Why is the strike on Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? [Very provocative]

Hello everyone It's been a long time since we've seen each other in this category, and I think most of them don't remember its existence at all. However, yes, let me briefly remind you. Here I am talking about various things (especially those related to history or ideology) from a point of view that may seem strange to many, but which I support to one degree or another. 

Today, the topic of conversation is the nuclear bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US Air Force, which were imprinted on culture and society and became the first and last (hopefully) use of nuclear weapons during an armed conflict. But what if I tell you that I consider these bombings justified in that particular case? Why? Let me explain it to you.

Let's start with a short preface. War is bad. Any situation where it's not about literally saving your own life (but that's a debatable issue, let's not go into it). And anyway, as they say, Make love, not war.

However, it is also worth noting the fact that any historical event or phenomenon should be viewed precisely from the perspective of what was happening at that time around. Therefore, we will proceed precisely depending on the point of view of the current and ongoing war for more than one year. 

So why do I think the bombing is justified? For myself, I have identified three reasons (which are formulated in detail on the same Wikipedia, but I will only briefly present them to you in my own words and from my position).

Reason 1: The preference of bombing over invasion and the rapid surrender of Japan

I think it's no secret to many that the militarists in Japan did not want to capitulate in any way. The Emperor had almost no influence on the situation (according to some statements, he was completely against the initial hostilities), and the Japanese were gradually preparing to land on the territory of their native islands.

And now imagine if the cleansing of the Japanese on small islands could last several weeks and spent an extremely large amount of material and human resources, what would an attempt to land on the islands of Japan itself cost? 

Do you remember the stories of how entire Japanese units in the Pacific and the Philippines resisted for years after the official surrender? Imagine what would have happened in their native land after the occupation. The Germans, who for the most part are less fanatical than the Japanese, did a lot of harm (for example, the same partisans from the Werewolf). Imagine what kind of casualties and instability there would have been after the Japanese occupation.

The number of victims from terrorist attacks, attacks by guerrilla groups and other similar activities, even if it had not reached the number of victims of the bombing, it would still have been noticeable.

Reason 2: Saving a large number of lives

Yes, it sounds paradoxical, but it's true. 

In addition to the fact that there would have been noticeably more deaths among the civilian population in Japan itself (even without nuclear warheads, Japanese cities could have been remarkably destroyed by conventional ammunition and fires, which was actively happening, but would have acquired much greater proportions), this would have affected people in the territories occupied by Japan.

China, Korea, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, everywhere there were mass killings of civilians (and extremely sophisticated ones at that), mobilization of labor resources, and other war crimes. With the surrender of Japan, all this stopped. If she hadn't capitulated, the additional number of victims would have been in the millions. 

Reason 3: Legitimate goals and an act of retaliation

The Japanese were known for using the entire or almost the entire population for military purposes. Children and women worked for military enterprises and were sometimes even happy about it. As a result, in the conditions of the so-called "total war", the division into justified and unjustified targets for destruction is very problematic.

Yes, and mentioning the atrocities committed by the Japanese. They are usually omitted for the sake of ethics, but I will list some anyway (especially about squad 731), because it is better not to read for the faint of heart. So that's what they were doing: dissecting living people, killing people in pressure chambers, frostbite on limbs and causing gangrene, and so on and so forth. And even without taking into account this particular detachment, the mass killings of civilians and prisoners of war by the Japanese can be noted.

Therefore, people needed something like this as an act of revenge (and quite humane, compared to what the Japanese themselves were doing). However, there may already be a conversation about collective responsibility (relevant today), which is oh so difficult.

Well, it turned out that way.

The main problem, of course, is the very perception of Japan and the Japanese. Japan now and Japan 80-100 years ago are completely different countries. Therefore, it should be assessed in such a way that they bombed not the Japan that we know, but a completely different one.

For now, that's it for today. What do you think about this? It will be interesting to find out!