>You cannot know if a bloody invasion was the only other option.
Well that was the shovel ready option that they were actively preparing for. IIRC it was scheduled for November so unless some other unexpected circumstance was going to force the Japanese into surrendering before then the invasion was going to happen.
>Or bombing a non densely populated area?
Considered and ruled out in 1945
>Also, you simply can't count the causalities of nuclear bombs the same way as conventional ones
Yes you can. It's done the same way. Start at zero and go up.
>since there will be related deaths for generations; increased cancer rates, birth defects etc.
This is only an issue for the people who survived the bomb first hand. It's not like their grandkids are going to suffer radiation sickness.
I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your tone but your comment reeks of being in an ivory tower and out of touch. There was every indication (Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name two) that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man on the home islands. There was a Japanese army running around beheading everyone in China. The American blockade was fighting off kamikaze attacks regularly. They could have firebombed those cities if they wanted but that wouldn't have sent the same message to Japanese leadership.
Every day the war continued cost lives. Using atomic weapons and ending the war sooner was well worth the extra cancer. I seriously cannot fathom the kind of ideology or belief system that leads one to conclude otherwise.
> This is only an issue for the people who survived the bomb first hand. It's not like their grandkids are going to suffer radiation sickness.
Huh? No, not radiation sickness as such, but future generations being more prone to have cancer, being born with defects and such. This isn't that hard.
Also, you reply reeks of thinking that I accept the premise that the U.S. seriously considered other options and ruled them out in the first place. It's pretty evident that they wanted to see if the bomb really works and even avoided bombing with conventional weapons, so they may use the nuclear option later.
I know this doesn't sound good and doesn't fit into the simplistic narrative everyone wants to imagine, but that's not my problem.
>Also, you reply reeks of thinking that I accept the premise that the U.S. seriously considered other options and ruled them out in the first place. It
This[1] sounds like "serious consideration" to me.
I like how you think that I have this opinion because I am missing some fact, or whatever - I know about the invasion plans, I am talking about other options ie non-military ones.
The Emperor basically wanted to still be Emperor after the war, which we ensured anyway, had we given such assurances prior, an invasion might not have been necessary at all. The Japanese were already discussing surrender.
Opinion of somebody who was there: "[...] the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make wars in that fashion, and that wars cannot be won by destroying women and children. "
And if you think that such use of nuclear weapons would be well considered, note that nukes were practically ready for Vietnam, because apparently Napalm wasn't enough.
Well that was the shovel ready option that they were actively preparing for. IIRC it was scheduled for November so unless some other unexpected circumstance was going to force the Japanese into surrendering before then the invasion was going to happen.
>Or bombing a non densely populated area?
Considered and ruled out in 1945
>Also, you simply can't count the causalities of nuclear bombs the same way as conventional ones
Yes you can. It's done the same way. Start at zero and go up.
>since there will be related deaths for generations; increased cancer rates, birth defects etc.
This is only an issue for the people who survived the bomb first hand. It's not like their grandkids are going to suffer radiation sickness.
I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your tone but your comment reeks of being in an ivory tower and out of touch. There was every indication (Iwo Jima and Okinawa to name two) that the Japanese were going to fight to the last man on the home islands. There was a Japanese army running around beheading everyone in China. The American blockade was fighting off kamikaze attacks regularly. They could have firebombed those cities if they wanted but that wouldn't have sent the same message to Japanese leadership.
Every day the war continued cost lives. Using atomic weapons and ending the war sooner was well worth the extra cancer. I seriously cannot fathom the kind of ideology or belief system that leads one to conclude otherwise.