania with some statistics. "

The sinking claimed the lives of 1,198 of

Lusitania

's passengers and crew, with only 761 surviving. Among the dead were 128 American citizens. Immediately inciting international outrage, the sinking quickly turned public opinion against Germany and its allies."

Apologies for the terrible nature of the posting of that quote from a source I must of highlighted it or something

There is evidence that japan wanted to end the war way earlier. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't required to end the war.
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I've read a lot on this topic and there's no convincing evidence to support that assertion. Look up Operation Ketsugō for Japan's planned defense of their homeland.


The Americans actually did care about German civilians to some extent. Their bombing runs had specific targets, unlike the RAF who randomly fire-bombed cities. The US also only did bombing runs in daylight when they could see their target. They didn't always hit their target but they tried.

You're correct that the US didn't extend that courtesy to Japanese civilians.

Japan had quite the history of war crimes against civilians, so we can agree nobody had clean hands in that war. They widely and frequently used banned chemical weapons, as well as spreading the Bubonic plague among the civilian populations.

I'd say the Japanese army was by far the cruelest in the war, far surpassing the Nazis and even the Soviets. However, that was not the fault of the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they didn't deserve to take the fall.