Discussion on the necessity of the Atomic Bombs(And general Strategic Bombing) on Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[infowarrior1]

Interesting topic and one I have had evolving thoughts on in life. The fire-bombing of largely civilian targets in both theaters (the two A bombs in Japan and notably Dresden in Germany) are tough moral questions.

In old days, I believed the "justified bombings" line. Now, I believe they were as much demonstrations of strength/resolve as anything else. That's a generous way to say it. Sometimes I think it was just blood-lust.

We were imposing our will on them. "Look here Axis powers - we can and will destroy heritage locations with (at best) secondary military significance. Just to prove we can."

Allied forces fire-bombed Dresden, a beautiful cultural center of the region with nearly no military significance or industry. Accounts I have read describe asphalt streets so hot that they softened and people became trapped in the hot oil. I believe the bombing continued nightly for about a week. The city was loaded with German civilians from more war-torn areas, seeking refuge in the relative peace. It was a pretty unnecessary loss of life, even by WWII standards.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are similar dynamic, different weapon.

Things that make me curious: Nagasaki being the Christian capital of Japan. Special friend of FDRs special friends (who were big pushers to get us into the war) being given access to all of the Manhattan Project. Apparently, 90%+ of Americans were AGAINST entering the war as late as a week before Pearl Harbor. But there were so many hawks around FDR (he was pretty hawkish himself), I would believe these guys would set up Pearl Harbor the way it worked out.

War is a very morally hazardous situation. And it in those situations the hearts of Men are truly shown. Whether Nobility or Villainy.

Nonetheless it should be waged to ensure victory far more than carnage.

Then let the Judicial proceedings after victory punish all the guilty with a far more fine-toothed comb. Something like the Nuremburg Trials but done properly:


Punishing the guilty is better done that way. Thereby avoiding disproportionate retribution that historic massacres done in the throes of bloodlust ended up becoming.

And I believe those Trials would also have been able to implicate Unit 731 for their war crimes. Giving due Lex Talionis(Eye for an Eye).

 

[fortyfive]

I love when politicians relaxing in protected luxury are deciding whose death would be necessary.

For a better world, of course.

 

[Aboulia]

US strategic bombing in WW2 was primarily attacking industrial targets. My grandfather kept record of everywhere he bombed and most of it was day bombing oil refineries and factories. When they’d do cities, they’d target industrial cities, like Dresden and the purpose was to kill people supporting the war effort. Are you complaining that war was too violent? For the British and Germans, yes it was primarily civilian targets. They were in a position of desperation and civilian bombing was started when Hitler began attacking London instead of finishing off the RAF which would have been the strategically correct thing to do.

(And @stugatz) It sounds like what you’re saying is that it’s America’s responsibility to supply Japan with oil and let it do whatever it wants in East Asia? An oil embargo is not a military provocation. We can sell oil or not sell oil to whomever we want. And it’s absolute lunacy to accuse the US of ‘economic warfare’ for acting economically and politically in its own interest and in the interest of China and the Philippines. Keep in mind the US WAS obligated to protect its overseas territories from the Japanese. The entire interwar period was basically the Japanese building warships against the Washington Naval Treaty because the Japanese didn’t respect contracts and treaties the way Westerners do. That’s why they had such a good navy in the beginning of WW2. Give a good reason why the US should sell war materiel to growingly hostile nations? Have you seen the videos of what they did to those people in China? Like the one where they’re burying people alive? The Nanjing massacre? The Japanese were doing horrible things and that needed to be put to a stop.

Perhaps you should study history a little better. Japan was fairly insular before being provoked by the Americans headed by Matthew Perry in the 1800s.

 

[infowarrior1]

I love when politicians relaxing in protected luxury are deciding whose death would be necessary.

For a better world, of course.

The days of Kings on the battlefield sharing hardships with his Men are long gone since the advent of gunpowder.

Politicians never have their own lives on the line nor share hardships with troops.

Unless there is a way to force their skin in the game.

 

[Thomas More]

People get the government they deserve. The Japanese and German governments continued to have strong public support for the war effort during much of WWII, perhaps right to the end. It was quite a burden on the allied powers to fight the war against these two.

I think it is fair game to target civilian populations in a total war situation, in which the enemy government is fighting with a totally mobilized economy and populace, with solid public support.

By making sure to kill a sufficient number of Germans and Japanese, the Allied powers made sure that the surviving populations lost their interest in militarism. This was a desirable outcome.

It is unfortunate that the Allied powers have now become degenerate, and are involved in a civilizational collapse. Some say Hitler was right in the values he espoused. Maybe so. However, he was only tilting against windmills. The German culture had already had the Weimar era, and it was already headed down the road to decadence and civilizational collapse. Hitler couldn't have stopped this in the long run. I think this was one of the interesting things explored in The Man in the High Tower. Likewise, the Japanese had already made a concerted effort to come into the modern world, and to become an industrialized power. They were already sowing the seeds for the current generation of herbivore young men.

None of this analysis affects the military decision making at the time. All I'm saying is that in the 1940's, the Allies were most certainly provoked to bombing civilian populations, and in the immediate period of the war and the initial decades afterwards, they had every reason to think it was useful. Any analysis 75+ years later saying the Germans or Japanese were right is reconning.

 

[dicknixon72]

Perhaps you should study history a little better. Japan was fairly insular before being provoked by the Americans headed by Matthew Perry in the 1800s.

Two interesting videos on the subject that put Japanese behavior during this period in great context...

Teaching Japan Imperialism 1854-1896 - Carlton Meyer​

WW2 Japanese Military Brutality Explained - Mark Felton​

 

[C-Note]

The US and the British DID NOT know in advance that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked. They knew the Japanese fleet was on the move in the South Pacific, but they did not know that the Japanese carriers were headed towards Hawaii. The Allies could read the Japanese diplomatic ("Purple") code, but only about 1% of the Japanese military codes at that time. The deciphered Purple messages on December 6 & 7 from Tokyo instructed the Japanese embassy in DC to notify Roosevelt that diplomacy was over, but it did not declare war. The War Department was in the process of alerting the Pacific commands when the Pearl Harbor attack began. They thought the Japanese might hit the Philippines or Guam, but not Hawaii. Roosevelt had instructed the military to defend itself against Japanese (or German) attacks, but not to fire the first shot. The US population was very isolationist at the time, so he knew that Japan had to be the one to draw first blood.

The justification that the US used to firebomb Japanese cities was that there were many small workshops and mills scattered throughout residential areas. That was correct. The Japanese had used the same justification when they firebombed Chinese cities. This was also the justification used by the US in employing the atomic bombs. As an aside, many people don't know that the Nagasaki bomb exploded right over the neighborhood in which Japan's Christian population was centered.

Although the US had an effective blockade around the Japanese islands in August, 1945, Allied personnel were still fighting and dying in the Philippines, Borneo, Bougainville, New Britain, and elsewhere in the Pacific. Any weapon which you believe will help you to end the war more quickly, short of poison gas, is on the table. Also, the suicidal tactics used by the Japanese made the Allies believe that an invasion of Japan would be an absolute bloodbath.

The atomic bombs DID help persuade the Japanese to surrender. Remember, some Japanese military officers tried to stage a coup when they learned about the surrender plans. The Emperor of Japan used the atomic bombs as justification for the surrender in his speech to the nation. He stated that because of the atomic bomb, Japan needed to surrender in order to save humanity from that threat.

The use of the atomic bombs has allowed some Japanese to promote a victimization narrative. It is a disingenuous narrative, in my opinion.

 

[Max Roscoe]

In old days, I believed the "justified bombings" line. Now, I believe they were as much demonstrations of strength/resolve as anything else. That's a generous way to say it. Sometimes I think it was just blood-lust.

We were imposing our will on them. "Look here Axis powers - we can and will destroy heritage locations with (at best) secondary military significance. Just to prove we can."

It definitely signaled an end to the era of "civilized warfare."
There used to be an accepted system that involved diplomatic protocols, rules of warfare, open and clear delcarations of war, and the concept of sueing for peace when one side was ready to capitulate. None of that is done anymore.

Could the Axis have won if they played dirtier (and it was not just the Allies who bent the rules, particularly in the East) ?
Perhaps. But the world is on notice now. Nothing is off the table. Particularly if you are fighting America. Heck, look at how we treat civilians in places we have not even declared war but are still drone striking their wedding parties.

If that's how we treat sovereign citizens of countries we are technically at peace with, there is obviously no limit on destructiveness and barbarity when a state of war exists. Let's hope we don't live to see one, because it will be horrible.

 

[DeWoken]

It definitely signaled an end to the era of "civilized warfare."
There used to be an accepted system that involved diplomatic protocols, rules of warfare, open and clear delcarations of war, and the concept of sueing for peace when one side was ready to capitulate. None of that is done anymore.

I'm sure someone can make a whole list of dishonorable acts of war which followed, but Guantanamo Bay prisoners come to mind with their designation of "illegal combatants", or whatever, in order to side-step principles. And following from that we have the 1/6 Capitol Storm "domestic terrorists", 450 of them being held in solitary, being tortured and humiliated. Murica - heck yeah!

My sense is that the War Hawk agenda extends into the past. People get swept up in it without realizing. In reality, while East Asians are very different from Europeans, there is a lot of mutual admiration there and we have a lot to give each other.

This instance of nastiness from the watch industry came to mind.

How Seiko gave the Swiss a blood nose and the birth of...

Turns out the Cal. 61GS series was the result of an interesting period in Seiko history. Largely producing watches for the domestic market , Seiko looked to expand internationally and decided that success at the Swiss Astronomical Observatory trials would aid that goal. Achievement in these...

www.watchuseek.com

In 1968 the Swiss shut down the competition rather than let the gooks - Seiko - win it!

It is good that we bring up this topic of discussion (which is both interesting and tiresome) at this point in time because by some reports we do look to be staring down the barrel once again of a rager. This time it's Japan's older brother, who has finally got his sh!t together, who has turned into a power beast. "History doesn't repeat but it does rhyme". Have we learned anything from last time?


Never Forget

Never forget that
The Puppet Masters have
an end goal of destroying
all noble houses of man
so that
they may rule over a horde of slaves
for all eternity

 

[C-Note]

I think I may have shared this story in this forum before. About 20 years ago I was sitting in a Japanese-style bar with my future wife in East Tokyo, which is still a working-class neighborhood and which had taken considerable damage in the firebombings. The nearby Sensō-ji temple, for example, had been completely destroyed.

Sitting at the large table with us was an older man who I noticed was missing a few fingers on both his hands. He started talking to me as my wife translated. He said that his mother and sister had died in the March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo, and he had lost several fingers while trying to escape the firestorm. He added that he wasn't angry about what had happened, because almost immediately after the war ended, American servicemen who were part of the occupation forces came into East Tokyo and helped the residents rebuild their houses. He said that several American troops helped him set up a small park near where his family members had died. Needless to say, it was an intensely emotional conversation, at least for me. The other Japanese at the table listened impassively, without adding any comment, which isn't unusual for that type of situation in Japan in my experience.

Based on that and other conversations I've had with Japanese about the war, their feelings on the bombing run the gamut from primarily blaming their own government for what happened, all the way to believing that the US lost the moral high ground when it employed the atomic bombs. My own opinions have varied a little over time. One thing I learned from studying history is there are no rules for warfare. There are very few periods in world history when warring tribes have instituted and actually followed "rules" about warfare. That being said, we Christians do want to believe that there is an underlying morality that should govern human interaction, including in warfare. Area bombing is one aspect of war that is morally contentious.

Roosevelt, in his "Infamy" speech the day after Pearl Harbor invoked God as being on the side of the US when he stated that the country in its "righteous might" (full quote, "the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory"). This gives a veneer of moral rectitude to the pursuit of total victory over Japan using whatever means available. So, can you try to impose current morality on events then?

 

[No⁃Designation Man]

The days of Kings on the battlefield sharing hardships with his Men are long gone since the advent of gunpowder.

Politicians never have their own lives on the line nor share hardships with troops.

Unless there is a way to force their skin in the game.

Indeed. Even in the biblical wars sanctioned by Yahuweh, the kings of Israel led their men into battle.

I've read a saying in the past, a few times before, (loosely) paraphrased:
'If your leaders aren't on the front lines with you, then the battle is not worth dying for.'

I read somewhere that, far from being a pacifist, Einstein pushed hard behind the scenes for use of the atomic bomb.

^^Addtional note: If Einstein had been a true 'genius', he never would have invented the bomb to begin with.


Food for thought (directed at no one in particular):
If the Allies had somehow still lost the war, their use of the atomic bomb would have been recorded in the history books as the biggest act of terrorism ever committed.

In war, the army that was/is 'moral' and 'good' is determined solely by the victors. "Might makes right", as the saying goes.

 

[infowarrior1]

I think I may have shared this story in this forum before. About 20 years ago I was sitting in a Japanese-style bar with my future wife in East Tokyo, which is still a working-class neighborhood and which had taken considerable damage in the firebombings. The nearby Sensō-ji temple, for example, had been completely destroyed.

Sitting at the large table with us was an older man who I noticed was missing a few fingers on both his hands. He started talking to me as my wife translated. He said that his mother and sister had died in the March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo, and he had lost several fingers while trying to escape the firestorm. He added that he wasn't angry about what had happened, because almost immediately after the war ended, American servicemen who were part of the occupation forces came into East Tokyo and helped the residents rebuild their houses. He said that several American troops helped him set up a small park near where his family members had died. Needless to say, it was an intensely emotional conversation, at least for me. The other Japanese at the table listened impassively, without adding any comment, which isn't unusual for that type of situation in Japan in my experience.

Based on that and other conversations I've had with Japanese about the war, their feelings on the bombing run the gamut from primarily blaming their own government for what happened, all the way to believing that the US lost the moral high ground when it employed the atomic bombs. My own opinions have varied a little over time. One thing I learned from studying history is there are no rules for warfare. There are very few periods in world history when warring tribes have instituted and actually followed "rules" about warfare. That being said, we Christians do want to believe that there is an underlying morality that should govern human interaction, including in warfare. Area bombing is one aspect of war that is morally contentious.

Roosevelt, in his "Infamy" speech the day after Pearl Harbor invoked God as being on the side of the US when he stated that the country in its "righteous might" (full quote, "the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory"). This gives a veneer of moral rectitude to the pursuit of total victory over Japan using whatever means available. So, can you try to impose current morality on events then?

There are rules to warfare which can be deduced by the guidelines that God gave to Israel in (Deuteronomy 20:1-15):
https://biblehub.com/bsb/deuteronomy/20.htm

And (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) which deals with women captured in battle.

And since there holy war has since moved on to the totally spiritual (Cherem) which necessitates the destruction of every living thing is no longer relevant. And inapplicable. Because the preservation of the religious purity necessary to provide the ideal environment for the incarnation of God as Man is no longer required.

In the New Testament on the other hand once our LORD has come as a Man we are now waging holy war purely spiritually through the church and through the Gospel following the example shown by Jesus Christ's ministry:

Beginning with Moses - BT Articles - The Divine Warrior: The New Testament Use of an Old Testament Motif

beginningwithmoses.org

 

[DeWoken]

And (Deuteronomy 21:10-14) which deals with women captured in battle.

Otanoshimini (笑)

I am 1/4 through The Princes of Yen, a documentary film about Japan's economy since the war, which I hear explains the popping of The Bubble. At about the 24' mark there begins a segment on the economic realities of the 1980s. One district of Tokyo, Chiyoda, has the same real estate value as the entire country of Canada. You can see how the Japanese geisha woman in Blade Runner (1982) gobbling down a morsel was seen as a specter of the looming dystopian future.

In Current Year, if you research it, the Toyota Tundra is made in Texas.

I Just Found the Best Truck Ever Made (and I’m Buying One)

Best truck to buy. I Just Found the Best Truck Ever Made (and I’m Buying One), DIY and car review with Scotty Kilmer. Toyota Tundra special edition review. The best new and used trucks to buy. Should I buy a Toyota Tundra? What type of truck to buy. Truck buying guide. Car Advice. DIY car repair...

yewtu.be

Princes of the Yen | Documentary Film

Michael Oswald's film “Princes of the Yen: Central Banks and the Transformation of the Economy” 『円の支配者』reveals how Japanese society was transformed to suit the agenda and desire of powerful interest groups, and how citizens were kept entirely in the dark about this. Based on the book of the same...

yewtu.be

 

[NoFunInAus]

Trying to justify the " bombings " of those two wonderful cities is just demonic and you boomer lot using "pewl habooor" as an excuse are just pathetic.

Bombing and Kamikazying some derelict boat harbour is not comparable to evaporating 226.000 innocent (civilian) men, women and children no matter what war was fought. It's a stain on humanity, like the boomers are who excuse it, bathe in the perceived glory of the event while having their children run mortgages at 250% inflation rates. And then tell us how they smacked their hand on the counter to get that job!

Piss off already.

 

[Mr.S]

Perhaps you should study history a little better. Japan was fairly insular before being provoked by the Americans headed by Matthew Perry in the 1800s.

@Aboulia what is your expectation with a comment like that? If you want to make an argument then use words to write down your thoughts so they may be considered by the gentleman in the forum. Simply saying “study history better” is a condescending cop out to discussion (that IS what you’re here for, isn’t it? Otherwise why join the discussion?). Furthermore comments like that are precisely what modern leftists say when they are challenged in debates on their preposterous claims, because they argue via dogmatic ideas instead of logical thoughts, so if you don’t agree the solution is not a logical explanation, but rather the need to consume more propaganda. Don’t come at me with an order to consume more propaganda, if you have something to share then put in your own effort to share it (and be prepared for counter-arguments!).

Realities of the situation:

1. Japan and America have different global interests and each country is responsible for pursuing the interests that benefit its people the most.

2. The US was bound by the same warship limiting treaty as Japan, however we followed it and they didn’t. They built up a hugely menacing force in the pacific and abused neutral nations.

3. The situation caused by points 1 and 2 lead to the issue that US interests and Japanese interests are incompatible. The US, without military action, acted in its own interests economically as it was morally correct to do.

4. The Japanese escalated the situation from diverging political interests to murdering people. That’s very clear to me as the ‘start’ of the conflict.

5. After an extremely brutal conflict, with the Japanese committing the vast majority of war crimes. And after years spent fighting an uncompromising enemy, the US ended the war in an extraordinarily expedient way (the atomic bomb) and saved the many lives that would have been lost in a land invasion of Japan. Wars need to be ended, if there’s no conclusion and one side walks away, the other side regains strength and comes back to kill. It’s foolish to believe the Japanese would have just quit due to a naval blockade… they live on an island. Why should the US expend resources prolonging a war instead of ending it? That makes no sense, and it’s not the goal of a warrior to prolong conflict.

 

[Aboulia]

It's a post when I have to run out the door in 5. I normally wouldn't comment on a thread like this, but trying to morally justify atrocities gets my blood boiling, my grandfather and his brothers fought in the war too, however, I'm not going to justify what they ended up fighting for. The point of my short post was that America created the Japan that tried to exploit it's neighbours. So for an American to complain about Japanese colonialism in any way is absurd.

“Establishment viewpoint” okay, well maybe because back then people weren’t constantly apologizing for doing the reasonable thing. Really not too many people died in the atomic bombings. A small price to pay for peace.

What exactly is "reasonable" about indiscriminate murder of civilians? Reason in the sense you're using it is a whore to self-interest. Romans 3:8.

1. Japan and America have different global interests and each country is responsible for pursuing the interests that benefit its people the most.

That's a game only powerful people like to play, because the benefit of "our people", would be the slavery and exploitation of "yours". It's the will to power ideology, which is rather disgusting in my eyes. You are not morally correct in slaughtering others because you "followed the rules of treaties". You can follow all the rules, and still be a depraved beast. This is why Christ condemned the Scribes/Pharisees. Self-interest and the Christian life are at the opposite ends of the moral spectrum, and America ended up becoming a nation choosing self-interest.

 

[Mr.S]

It's a post when I have to run out the door in 5. I normally wouldn't comment on a thread like this, but trying to morally justify atrocities gets my blood boiling, my grandfather and his brothers fought in the war too, however, I'm not going to justify what they ended up fighting for. The point of my short post was that America created the Japan that tried to exploit it's neighbours. So for an American to complain about Japanese colonialism in any way is absurd.



What exactly is "reasonable" about indiscriminate murder of civilians? Reason in the sense you're using it is a whore to self-interest. Romans 3:8.



That's a game only powerful people like to play, because the benefit of "our people", would be the slavery and exploitation of "yours". It's the will to power ideology, which is rather disgusting in my eyes. You are not morally correct in slaughtering others because you "followed the rules of treaties". You can follow all the rules, and still be a depraved beast. This is why Christ condemned the Scribes/Pharisees. Self-interest and the Christian life are at the opposite ends of the moral spectrum, and America ended up becoming a nation choosing self-interest.

Your claim that America created a Japan that did these things is not only wrong, but an absolutely preposterous claim. I’ve already made several points to support my argument which you ignored or dismissed without a logic counter argument (#2 for example), but here’s more supporting evidence: Japan was a fox in the henhouse- the second they unified as a single empire (with absolutely zero American interaction) they immediately started invading neighboring countries. They invaded Taiwan, they started a fight with the Russians, and they annexed Korea. Please explain how America influenced that if you want to stand by that claim. I insist. In WW1, they begin their involvement with China which was long and brutal. How was this America’s doing? In the interwar period they ignored all the peace treaties limiting navy size and did whatever they wanted (all the Christian nations honored their word). And FINALLY the US decides maybe it’s not a good idea to keep funding the evil perpetrated by Japan. And how do they respond to that? Violence of course! Keep in mind the reason Japan was expanding in the Pacific was because they wanted resource independence. Is it America’s fault they have no rubber or iron ore in their ground?

So what is reasonable about killing people with an atomic bomb? Well, wars have killing so you’re going to have to get over that if you want to have a rational discussion. And the bomb?, it shortened the war we didn’t start and prevented a lot of other people from dying. Can you please explain what about that is unreasonable? What should the US have done instead and precisely how many lives do you estimate would have been lost with your idea?

Your last paragraph seems to be misconstruing a lot of unrelated things? I won’t address it.

 

[Dusty]

Way more civilians were killed in Germany than Japan in WW2. Yet, I have only heard about the Jap deaths in my life . Why don’t we hear about how the German civilians killed was an atrocity? No one has sympathy for white Germans.

Yes, war is hell. I’m anti war. When a country like Japan bombs the territory of powerful country like the USA, they’re going to get their ass beat. Thats the reality of war. They can’t get away with it.

As horrible as theses bombings were, if that’s what it took to finally end this war, then it was the right thing to do.. If it saved American lives from dying in a prolonged drawn out war, then it was worth it.

 

[Cervantes]

The targeting of the Nagasaki bomb was definitely satanic.

The first Catholic missionary in Japan, St. Francis Xavier, arrived in Nagasaki on August 15th 1549. The first Catholic converts were persecuted mercilessly almost immediately and for centuries afterwards they were constantly converted and then martyred. Despite the repression, Catholicism took root in Nagasaki and grew such that by 1895 Japanese Catholics were able to build the first and largest Catholic Cathedral in Asia.

The Nagasaki bomb was dropped exactly over the Cathedral during a Mass, right in the middle of the Catholic district of Nagasaki. The date was August 9th, 1945 - almost on the anniversary of the arrival of St. Francis. 75% of Nagasaki's 12,000 Catholics were vaporized.

The original cathedral was built over the site where for hundreds of years Japanese Catholics were interrogated and martyred. In 1945 they were martyred there again. The Japanese government wanted to keep the ruined cathedral as a secular monument to western barbarity - but the Catholic survivors insisted that their Cathedral be built again over the site of their martyred saints.

The Catholic Holocaust of Nagasaki—“Why, Lord?” - Homiletic & Pastoral Review

On August 9, 1945, God’s inscrutable providence allowed an atomic bomb named “Fat Man” to be dropped from a B-29 into the heavily populated city of

www.hprweb.com

The developers of the atomic bomb were mostly jews: Leo Szilard, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls and Robert Oppenheimer.

 

[Aboulia]

Your claim that America created a Japan that did these things is not only wrong, but an absolutely preposterous claim. I’ve already made several points to support my argument which you ignored or dismissed without a logic counter argument (#2 for example), but here’s more supporting evidence: Japan was a fox in the henhouse- the second they unified as a single empire (with absolutely zero American interaction) they immediately started invading neighboring countries. They invaded Taiwan, they started a fight with the Russians, and they annexed Korea. Please explain how America influenced that if you want to stand by that claim. I insist. In WW1, they begin their involvement with China which was long and brutal. How was this America’s doing? In the interwar period they ignored all the peace treaties limiting navy size and did whatever they wanted (all the Christian nations honored their word). And FINALLY the US decides maybe it’s not a good idea to keep funding the evil perpetrated by Japan. And how do they respond to that? Violence of course! Keep in mind the reason Japan was expanding in the Pacific was because they wanted resource independence. Is it America’s fault they have no rubber or iron ore in their ground?

So what is reasonable about killing people with an atomic bomb? Well, wars have killing so you’re going to have to get over that if you want to have a rational discussion. And the bomb?, it shortened the war we didn’t start and prevented a lot of other people from dying. Can you please explain what about that is unreasonable? What should the US have done instead and precisely how many lives do you estimate would have been lost with your idea?

Your last paragraph seems to be misconstruing a lot of unrelated things? I won’t address it.

Japan only started it's colonialism after America violated the sovereignty of it's borders by forcing their way in through gunship diplomacy, so all your examples are moot. Forcing your way in, you brought into attention what dangers lie outside, and made them realize that only power matters, and if the world is working like that, then Japan better be as strong as it can be, in order to do that, it has to expand because Japan isn't a resource rich country. The technology and thought was brought in from outside. Show where Japan previous to 1850 acted as a colonial power domineering it's neighbouring countries for resources.

I’ve already made several points to support my argument which you ignored or dismissed without a logic counter argument (#2 for example),

If power is the only thing that matters, who cares what words on a page say? If you have enough power you can define what those words mean, as you see the entire warping of reality today, where the 1st Amendment is used to justify the propagation of pornography instead of guaranteeing the right to criticize the government without fear of reprisal. The US doesn't even take it's own words seriously, otherwise the South would have seceded and the American Civil war wouldn't have happened.

So why should Japan take it's treaty with the US seriously when the US doesn't even treat it's own seriously?

Well, wars have killing so you’re going to have to get over that if you want to have a rational discussion. And the bomb?, it shortened the war we didn’t start and prevented a lot of other people from dying. Can you please explain what about that is unreasonable?

Wars involve killing yes; not the issue. The indiscriminate slaughter of noncombatants/civilians while moral posturing yourself as the good, justified, civilized people, is what I am, and will always be opposed to. I don't care who does it.

As for pretending America didn't provoke Japan, go ahead and read the article I posted in my first post. Why should I rehash it?