Japan 1945? Avoiding a Iran Ground War: Drop the bomb

[August1991]

In 1945, America avoided a ground war, boots on the ground - an invasion - by dropping the A-bomb.

Should Trump drop an A-bomb somewhere on Iran?

====

One bomb made it plain that the US was serious. Truman? Two bombs made it plain to the world that a US president is serious.

  

[User]

This thread isn’t serious. 

[August1991]

3 hours ago, User said:

This thread isn’t serious. 

This thread is dead serious.

Truman avoided many more deaths.There was no need for "boots on the ground" in Japan. 

=====

FDR approved the creation of the A-bomb.

In Potsdam, Truman told Stalin what he was doing. (Stalin didn't understand - later he did.)

Truman approved not one but two drops.

 

[August1991]

In August 1945, there was a regime change in Japan.

[John Stone]

On 3/7/2026 at 1:57 AM, August1991 said:

This thread is dead serious.

Truman avoided many more deaths.There was no need for "boots on the ground" in Japan. 

=====

FDR approved the creation of the A-bomb.

In Potsdam, Truman told Stalin what he was doing. (Stalin didn't understand - later he did.)

Truman approved not one but two drops.

 

Ironic in the sense that it saved lives on both sides. 

Many believe that the nuclear scientists that developed the bomb were motivated more by gaining the notoriety of  being one of those confirming the theory of uncontrolled fission ....... rather than any sense of patriotism. 

 

[August1991]

9 hours ago, John Stone said:

Ironic in the sense that it saved lives on both sides. 

Many believe that the nuclear scientists that developed the bomb were motivated more by gaining the notoriety of  being one of those confirming the theory of uncontrolled fission ....... rather than any sense of patriotism. 

 

von Neumann advocated dropping the bomb on Moscow.

[John Stone]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

von Neumann advocated dropping the bomb on Moscow.

Gen Doug MacArthur advocated for the use of nuclear weapons during the Korean  War.

 

 

 

[500channelsurfer]

In WW2, the Soviets and Americans were allies. The Soviets were the boots on the ground when they conquered Manchuria and pushed out the Japanese. To a lesser extent, so were British operations in Southeast Asia.

The nukes are historically overstated. The Americans did more damage conventionally bombing in the lead-up to the nukes than the two nukes did. Japan was already well on the road to surrender before the nukes.

I don't see how an A-bomb is advantageous over conventional weapons against Iran.

[ironstone]

The general population in Iran isn't the problem. The problem is with the fanatical Islamic Clerics who will do anything to keep their people oppressed so they can stay in power.

[John Stone]

9 hours ago, 500channelsurfer said:

In WW2, the Soviets and Americans were allies. The Soviets were the boots on the ground when they conquered Manchuria and pushed out the Japanese. To a lesser extent, so were British operations in Southeast Asia.

The nukes are historically overstated. The Americans did more damage conventionally bombing in the lead-up to the nukes than the two nukes did. Japan was already well on the road to surrender before the nukes.

I don't see how an A-bomb is advantageous over conventional weapons against Iran.

Russian declared war on Japan, August 9, 1945 - the same day the U.S. dropped their second nuc 

 

One strategic nuc dropped on Tehran would most definitely end the War. 

Enola Gay and Bockscar were the B29s that dropped the fission bombs  'Little Boy' and 'Fat Man' on Hiroshima and Nagasaki  in 1945. 

Just (2) a/c - (2) bombs - 100k civilians killed in the blast alone. 

Japan was literally faced with annihilation - they capitulated - unconditionally. 

[500channelsurfer]

On 3/10/2026 at 9:35 AM, John Stone said:

Russian declared war on Japan, August 9, 1945 - the same day the U.S. dropped their second nuc 

Japan was literally faced with annihilation - they capitulated - unconditionally. 

Yes, absolutely Japan was faced with annihilation.

There was ongoing threat of annihilation because the USA was firebombing their cities. The nukes were just bigger bombs, and a step up in the same strategy and campaign. 

The new threat was the Soviet boots on the ground in Manchuria. I don't know if the USA would have also firebombed or dropped nukes on Manchuria, but that is where a large part of the Japanese military was stationed. By attacking Manchuria, the Soviets, with their boots on the ground, showed that Japan had no place to hide. It was also the beginning of two-front war for Japan. The double threat is what defeated Japan, neither alone had the same immediate impact.

Coming back to the purpose of this thread: US strategic bombing of Iran may require an additional element such as blockade, ground forces, internal threat, or other, in order to regime change.

[Nationalist]

On 3/6/2026 at 7:28 PM, August1991 said:

In 1945, America avoided a ground war, boots on the ground - an invasion - by dropping the A-bomb.

Should Trump drop an A-bomb somewhere on Iran?

====

One bomb made it plain that the US was serious. Truman? Two bombs made it plain to the world that a US president is serious.

  

No!

[August1991]

On 3/10/2026 at 9:34 AM, ironstone said:

The general population in Iran isn't the problem. The problem is with the fanatical Islamic Clerics who will do anything to keep their people oppressed so they can stay in power.

 I strongly agree.

 

[John Stone]

13 hours ago, 500channelsurfer said:

Yes, absolutely Japan was faced with annihilation.

There was ongoing threat of annihilation because the USA was firebombing their cities. The nukes were just bigger bombs, and a step up in the same strategy and campaign. 

The new threat was the Soviet boots on the ground in Manchuria. I don't know if the USA would have also firebombed or dropped nukes on Manchuria, but that is where a large part of the Japanese military was stationed. By attacking Manchuria, the Soviets, with their boots on the ground, showed that Japan had no place to hide. It was also the beginning of two-front war for Japan. The double threat is what defeated Japan, neither alone had the same immediate impact.

Coming back to the purpose of this thread: US strategic bombing of Iran may require an additional element such as blockade, ground forces, internal threat, or other, in order to regime change.

Japan was facing cultural genocide

Russia was a non-factor in Japan's unconditional surrender. 

During WWII, Japan's military leaders played a crucial role in Japan's government and military strategy. 

Post drop, Japan's Emperor,  Hirohito, made the decision to  agree to the American demands for unconditional surrender, despite the military objection - the military was definitely prepared to continue the struggle on home turf. Hundreds of thousand would have died. 

Russia was taken completely by surprise when the first nuc was dropped - the war ended very quickly. 

With their development of nuclear weapons, the U.S. for several years was without a doubt the most powerful nation on the planet and remained so for several years. 

With the power they wielded NO nation could have stood against them. 

 

Edited March 21 by John Stone

[CITIZEN_2015]

No, because the use of nuclear weapons will also kill many innocent Iranians who are mostly pro-American. A nuclear bomb is so devastating that it cannot be limited to a small target like IRGC based and will devastate a large area. Use ground forces of allied forces. Nat and Persian Gulf Arab countries must join US and Israel to militarily invade Iran and remove this cancerous regime by all available means. Any means available excluding nuclear weapons.

[CITIZEN_2015]

On 3/10/2026 at 9:34 AM, ironstone said:

The general population in Iran isn't the problem. The problem is with the fanatical Islamic Clerics who will do anything to keep their people oppressed so they can stay in power.

 The use of nuclear weapon will not only kill those f*cking islamic cleric but will kill many pro-Western population. Unless you have designed a bomb that can only kill turban wearing subhumans? And their military? The original poster is out of his mind.

Edited March 21 by CITIZEN_2015

[John Stone]

Today, conventional weapons provide the time necessary for belligerents  to negotiate before escalation to nukes. 

Strategic Nuke weapons are primarily designed as a deterrent

Arguably NK is calculating the American response to a NK attack with conventional weapons on SK. 

Most have heard of the acronym, 'TACO' - so has NK

The same calculus could be used by China with an  attack on Taiwan.

This Iranian excursion gives Russia, China, NK an opportunity to examine U.S.  public support but more importantly, American Leadership. 

Trump punches, 'down'  - is he and his cadre capable of making the correct decisions when called upon to punch, 'up'. International support?

In that instance,  TACO might be a blessing, considering  his brain trust.  

[August1991]

18 hours ago, John Stone said:

Today, conventional weapons provide the time necessary for belligerents  to negotiate before escalation to nukes. 

Strategic Nuke weapons are primarily designed as a deterrent

Arguably NK is calculating the American response to a NK attack with conventional weapons on SK.

...

Trump met with this guy in North Korea - several times.

His people met with fanatic-Iran recently.

[John Stone]

4 hours ago, August1991 said:

Trump met with this guy in North Korea - several times.

His people met with fanatic-Iran recently.

Indeed.

 

Iran and NK maintain a longstanding strategic partnership.............they have long shared all forms of science / technology. 

 

The war in Iran is a lesson for NK - nuclear deterrence is essential for survival.   

 

NK's nuke arsenal is potent - their ICBM can target North America in toto.

[August1991]

On 3/10/2026 at 9:34 AM, ironstone said:

The general population in Iran isn't the problem. The problem is with the fanatical Islamic Clerics who will do anything to keep their people oppressed so they can stay in power.

I agree.

====

But in Japan, the A-bomb showed the fanatical that they had lost.

[ironstone]

10 hours ago, August1991 said:

I agree.

====

But in Japan, the A-bomb showed the fanatical that they had lost.

I can't see the US ever resorting to the A-bomb on Iran, or on any other country. The world-wide backlash would be massive.

Even with all of the damage inflicted against the Islamist regime, they will never stop trying to develop nuclear weapons. They will start from scratch as often as it takes. And if did ever get the bomb, they are crazy enough to use them.

Islamists cannot be reasoned with much less trusted.

Having said that, I don't know that this war can be won without boots on the ground. The US should be getting more help from it's so-called allies.

 

[herbie]

On 3/6/2026 at 9:59 PM, August1991 said:

August 1945, there was a regime change in Japan

Pretty liberal application of modern 'newspeak'
In May there was a Russian 'military excursion' into Berlin too.
Shall we dismiss the 'collateral damage' of the Tokyo firebombings while we're at it?

[August1991]

On 3/29/2026 at 12:13 PM, ironstone said:

I can't see the US ever resorting to the A-bomb on Iran, or on any other country. The world-wide backlash would be massive.

...

 

The US dropped two on Japan- it achieved regime change.

BTW, it was a Democrat president who dropped the bombs.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, August1991 said:

The US dropped two on Japan- it achieved regime change.

BTW, it was a Democrat president who dropped the bombs.

As horrific as the results were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think dropping the bombs was the right decision back then.

I don't know what percentage of people in Tehran oppose the regime, but it's probably a significant number. Using nuclear weapons against Iran would turn most nations against the US, much more so than they are now.

The war has started, and I would rather see the US getting more support from other countries in order to crush Iran's ability to shut down the Strait of Hormuz.

[Barquentine]

On 4/1/2026 at 1:32 AM, ironstone said:

As horrific as the results were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I think dropping the bombs was the right decision back then.

How was this the right decision?

AI: "The two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 resulted in an estimated 150,000 to over 246,000 total deaths. The majority were civilians, with 70,000–120,000+ dying instantly or within months in Hiroshima and 40,000–74,000+ in Nagasaki, with many more dying from radiation-related illnesses in the following years."

And what irony that the nation that did this now preaches 'No nukes' to other countries.

And people actually want the US or Israel to do this to Iranian civilians?

This isn't taking Iran's side. It's about humanity.