It’s insane to me that we are taught to see it as a necessary and justified act. Yes, Japan refused to surrender, attacked us first, and their military committed horrific acts on the
Chinese and Koreans.
But, none of that justifies obliterating two cities full of children.
You're right, none of that justifies it because none of that is at all relevant to the issue. This is war. It's a military operation. You win not just by any means necessary, but by all means necessary. That means if you've got a bomb, if you've spent cash money on developing and building it, use it or else it was just a waste of time and money that could have been better spent elsewhere. The mere fact that you spent money on something during a war itself justifies using that thing.
To be clear I am not a shill or an apologist for the US military or for US foreign policy and imperialism. I would say the exact same thing if Japan had the bomb and they had dropped it somewhere on the US. If you've got it - use it. Otherwise what's the point of having it in the first place? It's different today in 2020, countries build nuclear weapons as a legitimately defensive option, to scare their enemies into not attacking them. In 2020 India or Pakistan or North Korea have no intention of actually firing their nuclear weapons, they just keep them in store to prevent being conquered by a foreign power. But in 1945 it was the first of its kind in existence, and therefore it was an offensive option that had to be used.
Ethics and morality and all that, they're for philosophy students to uselessly discuss over coffee; ethical and moral arguments don't figure whatsoever into military decision-making. The arguments that Japan attacked first, refused to surrender, committed atrocities themselves etc. again are totally irrelevant; it's just bad faith arguments made to appease philosophy students who want to talk about "morality" in war
The reason that there can never be morality or ethics in warfare is because warfare itself violates every moral and ethical standard in every human society that exists or ever existed. You can't have a war without violating the most sacred moral codes of conduct to begin with. Why is that? Well because the highest moral code, and this is universal, every single person and every single society can agree that the worst thing morally is killing another person. Murder. That's why across every society in the world today and in history, murder has always been the crime met with the highest punishment. Warfare is nothing but legalized murder. How can you enforce rules on an activity that itself violates the most sacred rule of them all?
Yeah you can have your Geneva Conventions and agreements about what constitutes a fair contest of arms and rules of engagement and all that, but those things are important only for how to deal with civilians after you have captured a city or a country. Once the fighting is done and their land is occupied, you have no reason to be brutal towards civilians. So you won't see me defend the things people have talked about in this thread like the Rape of Nanjing, or for example about American war crimes in Iraq post-2004. The atomic bombs were a different matter though. The war was still on, so civilian targets were fair game, because while the war is still on the most important thing, the only thing that matters, is winning at all and any costs. fukk the enemy, they're not your concern. Give them no quarter until they surrender.
. You look 12 
. How you so young and posting on a forum full of degeneracy 
.
