The underlying logic is extremely controversial, and relies a lot in "othering" the Japanese, and talking about them in terms like "they would fight to the last man, woman, and child" like they were wild dogs or something.
A much stronger theory is that Japanese were sacrificed in order to flex muscle against the Soviet Union.
Man, as an outsider looking in, it seems like the propaganda program surrounding the atomic bomb is astoundingly effective. Everyone regurgitates the same arguments, the fact that its contentious in the history and ethics communities seems to be glossed over completely.
The bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima weren't even the most deadly of the war. The US had burned most of Tokyo to the ground and more was coming.
Japanese citizens were going to die in masses when the invasion force hit the beach. Either sacrificing themselves in suicide attacks, or being used as human shields.
I've seen that theory floated but it never made sense to me, and I haven't seen any documentary evidence to support it.
I prefer to apply Occam's Razor... which to me suggests the simplest conclusion is that the US bombed Japan hoping to spare American soldiers from the worse fate of an invasion, not the Japanese.
The Japanese leaders still thought they could negotiate an "honorable" surrender that would allow them to keep the lands they had brutally enslaved.
They still believed in the Kamikazi, the "Divine Wind" which destroyed the invasion fleet of the worlds most dominant and brutal military machine just before it could brutally subjugate Japan. They thought they could arm children, the elderly, housewives, or turn them into suicide bombers and kill so many of the invaders that the bloodbath would force the US to agree to their terms.
US leaders really had no choice. If they tried to wait out the Japanese without using the bomb, the family of every sailor and pilot who died in those many months would be rightfully angry. They'd be out for blood against the entire sitting US government in the next election. Just as the families of the hundreds of thousands of dead US soldiers would be, after finding out the US invaded without using the bomb.
By ending the war more quickly with the bomb, US leaders also saved the lives of an immense number of Japanese who were being fired-bombed, shot and starving in huge numbers.
General US Grant was renowned for fighting brutal battles of attrition intended to bleed the confederate armies of soldiers, between his forces and theirs his battles created casualties of 350,000 Americans. But before he was given total command of US forces nearly a half million had already been killed. He ended the war after one last bloody year that was costing nearly 200,000 lives a year, and killing civilians by the many thousands.
The choice is clear once you have the facts. Of course maybe you don't think it matters if American soldiers die. Maybe you think it's better that they die than the enemy. Try telling that to the wife of a soldier lost in battle. Try explaining that to a kid who wonders where his dad is. "The Japanese who attacked us at Pearl Harbor and want to kill us are more important to keep alive than your daddy".
You see think pictures of the a bomb with horror. And rightly so. But you forget the horrors of Okinawa. The terror of Kamikaze pilots literally suicide bombing the Americans.
The a bomb was not only better from a military and casualty standpoint, it was better for Japan in the long run. It completely broke the back of their military empire in a way that not even an invasion could. It was complete and utter defeat that crushed their delusions that they would gain greatness through military strength. That enabled them to move on and rebuild focusing on the right thing, economic power
Only one of those groups strapped a rifle to their back and signed up for action. Think about your words before you type them.
Your like the witch hunters. If you float your guilty so kill them. If you drown your innocent but dead.
The narrative that it saved Japanese lives is based on wrong premises (they'd never surrender, etc.), but tries to build a persuasive argument that it was for their own good.
I can't understand why you think "the american military saved their own lives by killing foreign civlians" is at all a more persuasive justification.
How are the Japanese civilians any more innocent than the Americans? Can you answer this?? No you can't. You are just confused and have no comprehension of how evil Pearl Harbor and the Japanese rulers were. You have obviously never heard of the Bataan death march.
I literally think you are a horrible human being. You would rather sacrifice more of your own countrymen to save the wives and children of the attakcers. You are a straight up evil human being. There are no other words to describe it.
Thank you for proving to me beyond a doubt that liberals hate this country and would gladly see it burn.
How do I report a comment to the moderators?