Fair enough. I should have phrased some of my comments more intentionally, but my annoyance got the better of me. I do not think the bombings were morally justified. But the people who did them had reasons for believing they were. Doesn't mean they were right.

I don't disagree with you. The reality of the world is that there are no "good guys" in war. I would never make that argument. That doesn't mean the people who did the bombing didn't have their own moral justifications for it. Have a nice day.

Also, just thought I'd say this to you because that other guy blocked me, I find it fascinating that people go out of their way to start arguments in people's posts and then flee from the conversation when someone mildly disagrees with them. I wasn't arguing that the bombings were good.

It's also important to remember: in the eyes of American military planners, they had two options: the destruction of Japanese cities with a show of destructive force, or the invasion of mainland Japan. If you look at the casualty rates for Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc, you can see why they chose the

Whether that actually did succeed is up for debate. There are scholars who INSIST that it did, citing Hirohito's intercession into the war council's proceedings and his statement to the Japanese people about the need to negotiate with the U.S. as the driving force behind Japanese surrender.

No. But the Second World War was Total War in which both sides were doing everything possible to win the conflict. From the American perspective, the mass destruction of Japanese cities was the only way to get the war council to surrender. This is not me saying it was morally justified (cont.)

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed fewer people than Operation Meetinghouse.

Lol whatever dumbfuck.