Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Nuking North Korea or taking 50,000 more US casualties - yea let the bombers fly.

Frazzled wrote:Nuking North Korea or taking 50,000 more US casualties - yea let the bombers fly.

Not that I'd ever want it to get anywhere near this level but, you would really put the lives of 50,000 US casualties (very likely to be entirely military) over 24 million people?


And also, I guess that little snippit about the Allies having peace talks with Hitler was just you blowing wind again?

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nuking North Korea or taking 50,000 more US casualties - yea let the bombers fly.

Not that I'd ever want it to get anywhere near this level but, you would really put the lives of 50,000 US casualties (very likely to be entirely military) over 24 million people?
***I'd put the lives of 50,000 American troops over the rest of mankind. If you make the mistake of attacking the US or US troops then there should be nothing left of you but salted earth and razed cities. After all WWGKD? (What would Genghis Khan do?)

And also, I guess that little snippit about the Allies having peace talks with Hitler was just you blowing wind again?
***There were many who wanted to surrender, and were trying to kill Hitler. Alas and Alack they didn't actually surrender until they were generally killed off. Japan was no different. The Soviets were playing with them, stalling for time while they built up their forces.

Frazzled wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Nuking North Korea or taking 50,000 more US casualties - yea let the bombers fly.

Not that I'd ever want it to get anywhere near this level but, you would really put the lives of 50,000 US casualties (very likely to be entirely military) over 24 million people?
***I'd put the lives of 50,000 American troops over the rest of mankind. If you make the mistake of attacking the US or US troops then there should be nothing left of you but salted earth and razed cities. After all WWGKD? (What would Genghis Khan do?)

Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?

And also, I guess that little snippit about the Allies having peace talks with Hitler was just you blowing wind again?
***There were many who wanted to surrender, and were trying to kill Hitler. Alas and Alack they didn't actually surrender until they were generally killed off. Japan was no different. The Soviets were playing with them, stalling for time while they built up their forces.

Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.

Genghis Khan only committed atrocities like that to ease his conquest of others. If you behead an entire city for not surrendering, the next 5 cities will. We don't really need to conquer 5 countries, so obliterating one doesn't make sense.

Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.

Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.

Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
***I can actually. Germany surrendered after getting its ass kicked. Japan would not have surrendered unless it got its ass kicked. The bombs and the Soviet invasion helped prevent that and thdreds of thousands to millions of Japanese that would have died.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitzbitah wrote:Genghis Khan only committed atrocities like that to ease his conquest of others. If you behead an entire city for not surrendering, the next 5 cities will. We don't really need to conquer 5 countries, so obliterating one doesn't make sense.

Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.

Look at the countries that harmed his ambassadors. Oh yea, they don't exist any more.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitzbitah wrote:
Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.

Now thats thinking outside the box. I am down with that. Announce Thursday that Oh By the Way we sold South Korea 200 nukes, these launchers, and these subs. Then announce we are leaving 2 minutes later - toodles!

Frazzled wrote:Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.

And again you hide your frankly disgusting point of view behind jokes.

Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
***I can actually. Germany surrendered after getting its ass kicked. Japan would not have surrendered unless it got its ass kicked. The bombs and the Soviet invasion helped prevent that and thdreds of thousands to millions of Japanese that would have died.

Nazi Germany did not surrender until there was virtually no Nazi Germany left. Japan is entirely different, with talks of peace occuring before the dropping of the A-bombs and Soviet invasion. And even after those events, when they surrendered (almost) unconditionally, the government and armed forces were still intact.

Gitzbitah wrote:Genghis Khan only committed atrocities like that to ease his conquest of others. If you behead an entire city for not surrendering, the next 5 cities will. We don't really need to conquer 5 countries, so obliterating one doesn't make sense.

Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.

Look at the countries that harmed his ambassadors. Oh yea, they don't exist any more.

Historically no countries exist now as they did then.

I am also 87% sure that Gitzbah was demonstrating a point as to how the ends don't justify the means.

Frazzled wrote:

Gitzbitah wrote:
Nuking North Korea isn't our call- I say we sell the South Koreans nukes, and see what happens.

Now thats thinking outside the box. I am down with that. Announce Thursday that Oh By the Way we sold South Korea 200 nukes, these launchers, and these subs. Then announce we are leaving 2 minutes later - toodles!

Partially- I was actually hoping to point out that an atrocity intended to achieve goals and minimize future casualties would be preferable to an atrocity intended to just destroy someone who has angered us. I was thinking of Genghis's habit of severely punishing cities that refused to cooperate and being relatively merciful to those that surrendered. I had in fact forgotten about the aspect frazzled pointed out.


Unlike Mr. Khan, we are not trying to conquer the world, so we don't need to destroy countries to make the rest surrender.

Frazzled wrote:Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.

And again you hide your frankly disgusting point of view behind jokes.
++++Wait, you thought I was joking? You have a better sense of humor than I do. I would think your troops would hope you support them similarly, but they would be wrong I guess.

Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
***I can actually. Germany surrendered after getting its ass kicked. Japan would not have surrendered unless it got its ass kicked. The bombs and the Soviet invasion helped prevent that and thdreds of thousands to millions of Japanese that would have died.

Nazi Germany did not surrender until there was virtually no Nazi Germany left. Japan is entirely different, with talks of peace occuring before the dropping of the A-bombs and Soviet invasion. And even after those events, when they surrendered (almost) unconditionally, the government and armed forces were still intact.
+++No different. They were still killing Americans.

I am also 87% sure that Gitzbah was demonstrating a point as to how the ends don't justify the means.
++++They don’t? You’re so cute. You really are a pie in the sky guy teenager aren’t you. I hear the Obama administration is hiring.

Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!

Spoken like a true nationalist.

I am a history major in my third year of study and have done some upper level courses in this subject specifically, so i wanted to give my two cents. What many people do not realize is that the Japanese had attempted to surrender prior to this, only their terms were not acceptable to the American government. Also, the idea that the entire population of Japan and its armed forces still had a high moral at this point is untrue. The Japanese, at this stage in the war, had begun drafting old men, and intelectuals, the cream of their universities, into front line units. I imagine many of these same individuals were supportive of the war in the early days, but as one might imagine did not enjoy being at the front. This, coupled with the complete lack of food and supply( most japanese equipment, which I have examined pieces of, was complete garbage) of Japanese troops, led to very low moral in parts of the Japanese army during the final stages of the war. Banzai charges, which were the hallmark of Japanese fanatacism, were almost non existant by this stage in the war. It is true that the Japanese soldiers on the front were reluctant to surrender, fearing reprisa(rightfully so)l from the vengeful peoples they had opressed. It was also often true that these soldiers were given no chance to surrender. American troops, having fallen victim to suicide bombers in the form of surrendering soldiers, were sometimes more likely to take a flamethrower to a bunker or gun down enemy soldiers for their own safety. It is also hard to deny that the United States desired some form of revenge for Pear Harbor. A very informative film that will put this in perfect perspective is called "Nobi" or "Fires on the Plain", it is based of memoirs of a Japanese Soldier in the late stages of the war.

I am an ardent patriot, and love my country deeply. It is true, in my opinion, that the A bomb brought the war to a swift end, saving the lives of countless American soldiers and halting further crimes against humanity in territory occupied by the Japanese. However, every time I ask myself the question, "Would I have done it", I can never come up with an answer

Check out the World at War Episode on the Bomb. Its much closer to the timeline and has manay of the parties involved (on both sides) and their thinking.

thedude wrote:

Japan did not deserve to save face by dictating the terms of their surrender, they needed to be humbled and humiliated!

Spoken like a true nationalist.

What? I'm not a nationalist, quite the opposite actually. Anybody that believes that the Japanese were really ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped really does not grasp the Japanese military mentality. They wanted to go down in a blaze of glory in order to satisfy their honor. The Japanese commanders wanted surrender to favorable terms, if they were going to surrender at all. They were willing to go down and inflict massive casualties in order to force the allies to the bargaining table. The bomb made that unnecessary!

No matter how (in)capable or (un)willing the Japanese military was at the time there would have more US casualties in any aggressive US invasion of mainland Japan, followed by years of guerrilla war (hell some held their positions into the 70's) and resistance to occupation, of that there can be no doubt. Costing the lives of many many, US soldiers and Japanese civilians, not t mention costing millions if not billions of additional money.

I don't know the exact list of Japanese terms of surrender, but I'm sure they would have included avoiding war crimes charges. These guys were monsters that made the Nazis look like amateurs!

Yes, I feel a US soldier's life is worth more than an enemies life, its worth an infinity of the enemy's lives! THEY ARE THE FRICKIN ENEMY, and they dragged us into this! Yes, I feel a US soldier's life is worth more than a few of the enemy's Civilian's lives. Not an infinite amount, but quite a few.

The fact however is that the bomb saved both US and Japanese lives.

@Andrew your previous statement implies not letting Japanese dictate their terms of surrender was more important than almost 200k japanese civilian lives.

In a previous posts you stated you feel no remorse for a terrible culture and its people...implying of course the japanese were a terrible culture.

While Japanese hegemony was certainly an issue, you continue to make a classic nationalist fallacy by automaticaly assuming your idealogy is superior to another cultures and demonize it's people.
Their nationalist pride valued service to their cause over their lives, but how is that any different than the US or any other nation for that matter?

So all is fair in war is your logic? Again, following this logic how do you feel about the the atrocious attacks of 9/11? To the perpetraters, America and its citizens are a culture of wicked and corrupt people who's nationalism and hegemony is hell bent on controlling the arab regions.

Frazzled wrote:Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.

So, are you saying US soldiers are more valuable than your children? After all, they fit in the category of "anybody else".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:I'd put the lives of 50,000 American troops over the rest of mankind.

No you wouldn't. If you would, you wouldn't have written the sentence below.

Frazzled wrote:
If you make the mistake of attacking the US or US troops then there should be nothing left of you but salted earth and razed cities. After all WWGKD? (What would Genghis Khan do?)

There are several reasons that no one with actual authority, or sense, would advocate this position.. Among them: killing off everyone who attacked us would leave us without an trading partners, killing off everyone who attacked us would be profoundly expensive, killing off everyone who attacked us would entail the deaths of an incredible amount of American citizens.

Frazzled is the worst kind of armchair general, bloodthirsty and insulated from his beliefs by the people who would actually have to do what he is proposing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:No different. They were still killing Americans.

Americans kill Americans all the time, clearly America should declare total war on America.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Andrew1975 wrote:
They barely had the resources in the first place, that's what their expansion was about in the first place.

Are you talking about conflict in general, or conflict with the US?

Recall that the existence of more than one government always leads to future conflict.

thedude wrote:@Andrew your previous statement implies not letting Japanese dictate their terms of surrender was more important than almost 200k japanese civilian lives.

In a previous posts you stated you feel no remorse for a terrible culture and its people...implying of course the japanese were a terrible culture.

While Japanese hegemony was certainly an issue, you continue to make a classic nationalist fallacy by automaticaly assuming your idealogy is superior to another cultures and demonize it's people.
Their nationalist pride valued service to their cause over their lives, but how is that any different than the US or any other nation for that matter?

So all is fair in war is your logic? Again, following this logic how do you feel about the the atrocious attacks of 9/11? To the perpetraters, America and its citizens are a culture of wicked and corrupt people who's nationalism and hegemony is hell bent on controlling the arab regions.

All was fair when dealing with the Japanese, they dictated the rules. Nowhere else were allied soldiers forced to fight like that. I personally know US soldiers that fought in Japan and Europe, the marines that fought the Japanese have the worst horror stories (the ones they will share anyway).

If you read any of my other posts, you will note that I'm not interventionist, I am no were near a nationalist. But when you are forced to fight a vicious enemy, they need to be dealt with accordingly.

The perpetrates of 911 deserve and Osama type death. Luckily they are a very small percentage of arabs. If a nation like Iran pulled off the 911 attack I would have no remorse for any US retaliation. If it came to it, nukeing them into submission wouldn't be off the table depending on how the war went (if we felt we could pull it off without starting WWIII). I'm sure you would advocate turning the other cheek though right! How enlightened of you!

There are delusional people all over the place, I can't explain their motivations anymore than I can explain your delusions about the Japanese. If Arab leaders like Osama want to use the US as the great satan so that they can build a cult of personality made up of ignorant tribal hill arabs, well I can't do anything about that anymore than I can stop American neo-Nazis from brainwashing desperate white people, by convincing them that Jesus (who was NOT WHITE BY THE WAY) was a white supremest.

I love people who shout out about American colonialism, show me one place in the middle east that is a US colony. Iraq? Really? There are alot of deranged people all over the world, I have no issue with taking them out when they pose a threat to civilized society and humanity in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Are you talking about conflict in general, or conflict with the US?

Recall that the existence of more than one government always leads to future conflict.

I would consider any conflict in general the Japanese would have entered into thinking they could get away with these same code of conduct they had in WWII. That idea that that was an acceptable way to fight a war and be rewarded with favorable surrender terms is irresponsible and unacceptable.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I would consider any conflict in general the Japanese would have entered into thinking they could get away with these same code of conduct they had in WWII. That idea that that was an acceptable way to fight a war and be rewarded with favorable surrender terms is irresponsible and unacceptable.

So you're saying that any general conflict was an implicit conflict with the US?

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
I would consider any conflict in general the Japanese would have entered into thinking they could get away with these same code of conduct they had in WWII. That idea that that was an acceptable way to fight a war and be rewarded with favorable surrender terms is irresponsible and unacceptable.

So you're saying that any general conflict was an implicit conflict with the US?

I'm saying a belligerent Japan was EVIL. You know I'm not big on intervention in most cases. I am however about stopping a war once we are attacked, in the quickest way possible. If that means the enemy suffers disproportionately, let it be a warning to others that we don't play around. I'm not blood thirsty, I think its great that we didn't have to eradicate the Japanese and all of their culture and history off the face of the planet. We might of had to if it wasn't for the bombs.

I didn't care about Iraq going into Kuwait, until it was shown how the Iraqi's were going on a kill crazy murder spree. Countries can fight each other all they want as far as I'm concerned. But there have got to be standards. If someone chooses to involve us by means of direct attack, and fights in unconscionable ways, I feel it is irresponsible to expose our soldiers to that kind of treatment.

If someone, especially as brutal as WWII Japan were to attack us or our allies, then yes they need to be dealt with.

That's where we're going to differ then. I don't believe evil is a sensible concept, and I'm not concerned with the actions done to others except as they impact my hedon count (hedonism is awesome). Though, really, its pretty easy to impact my hedon count via the chain of human connectivity.

dogma wrote:That's where we're going to differ then. I don't believe evil is a sensible concept, and I'm not concerned with the actions done to others except as they impact my hedon count (hedonism is awesome). Though, really, its pretty easy to impact my hedon count via the chain of human connectivity.

That's fine, we know you have no principles. At least you honest about it. I just don't think it is right to expose our soldiers, especially drafted soldiers to undue harm and suffering when we can just inflict it on an enemy that has shown contempt for the rules of relatively civilized war.

Dogma, Logically you must see the wisdom of inflicting pain on your enemy rather than inflicting pain on both your allies and your enemy. By pure logic the bomb make sense. I'm also arguing that on a humanitarian level it makes sense. On a military level it makes sense. I really don't see if being anything but a good idea on any level. Maybe not a good idea, lets face it, it sucked to be put in that situation, but the best idea.

If you force me to choose between inflicting suffering on my team or your team, how could you be surprised I pick your team. You forced the decision! I didn't even want to be there.

I'm saying a belligerent Japan was EVIL. You know I'm not big on intervention in most cases. I am however about stopping a war once we are attacked, in the quickest way possible. If that means the enemy suffers disproportionately, let it be a warning to others that we don't play around. I'm not blood thirsty, I think its great that we didn't have to eradicate the Japanese and all of their culture and history off the face of the planet. We might of had to if it wasn't for the bombs.

I didn't care about Iraq going into Kuwait, until it was shown how the Iraqi's were going on a kill crazy murder spree. Countries can fight each other all they want as far as I'm concerned. But there have got to be standards. If someone chooses to involve us by means of direct attack, and fights in unconscionable ways, I feel it is irresponsible to expose our soldiers to that kind of treatment.

If someone, especially as brutal as WWII Japan were to attack us or our allies, then yes they need to be dealt with.

You are missing the point. All of your arguments are extremely subjective and your logic does not hold up. If you hold your nation to the same standard as you do Japan then your whole argument crumbles so you ignore half of the facts in support of your opinion while justifying the actions of your country. Every so called ' evil ' you can show, someone can show you something worse the US has done or another country has done. As I have stated before, I love my country (and I certinaly dont value Japan above America) but that does not mean I am willifully blind to the facts.

thedude wrote:

I'm saying a belligerent Japan was EVIL. You know I'm not big on intervention in most cases. I am however about stopping a war once we are attacked, in the quickest way possible. If that means the enemy suffers disproportionately, let it be a warning to others that we don't play around. I'm not blood thirsty, I think its great that we didn't have to eradicate the Japanese and all of their culture and history off the face of the planet. We might of had to if it wasn't for the bombs.

I didn't care about Iraq going into Kuwait, until it was shown how the Iraqi's were going on a kill crazy murder spree. Countries can fight each other all they want as far as I'm concerned. But there have got to be standards. If someone chooses to involve us by means of direct attack, and fights in unconscionable ways, I feel it is irresponsible to expose our soldiers to that kind of treatment.

If someone, especially as brutal as WWII Japan were to attack us or our allies, then yes they need to be dealt with.

You are missing the point. All of your arguments are extremely subjective and your logic does not hold up. If you hold your nation to the same standard as you do Japan then your whole argument crumbles so you ignore half of the facts in support of your opinion while justifying the actions of your country. Every so called ' evil ' you can show, someone can show you something worse the US has done or another country has done. As I have stated before, I love my country (and I certinaly dont value Japan above America) but that does not mean I am willifully blind to the facts.

You are missing the point, and I dare say you are very blind to the facts! I dare you to find US atrocities like the rape of nanking or the bataan death march (besides what we did to the American Indians, but I've covered that in the past). Yes the US has done some gakky and underhanded things. But nothing like on the level that was institutionally and more frighteningly culturally mandated by the Japanese. Usually the gakky things we do are political, in war the (post American Indians) US with a few minor exceptions is usually pretty well under control and even goes after it's own war criminals, that have never, by the way done anything on the scale that most other militaries have.

You hold the typical White American quilt, that would let our enemies fight anyway they want but would crucify our soldiers if they inflict one accidental civilian casualty. Get over it.

Other countries and the US have done worse than the Japanese? When, not in modern history! Prove it! Maybe the Germans, we let the Russians have them, a fate in many ways worse than dropping the bomb.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Dogma, Logically you must see the wisdom of inflicting pain on your enemy rather than inflicting pain on both your allies and your enemy. By pure logic the bomb make sense. I'm also arguing that on a humanitarian level it makes sense. On a military level it makes sense. I really don't see if being anything but a good idea on any level. Maybe not a good idea, lets face it, it sucked to be put in that situation, but the best idea.

Remember, my contention isn't that we should have invaded instead, my contention is that the only reason the choices were so limited was due to the influence of "big, masculine, American men."

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
Dogma, Logically you must see the wisdom of inflicting pain on your enemy rather than inflicting pain on both your allies and your enemy. By pure logic the bomb make sense. I'm also arguing that on a humanitarian level it makes sense. On a military level it makes sense. I really don't see if being anything but a good idea on any level. Maybe not a good idea, lets face it, it sucked to be put in that situation, but the best idea.

Remember, my contention isn't that we should have invaded instead, my contention is that the only reason the choices were so limited was due to the influence of "big, masculine, American men."

That's a strange stance from you. Usually I can see the logic in your arguments. This is a blatant appeal to emotion and or ego. Something I find very alien from you. Now you may ne saying tat tat was their argument. But it really seams far too base and even simplistic to be taken seriously, could you expound on it.

We didn't need to make Japan surrender on our terms, their terms were just as favorable to us. The issue wasn't Japan and its holdings, it was our own desire to appear strong for the Soviets, and ourselves. Had we simply let Japan have the holdings it wanted no one would have died by our hands, and we could have returned to our soon to be minted suburbs, and bad television.

The point I'm making is that the identity we promulgated during the war constrained our choices at the end, and that we should be mindful of how we construct our identity in the future as a result. Of course I didn't really address that last part until now, but it was in the back of my mind.

dogma wrote:We didn't need to make Japan surrender on our terms, their terms were just as favorable to us. The issue wasn't Japan and its holdings, it was our own desire to appear strong for the Soviets, and ourselves. Had we simply let Japan have the holdings it wanted no one would have died by our hands, and we could have returned to our soon to be minted suburbs, and bad television.

The point I'm making is that the identity we promulgated during the war constrained our choices at the end, and that we should be mindful of how we construct our identity in the future as a result. Of course I didn't really address that last part until now, but it was in the back of my mind.

I'm not sure I agree with 1. Their terms being acceptable. 2. That they would have complied with them even if they had surrendered.

You had most of the Japanese higher ups favoring a death or glory final assault, to the point that they staged a coup even after both bombs were dropped and Russia invaded Manchuko. I'm sorry but their past actions suggest that they would not have surrendered until they were completely dishonored, leaving them no honor to fight for anymore.

I'm sure showing off to the Russians and the rest of the world was part of it. I'm sure the desire to test a new weapon was part of it too. But as far as I'm concerned these were just cherries on the top of an already best solution to a terrible situation. Making it the best ideas at the time.

The facts that historically it has proven to be an even better idea are again cherries. Those bombs saved many lives from seeing the future of nuclear holocaust and have kept the world in a pretty peaceful state.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with 1. Their terms being acceptable.

Sure, but why weren't they acceptable? They were favorable, as I said, but what made command say no?

Andrew1975 wrote:
2. That they would have complied with them even if they had surrendered.

Why not? They were their terms, after all.

Frazzled wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Right. So what makes the life of a US Soldier worth more than that over anyone else? Or 20 anybodys?
***They are US soldiers. Duh! This aint rocket science kid.

And again you hide your frankly disgusting point of view behind jokes.
++++Wait, you thought I was joking? You have a better sense of humor than I do. I would think your troops would hope you support them similarly, but they would be wrong I guess.

Support my countrymen in the massacre of civilians? To hell with that.

Look, even you have to admit that no amount of warped logic can fairly compare the two situations. Japan actually surrender, Germany was stormed.
***I can actually. Germany surrendered after getting its ass kicked. Japan would not have surrendered unless it got its ass kicked. The bombs and the Soviet invasion helped prevent that and thdreds of thousands to millions of Japanese that would have died.

Nazi Germany did not surrender until there was virtually no Nazi Germany left. Japan is entirely different, with talks of peace occuring before the dropping of the A-bombs and Soviet invasion. And even after those events, when they surrendered (almost) unconditionally, the government and armed forces were still intact.
+++No different. They were still killing Americans.

The Native Americans were killing Colonial (White) Americans. I guess this justifies everything you did to them.

I am also 87% sure that Gitzbah was demonstrating a point as to how the ends don't justify the means.
++++They don’t? You’re so cute. You really are a pie in the sky guy teenager aren’t you. I hear the Obama administration is hiring.

I don't think either party, both having some sort of sanity, would advocate the US obliterating 1 city to have 5 others surrender peacefully. If they did then the accussations of American Imperialism would hold a lot more water.

The ultimate goal of the US was to end the war quickly and with minimal US casualties.

Peace talks are something I've heard of, but the US found these to be too slow.

SEPARATE SUBJECT:
I also have to agree with Frazzled a bit. We would all place our people above others. We would all also like to say that we don't. But when it comes down to that point, a few of us or a lot of them, how much do their lives compare to ours?