72 years (and 13 hours) ago...

[Dill]

(08-07-2017, 10:33 PM)Millhouse Wrote: I dont understand why there are differing opinions on using the a-bombs to end WW2, or people feeling sympathetic towards "innocent" German cities that got leveled.

Would it have been nice for Japan to unconditionally surrender after Okinawa was won? Yes, it would have. Would it have been better to simply have invaded the mainland of Japan, to avoid dropping two a-bombs on the two cities? No. Not at all, even if Russia invaded Japan with us.

The loss of life from conventional means would have been immeasurably worse for the Japanese with far more destruction. Not only that, the amount of American life lost would have been horrific, which ultimately was more important back then and rightfully so. The a-bombs, as destructive as they were, saved far more lives and ruin than what they delivered, and in the process the ultimate goal of the war was achieved. Japan was left with much of it's infrastructure intact while not being occupied by the Soviets as well.

The bolded statement is the key, Millhouse. 

The decision to use the bomb was not shaped by potential US causalties, but by the shape of the postwar world. In Asia as in Europe the final months of the war was about whose armies would be occupying what formerly enemy territories.

The Soviets were poised to invade. The US was not. And the US knew Japan was ready to surrender. We were not going to suffer millions of causalities from suicidal Japanese fighting to the end.

But who would receive Japan's surrender if the Soviets invaded?
The bomb enabled to US occupation of mainland Japan and sent a message to the Soviets and the rest of the world.