Yeah I mean suggesting "well why did we drop a second one then" isn't really a counter argument.

Harry S. Truman has weirded me out since I was a kid and found out the "S" doesn't stand for anything. That's against the rules bro.

.

Any timeline is better than one where labron and Brady both have multiple rings

There's really no argument to counter, though. There's just assuming 21st century sensibilities ("It's wrong to nuke millions of people.") when the actual Cold War game theory was "It's wrong to get millions of our people nuked by nuking millions of their people." and that was demonstrated over and over again. That 50 years later people decided it was just plain wrong doesn't mean they needed Japan to demonstrate it to them--just the opposite, in fact.

I'll go one further for a counter argument; if Russia doesn't get nukes, we probably find occasion to use them again no later than Korea. That's way more likely than the US or Russia actually using them later just because we never nuked Japan.

I mean it is, but why was he still considering dropping another one on North Korea during the Korean War is an even better one.

It's actually incredible watching people who hate Trump defend Truman.

Do all *******s have a Trum in them

I figured you'd be a fan of Capote.

Truman or Trump?

Nicknamed a Senator he disagreed with Senator Halfbright

Wrote a letter while President threatening physical violence to a Washington Post reporter for writing something critical of his daughter

I'm not defending Truman I just think it's really obvious that seeing the destruction short and long term of the bomb both makes people less likely to use it in a vacuum and (gasp) made deterrence more effective too.

neither of those involve treason or destroying earth so i'll guess truman

That's racist

You said he saved the world! If you were trying to defend Truman, what would you do differently?

Yeah like for sure I'm defending him dropping the bomb. Beyond that I don't even have an opinion.

Well you got to have an opinion!

seems like a lot of USA#1 history curriculum is rationalizing atrocities

Bombs.

Suppose we were a little slower with nuke development and Russia got there to invade then nuked two Japanese cities two days apart without even trying to talk to them in between. Do you think we'd see that as justified? Assuming all else is equal I doubt we'd say Stalin saved the world by doing that.

If there hadn't have been bombs dropped, there would have been bombs dropped

Ergo the bombs saved us from the bombs

Great argument, impenetrable

The Japanese decided to not surrender after the first. That's on them. And most certainly they wouldn't have gotten the GOAT postwar deal/treatment with Stalin so just lol at any comparison.

It was their fault, and also they benefited overall

Nice

Turns out yes

I hate rehashing this argument, as I already discussed this earlier itt, but this is a historical misrepresentation.

http://historybuff.com/wwii-total-mi...r-xb70DNvzDZWk