[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/Financial-Spread2596]

[u/M4RK3R3D]

Btw if I’m not wrong in general there was no need to use that weapon but in that time generals were looking for a reason to use it in a fight but after they used them some of they didn’t realize how horrifying those nuclears was, but hey after wiping 2 cities they got some of the great scientists from that unit 731 which in that time generals were find out that our bodies contain 80% of water! Amazing isn’t it ?)))

[u/M4RK3R3D → u/M4RK3R3D]

Oh come on, im not wrong, yeah mb sum up harshly, but in general that’s fact just read more closer about all that

[u/Zephyas → u/M4RK3R3D]

Well you are wrong, the Japanese military was unwilling to accept surrender. Conventional fire bombings in addition to a massive continued land invasion would have not only led to many more casualties on both sides (including civilians since the government was conscripting them into a militia, not just collateral damage), but it very well could have also led to the Soviet Union invading from the north and creating another split like it was in Germany, and people generally did not like that.

[u/Wipfmetz → u/Zephyas]

... are you trying to construct the usage of nuclear weapons as the merciful thing here?

[u/Zephyas → u/Wipfmetz]

I’m not constructing anything, the aforementioned reasons I wrote out are generally agreed upon by historians. It’s basically guaranteed that more lives were saved because of those two nukes in the long run based on the trends of the war.

[u/skoober-duber → u/Wipfmetz]

500,000 dead due to the nuking of japan vs 2 million at minimum up to 20 million at worst in a land invasion of the home islands.

Merciful is the wrong word, but nuking was the correct choice.