| Final-Fan said: I think Nagasaki was unnecessary, but even nuking two cities killed fewer civilians than would have died in an all-out invasion IMO. Not just from accidental killings but starvation when farmland was unavailable or infrastucture was destroyed, etc. etc. Especially given the fanaticism with which the Japanese were fighting, and the probability that random citizenry would be pressed into service in suicidal attacks and crap like that. I watched "Letters from Iwo Jima". I can't imagine another army where "fight to the death" means "don't kill yourselves" rather than "don't surrender". |
Unfortunately, the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the only 'viable' options out of the 3 that were likely to happen..Although it is possible that waiting longer after Hiroshima may have given them enough time to capitulate. However, our options were:
- Nuke 'em
- Invade 'em
- Starve 'em
In the other 2 we did not do, civilian casualities would of been worse than any other military conflict, sans possibly the German's slaughtering of the Russians during the opening days of WW2. Invasion was calculated to cost a million US solider lives, and many multiples more of Japanese military and civilians. Starvation would of been even worse.
Lets not forget the geopolitical ramifications of a prolonged conflict as well. We have no idea what would of happened had we of pursued the second or third strategy...Korea may be unified under communism today.
And to be honest, I wouldn't want to of seen the soviets invade Japan in a joint US-USSR conflict. Given the human suffering of the USSR's invasion of Germany, and the raping of 2 million women....I can't stand to bear the thought of the human tragedy that would of been the invasion of Japan.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
