politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Everybody always says that without any evidence anytime this comes up.
What type of evidence are you looking for? Every firsthand account of people involved in the decision makes it clear that:
They're perfectly capable of wanting to prevent an invasion and wanting data.
How about Eisenhower? I feel like this is fairly good evidence.
https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/lesson-plans/re-thinking-dropping-atomic-bombs-lesson-2
Not who you're talking to, but I'd never heard his take on that before. Thanks for sharing it.
Most seem to agree that Japan had already lost before the nukes. Whether it would have been "better" than dropping the bombs and how long it would have taken is the bigger debate.
How far would Russia go once it turned its eyes on Japan? And once, or if, they began pushing the Japanese out of mainland Asia would that change US strategy?
How long would the Japanese populous endure famine and starvation before revolt? Would they even revolt?
Would the US do a land invasion after seeing how much, and how long, Iwo Jima and Okinawa took? Or just bomb and blockade?
Would any of the three even try and get the others to a table to negotiate some form of peace?
Who knows since it is all speculation.
The evidence is the positions of troops and assets of Japan and the US during that time. An invasion of the Japanese homeland was imminent.