‘US government documents admit that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary to end WWII. Japan was on the verge of surrendering. The nuclear attack was the first strike in Washington’s Cold War on the Soviet Union. Ben Norton reviews the historical record.’
Even after accepting your premise there is a huge amount of middle ground between doing nothing and nuking civilian centres.
Like what, exactly?
Remember two things. First were the Asian peoples who were being slaughtered by the Empire. Why should they go on suffering one extra day? The other is that Truman had an obligation to protect American lives; that was his sworn duty. Why should he allow any US service men to die to protect the lives fo Japaense?
Nice grandstanding, too bad part of the victims the US nuked included Korean slave workers brought against their will from Korea, so that reasoning doesn’t fly. Or are Korean lives worth less than non-Koreans?
Zero American lives would’ve been lost if they just held a naval blockade while the Soviet Union launched the invasion from Manchuria to Hokkaido. Nobody said it’s the US who had to invade Japan. Whatever casualties the Red Army would suffer would be Stalin’s problem, not Truman’s. Like you said, why should he allow any US service men to die?
dropping the bombs did not end the conflict sooner. and it certainly didn’t bring justice for anyone. the US prevented that from happening by exonerating the people who actually conducted the atrocities.