If you are willing to see the narrative from another perspective here are some links:
Firebombings of Tokyo: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/07/asia/japan-tokyo-fire-raids-o...
Court ruling about Hiroshima and Nagasaki (deemed unlawful acts of war = war crime) https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/53/Shimoda-...
The Battle of Okinawa alone had nearly 200,000 military casualties and another 150,000 civilian deaths.[1]
People asserting dropping of the bombs was wrong in any way are divorced from reality. Their position is devoid of all facts.
To be blunt. Dropping of the atomic bombs was not just the right decision, it was the most humane decision.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Okinawa#:~:text=Th....
From an official US atomic historian, a survey of the breadth of opinion on the use of the atomic weapons, from just after until more recently: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/03/08/the-decision-to-u...
There are many entries there on many aspects of atomic weapons and a wealth of declassified contemporary material.
As you can see you're largely repeating one position of a broad field as if it were gospel and there were no other positions and no evolution of the debate.
Many of your points are those that came into being after the use of the bomb, back fitted proto Cold War era justifications.
There was relatively little thought put into using the weapons at the time other than a sense of urgency to field test two distinct designs resulting from the most expensive weapons development program in histrory that didn't produce anything useful until after the Germans surrended.
Hiroshimo & Nagasaki were to be bombed regardless, they were way down the punch list and followed on from 72 other Japanese cities destroyed via firebombing and conventional high explosives.
They were selected not for their importance (they were much further down the last than mid 70's) but because they were relatively untouched and made for good test sites for "just the atomic bomb damage".
There is no "arguing further on this topic", that was my only contribution, and I reiterate it.
Circle back to the original material and the historic commentary on that material, it's not clear whether you have read any of it let alone grasped the breadth of it.
The question here is if japan would have surrendered without the Atomic bombs. There is not enough evidence for it being True or False.
Many modern historians claim that japan would have surrendered anyway because its military was in shambles. They hoped for a conditional surrender. The bombs were frightening, but didnt create more damage than the previous firebombings. The fact that the Soviet Union joined the was on the western flank of japan was probably the straw. It blocked all future possibilities of diplomatic conditional surrender by pleading with the Russians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bomb test sites and at least a hundred thousand innocent people died just to see the end-product of the most expensive weapons program ever. If Germany would have done it, all the people in the chain of command would have probably been hanged for war crimes.
Because we got to 350k casualties from just the US with the bomb.
I have. Beyond the propaganda and all the nonsense. But you don't need to read deeper to understand evil is evil. Nothing justifies acts of genocide like nuking civilians.
> If anyone sacrificed the people of Hiroshima, it was the Japanese Imperialist Government that refused to surrender despite the obvious obliteration of their conventional forces.
The japanese government had been suing for peace for more than a year prior to hiroshima. But even if they didn't, it still doesn't justify nuking civilians. Just because a government doesn't act in a manner you want doesn't justify murdering civilians. That's the logic of terrorists. Killing civilians to hurt the government. If your morality aligns with terrorists, you really should reassess your moral foundations.
> To make it brief...
You just spouted off propaganda that we all are spoonfed via media and school system. I'm surprised you didn't include the nonsense about purple hearts.
> It also should be noted both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were central to the Japanese war economy/machine and were not simply civilian population centers
More terrorist logic. Just because Manhattan is the center of the US economy doesn't justify 9/11.
That you are trying to justify hiroshima and the nuking of civilians just proves my point. Evil and barbaric. There is no justification for genocide. Period.
Citation needed. That's just war: don't like being >insert atrocity here'd< then don't lose.
To make it brief, every single landmass occupied by Japanese forces and civilians offered fierce resistance/guerilla warfare to invading/liberating forces. Additionally, as another commenter has noted, the Japanese military had significantly increased their numbers to a staggering 6 million troops towards the end. The death toll projections, based on the above, for a mass land invasion of Japan were many factors greater than the life cost of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - many, many factors greater.
The Japanese government did not just refuse to surrender, but continued to wage war. This meant either a land invasion, or some alternative were necessary to compel the government into surrender.
Dropping the second nuclear bomb accomplished this goal - particularly when accompanied by the (empty) threat of dropping many more until surrender.
It also should be noted both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were central to the Japanese war economy/machine and were not simply civilian population centers. Regardless, the loss of life directly from the bombings and indirectly from the aftermath is still calculated to have been significantly less than the loss of life had a ground invasion been waged.