Opinion of the atomic bombings of Japan

[Cory]

Japan had already offered to surrender on the exact same terms that were ultimately given to them (unconditional surrender except royal family not tried for war crimes) in May of 1945.  There was absolutely no defense for using them even in realpolitik terms, much less moral.

They probably wanted to intimidate the Soviets. Same reason we bombed Dresden in 1945.

[Cory]

A good way to do that would have been to not order Patton and others to halt their advance lest they take too much of Europe from the Soviets.

The thing is that we had already made a deal with the Soviets involving demarcation lines and we wanted them to honor their deal to attack Japan after Germany was defeated.

We bombed Dresden so that advancing Soviet forces would see the destruction we could inflict on Soviet cities if they got any ideas. The atomic bombings of course added to that effect. The "Cold War" in reality had been going on since WWII.

[Cory]

Harry Truman also should have been sentenced to a life sentence by an international war crimes tribunal.

On what account? The bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII were not war crimes, it's called Total War for a reason. And to be fair I don't consider the German bombings of Britain or elsewhere to be war crimes either. The unfortunate fact is that those cities (and their citizens) were producing vital war materials for the enemy and were therefore targets.

[Cory]

Ah, the wise words of the forum's resident eugenicist...

All because I support genetic engineering in humans does not mean I am a "Eugenicist". That word has a lot of connotations.

Also you didn't even respond to what I said.

[Cory]

It by definition does mean that.

No, I mean the implications. When you say "eugenics" people think Nazi Germany, not voluntary genetic manipulation in the future. It's taken on a buzzword status.

Again, no one refuted what I actually said.