Yeah we can’t be totally sure until afterwards, but the same is true for letting the peace process actually be attempted as planned.
In war, the neutral position is to assume that the enemy won’t surrender. Why are you arbitrarily putting the “correct” time to negotiate just before the atom bomb? Why not a year before? What made this time so special except for the ad hoc context.
given the US admitted it was doing it just to intimidate the Soviets, and the alternative was sitting around for a bit longer and negotiating till that ran dry it is clearwhat the wrong choice was
Shithole US sucks and obviously did it for the wrong reasons. But A single firebomb raid killed as many as the atom bomb. While you’re negotiating, the US is still gonna be firebombing shit. A few extra months of war, or even blockade, would have outweighed the casualties of the bomb. Now the US wasn’t doing this for humanitarian reasons of course, but the first bomb was the least bad option done for the wrong reasons.
Second bomb was absolutely just a dick-measuring contest with the Soviets.
Again, this is absolutely true but only really knowable ad hoc. If you have a source stating the conditions of Japan were known at this point, it would change my perspective.
Correct, but for the US it’s likely to be one or the another. Even in a theoretical blockade, the amount of people who starve would probably outweigh the bomb. There are no good options in war, use of the first atom bomb was probably the one with the least casualties.
You can but you’re allowing the enemy to re-group. We shouldn’t trust the genocidal Japanese government to act in good faith just like we shouldn’t trust the Nazis. Every day still at war meant Japan was still slaughtering people in camps.
Which does not say “We must surrender immediately.” It says, “If we don’t, we’ll have to fight Russia as well.” One ambassador saying that surrender is a good option is not the Government of Japan saying so.