Funny how this is now considered a bad thing when the only country ever to murder innocents and children with one is America.
In WWII: Over 60 million people were killed, which was about 3% of the 1940 world population (est. 2.3 billion).
The US ended the war in the pacific with those bombs(129,000–246,000+ killed), who knows how many more would have died with an invasion of Japan. The second would not have been dropped if the Japanese had surrounded and ended the war. BTW, the US did not start the war. I'm not saying I support it, I'm just saying stop Monday morning quarterbacking.
The argument that the Bombs "ended the war" is patent bs, and it keeps being repeated unchallenged as a justification for what was effectively a war crime.
It is debatable where it was necessary to drop the bombs on populated areas as opposed to Tokyo Bay, but it is without a doubt that the nuclear bomb and subsequent further threat ended the conflict.
The bombings were geopolitical stage props.
It is interesting to theorize what would've happened after the war if the U.S. had not developed the bomb or if the U.S. had developed it but chose not to use it.
Civilians were dying at a rate of something like a quarter million per month in all the various Japanese-occupied areas at this point in the war. If the atomic bombings sped up the surrender by just three weeks they were a net win in terms of lives. (And yeah, I know how morally difficult that calculation is, but that's war.)
I just want to make sure we're on the same page.
What moral ground has anyone to deny NK its sovereign right to do the same ?
We are in violent agreement.