• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Unconditional surrender was not the only option for an end to the war. There were three days between the bombings. That’s not enough time to hammer out any kind of agreement - hell that’s not even enough time to confirm the devastation of the first bomb!

      Hiroshima was debatable, but Nagasaki was absolutely a war crime. Between both bombings over a hundred thousand civilians were butchered (some estimates over a quarter million). Imagine all the children that burned to death in twisted shrieking agony, babies that had only been born that year turned into lumps of roasted flesh, innocent lives murdered for the sake of a battlefield test for America’s toys to establish America as the new king of the world.

      • ЛRMAN0989@roznotech.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The problem with that is, Japan was willing to fight on after the first bomb. They tried labelling it a natural disaster at first; if the second bomb wasn’t dropped, they probably wouldn’t have surrendered. Sure they could have waited longer to confirm that, but then there’s more troops dying on both sides while they wait - more unnecessary deaths.

        • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay, so the Japanese lost lives in every major battle, with the deadliest battle being the Battle of Okinawa in 1945. During the two-month battle over the island, over 100,000 Japanese soldiers died and 12,000 American soldiers died.

          For comparison, in the three days between the bombs anywhere from 129,000 to 226,000 civilians were killed.

          There is no comparison and no justification.