BaronIveagh wrote:
Because the leadership strikes me as being smart enough to realize they can't win a two front war or likely hold most of the ground they've taken. So this drive into Iraq has to have had a goal besides 'charge and hope for the best.'

I'm betting they have a source of DF and are looking for a reliable dispersal system and someone formerly in Saddam's army clued them in as to where they could likely get some.

The Russians did not even come close to what I'm talking about in Chechnya. How many cities there ceased to exist? How many severed heads did they pile up?

 sebster wrote:


And it just occurred to me I think we've had this debate before.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 sebster wrote:

It sure worked in Chechnya!

The Russians did not even come close to what I'm talking about in Chechnya. How many cities there ceased to exist? How many severed heads did they pile up?

 sebster wrote:
I don't know man, that seems pretty fanciful. A more simple motive would be to score some quick successes to draw more fighters to the cause.

 sebster wrote:

Okay then, the Nazis in Eastern Europe. It still didn't work.

PhantomViper wrote:

So, are you actually, honestly, arguing in favour of genocide?

And people are supposed to take your opinion seriously, about anything, from that point forward?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Don't get me wrong, historically, genocide does actually work (if there is no one left alive, they can't make war, can they?)

 BaronIveagh wrote:

but no. I'm advocating no quarter and total war, which is a different set of crimes against humanity all together.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

If they snipe at you, you kill every man, woman, and child in the place, and leave a pyramid of their heads outside the burned out town.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Here the thing: 'hearts and minds' does not work when dealing with religious fanatics. You can win that sort of things with a foe that's political, but not one that's motivated by a sincere religious belief that you're the devil.

PhantomViper wrote:

Historically it worked? Where?

PhantomViper wrote:

That is not total war, that is genocide.

PhantomViper wrote:

You know one other thing that works and that doesn't involve killing millions of innocent people? Stop meddling in their affairs! No one in the entire middle east cared if the US was "the devil" or not until you started interfering in the region during the cold war. Heck, the vast majority of the people that hate you now are those that you trained and funded in the first place just to betray or abandon afterwards!

Stop invading them, stop bombing them, stop actively arming and supporting those that they consider to be their enemies. Stop trying to subvert their culture and trying replace it with your own.

I would guess that you would have a whole less people thinking that you're "the devil" if you did those things.

PhantomViper wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Don't get me wrong, historically, genocide does actually work (if there is no one left alive, they can't make war, can they?)

Historically it worked? Where?

 whembly wrote:
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.

Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.

 Minx wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.

Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.

Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?

 whembly wrote:
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.

Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.*

*I'm not advocating that we'd nuke everytime we get in conflict, just that if we ever need to engage our military might, don't pussy-foot it. Go all out to incur not only the immediate result in your objective, but to telegraph the whole world that in the future, we mean business.

 Jihadin wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.

Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.*

*I'm not advocating that we'd nuke everytime we get in conflict, just that if we ever need to engage our military might, don't pussy-foot it. Go all out to incur not only the immediate result in your objective, but to telegraph the whole world that in the future, we mean business.

Political impact it will have on the Nation though in this time frame. Conducting this type of warfare against ISIS will not work and will generate more fighters against the Nation that would conduct this type of warfare

 CptJake wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Minx wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.

Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.

Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?

Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you.

As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.

 Minx wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Minx wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.

Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.

Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?

Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you.

As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.

Their military capabilities were severely crippled before the nukes. In addition both targets (and the alternatives) were not significant in terms of military and industry. They were largely unscathed and suitable study objects for the effects of nuclear weapons though. The DoE has some interesting publications on that.

A surrender would have happened with or without the nukes; negotiations were either planned or already under way.

Edit: I agree with your edited line about the additional (main) motivation.

 CptJake wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Minx wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.

Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.

Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?

Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you. It is also worth noting the Japanese were not the only target audience of the strikes, they also were intended to (and did) deliver a message to others.

As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CptJake wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Minx wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's why I'd advocate the Shock & Awe methods in any armed conflict.

Total destruction of your adversary to the point that they don't want to fight anymore.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a testiment to that.

Did their will to fight change with those acts of terror?

Their surrender would seem to indicate the answer for you. It is also worth noting the Japanese were not the only target audience of the strikes, they also were intended to (and did) deliver a message to others.

As for 'acts of terror', well I guess it is good to see your bias clearly displayed.

If the whole point of the nuclear bombings were to intimidate the Japanese into surrendering it's not exactly "bias" describing them as such. Even if it was arguably the least bloody option, it's still an atrocious one. Might want to take a look at yourself before yelling bias.

 Jihadin wrote:
44Ronin

You said

I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.

and now

What are you talking about? I mentioned I spoke to a former inmate by means of informal interview at Sydney APEC 2007 rally @ hyde park sydney

 Jihadin wrote:


If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?

Okinawans are not Mainlanders. The mainland was not set up in the same defensive manner as Okinawa

Conjecture is not a valid argument. All of that is irrelevant to the fact that dropping the bombs was an act of terrorism (by definition)

Operation Downfall
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[52]
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[53]
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[54] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[55] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[56]
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[57] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[58] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[58] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[59] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[60]

The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[61] There were so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[61]

With the impending victory of American troops, civilians often committed mass suicide, urged on by the Japanese soldiers who told locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: "There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" to blow themselves up.[45] Thousands of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians committing horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture. Some of them threw themselves and their family members from the southern cliffs where the Peace Museum now resides.[46] However, having been told by the Japanese military that they would suffer terribly at the hands of the arriving Americans if they allowed themselves to be taken alive, Okinawans "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[47][48] Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, notes that the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."[49] U.S. Military Intelligence Corps[50] combat translators such as Teruto Tsubota managed to convince many civilians not to kill themselves.[51] Survivors of the mass suicides blamed also the indoctrination of their education system of the time, when the Okinawans were taught to become "more Japanese than the Japanese," and expected to prove it.[52]

 Jihadin wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:


If we had landed would you in today's age consider it "bias" for not using the nuclear bomb and majority of the civilian population on main land Japan follow the same steps as the civilian population on Okinawa?
Do you think the Emperor would willingly sacrifice his "honor" to end the war without the nukes?

Okinawans are not Mainlanders. The mainland was not set up in the same defensive manner as Okinawa

Conjecture is not a valid argument. All of that is irrelevant to the fact that dropping the bombs was an act of terrorism (by definition)

Dammit 44Ronin now this is what I am talking about.

What did the Okinawans did though towards the end of the invasion of the island?



Edit

Operation Downfall
Because the U.S. military planners assumed "that operations in this area will be opposed not only by the available organized military forces of the Empire, but also by a fanatically hostile population",[11] high casualties were thought to be inevitable, but nobody knew with certainty how high. Several people made estimates, but they varied widely in numbers, assumptions, and purposes, which included advocating for and against the invasion. Afterwards, they were reused in the debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Casualty estimates were based on the experience of the preceding campaigns, drawing different lessons:

In a letter sent to Gen. Curtis LeMay from Gen. Lauris Norstad, when LeMay assumed command of the B-29 force on Guam, Norstad told LeMay that if an invasion took place, it would cost the US "half a million" dead.[52]
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that a 90-day Olympic campaign would cost 456,000 casualties, including 109,000 dead or missing. If Coronet took another 90 days, the combined cost would be 1,200,000 casualties, with 267,000 fatalities.[53]
A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 U.S casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.[54] A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 US casualties in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.[55] When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.[56]
In a conference with President Truman on June 18, Marshall, taking the Battle of Luzon as the best model for Olympic, thought the Americans would suffer 31,000 casualties in the first 30 days (and ultimately 20% of Japanese casualties, which implied a total of 70,000 casualties).[57] Adm. Leahy, more impressed by the Battle of Okinawa, thought the American forces would suffer a 35% casualty rate (implying an ultimate toll of 268,000).[58] Admiral King thought that casualties in the first 30 days would fall between Luzon and Okinawa, i.e., between 31,000 and 41,000.[58] Of these estimates, only Nimitz's included losses of the forces at sea, though kamikazes had inflicted 1.78 fatalities per kamikaze pilot in the Battle of Okinawa,[59] and troop transports off Kyūshū would have been much more exposed.
A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[1]

Outside the government, well-informed civilians were also making guesses. Kyle Palmer, war correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, said half a million to a million Americans would die by the end of the war. Herbert Hoover, in a memorandums submitted to Truman and Stimson, also estimated 500,000 to 1,000,000 fatalities, and those were believed to be conservative estimates; but it is not known if Hoover discussed these specific figures in his meetings with Truman. The chief of the Army Operations division thought them "entirely too high" under "our present plan of campaign."[60]

The Battle of Okinawa ran up 72,000 US casualties in 82 days, of whom 12,510 were killed or missing (this is conservative, because it excludes several thousand US soldiers who died after the battle indirectly, from their wounds.) The entire island of Okinawa is 464 sq mi (1,200 km2). If the US casualty rate during the invasion of Japan had been only 5% as high per unit area as it was at Okinawa, the US would still have lost 297,000 soldiers (killed or missing).

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan; the number exceeded that of all American military casualties of the 65 years following the end of World War II, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[61] There were so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan were able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to soldiers wounded on the field.[61]

Edit II
Back to Okinawa

With the impending victory of American troops, civilians often committed mass suicide, urged on by the Japanese soldiers who told locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote in 2007: "There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" to blow themselves up.[45] Thousands of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians committing horrible atrocities, killed their families and themselves to avoid capture. Some of them threw themselves and their family members from the southern cliffs where the Peace Museum now resides.[46] However, having been told by the Japanese military that they would suffer terribly at the hands of the arriving Americans if they allowed themselves to be taken alive, Okinawans "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy."[47][48] Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, notes that the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."[49] U.S. Military Intelligence Corps[50] combat translators such as Teruto Tsubota managed to convince many civilians not to kill themselves.[51] Survivors of the mass suicides blamed also the indoctrination of their education system of the time, when the Okinawans were taught to become "more Japanese than the Japanese," and expected to prove it.[52]

 44Ronin wrote:

Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.

 whembly wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.

Dude... Japan attacked us first.

I'd nuke'em too.

Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...

 whembly wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.

Dude... Japan attacked us first.

I'd nuke'em too.

Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Yeesh, that got rather dark, didn't it?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.

Dude... Japan attacked us first.

I'd nuke'em too.

Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...

The military attacked us. The government attacked us. The people did not. They had no say in the matter. They had no say at all.

The government attacked a military installation, thereby declaring war on us. Just because the government of Japan committed atrocities does not mean we had to. The first bomb was a hard choice, but most probably the right one. A land war would have caused more death. The second bomb was not quite as necessary, the surrender would probably occurred shortly, we should have waited. Any more would have made us worse than the Japanese military leadership. You speak of ending thousands of lives, and dealing damage and disease to generations to come. It is something that should not be taken lightly.

Yeesh, that got rather dark, didn't it?

Hirohito approved of the plan to attack Pearl Harbor and incite the American’s to join the war. Though the US was aware that an attack was probably coming, they failed to determine when and where. They were caught completely off guard when the Japanese attacked, destroying or disabling 18 ships and killing approximately 2,500 men. Anti-Japanese feelings ran high in the US with most of the public unaware that the goal of Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of War, had been "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

With war committed to, Hirohito did all he could to boost the militaristic sentiment in Japan and encourage his troops. Any doubts he may have had about beginning the war were behind him as he looked for victory. Soldiers and civilians alike were encouraged to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner by the Allied forces. In July 1944, as the tide of war turned against Japan, over 1,000 civilians threw themselves to their death after Hirohito promised them the same elevated status in the afterlife that was enjoyed by men killed in combat.

As early as February 1945, after the losses in the Leyte Gulf, Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe began to recommend negotiated peace, but the rest of Hirohito’s advisors remained staunchly against surrender. At the very least, they hoped for one more great victory in battle to give Japan a better negotiating position. Unfortunately for the people of Japan, that victory never materialized. Continued division among leadership and indecisiveness on Hirohito’s part allowed the death toll to rise.

When the US dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Hirohito was left with the options of surrendering or seeing his country obliterated. It was a closely kept secret that the US had not manufactured more than the bombs that had already been used. Hirohito said of the use of atomic bombs, "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."

On Aug. 15, 1945, the Emperor’s voice was heard over the radio for the first time as he announced Japan’s unconditional surrender.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 44Ronin wrote:

Please spare the typical American justification propaganda, a narrative which is bought wholesale by a stupid population that will grasp at any rationalisation even if it is purely irrational conjecture, to appease any sense of guilt attributed to the horrific act of inhumanity aimed at the Japanese civillian population.

Dude... Japan attacked us first.

I'd nuke'em too.

Truman could've authorized glassing Tokyo, or other more prominent cities...

The military attacked us. The government attacked us. The people did not. They had no say in the matter. They had no say at all.

The government attacked a military installation, thereby declaring war on us. Just because the government of Japan committed atrocities does not mean we had to. The first bomb was a hard choice, but most probably the right one. A land war would have caused more death. The second bomb was not quite as necessary, the surrender would probably occurred shortly, we should have waited. Any more would have made us worse than the Japanese military leadership. You speak of ending thousands of lives, and dealing damage and disease to generations to come. It is something that should not be taken lightly.

Yeesh, that got rather dark, didn't it?

Well since 44Ronin cannot really debate and none of us were in the decision process to drop Little Boy and Fat Boy. We can go only with what we know on a possible "why"

Hirohito approved of the plan to attack Pearl Harbor and incite the American’s to join the war. Though the US was aware that an attack was probably coming, they failed to determine when and where. They were caught completely off guard when the Japanese attacked, destroying or disabling 18 ships and killing approximately 2,500 men. Anti-Japanese feelings ran high in the US with most of the public unaware that the goal of Henry L. Stimson, United States Secretary of War, had been "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

With war committed to, Hirohito did all he could to boost the militaristic sentiment in Japan and encourage his troops. Any doubts he may have had about beginning the war were behind him as he looked for victory. Soldiers and civilians alike were encouraged to commit suicide rather than be taken prisoner by the Allied forces. In July 1944, as the tide of war turned against Japan, over 1,000 civilians threw themselves to their death after Hirohito promised them the same elevated status in the afterlife that was enjoyed by men killed in combat.

As early as February 1945, after the losses in the Leyte Gulf, Prime Minister Fumimaro Konoe began to recommend negotiated peace, but the rest of Hirohito’s advisors remained staunchly against surrender. At the very least, they hoped for one more great victory in battle to give Japan a better negotiating position. Unfortunately for the people of Japan, that victory never materialized. Continued division among leadership and indecisiveness on Hirohito’s part allowed the death toll to rise.

When the US dropped atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, Hirohito was left with the options of surrendering or seeing his country obliterated. It was a closely kept secret that the US had not manufactured more than the bombs that had already been used. Hirohito said of the use of atomic bombs, "It's very regrettable that nuclear bombs were dropped and I feel sorry for the citizens of Hiroshima but it couldn't be helped because that happened in wartime."

On Aug. 15, 1945, the Emperor’s voice was heard over the radio for the first time as he announced Japan’s unconditional surrender.

So basically we forced them to the table to surrender. We only had two bombs. If Imperial Japan knew that would they still have surrender? We do not know. So two nukes drop and Japan surrender avoiding high casualties on the US side and something borderline to genocide on the Japanese people if we had invaded.