Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

trinity united my ass

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spartacus
  • Start date Start date
Burning_Inside said:
See the thing is though, we didn't HAVE to drop that bomb directly on Japan. I really think that if we just dropped it somewhere "else" and let them see what it could do and we mean business they'd have signed the papers and surrendered. They just called our bluff, we took it personally and went overboard IMO.
It took two bombs for them to capitulate and there was a nearly successful coup in the Imperial Palace that would have prevented the Emperor from surrendering AFTER we dropped two nuclear devices.
 
cboogsrun said:
Obviously, so are the US forces that are in Iraq.
I think they're doing a fine job. This endeavor will likely take a decade but I think it's a decent roll of the dice. It's hard to measure success when you can't tally up the bad events that have been prevented and didn't occur.
 
Burning_Inside said:
See the thing is though, we didn't HAVE to drop that bomb directly on Japan. I really think that if we just dropped it somewhere "else" and let them see what it could do and we mean business they'd have signed the papers and surrendered. They just called our bluff, we took it personally and went overboard IMO.

We went overboard? Go up a few threads and read where millions would have died. The Japanese would have never have given up with conventional tactics. Their generals admitted that. Like bombing something else, (which would have given them more time to prepare) would have made them surrender.

I hope you are never in a life or death situation. If so you will recognize that decisions needs to be made quickly. Mistakes are sometimes made but you need to roll with the punches. Otherwise you can end up dead.

Taking WWII in perspective, would I risk losing a war or drop an atom bomb? I would drop an atom bomb any day.

The same deal with Iraq. If current US and foreign intelligence shows there are WMD's, and Saddam himself claims to have WMD, I am going to believe there are WMD's, and I am going to war. Period. BTW the alleged link of Al Qaeda to Saddam was only one of many issues that led to war. Hinging the war on that one fact is spurious reasoning.

It is very easy to look back in hindsight and poke holes through things. In fact, one can do it with any subject. Making decisions in real time, when innocent lives are at stake, is a different matter. I would rather defeat my enemy and protect the innocent than to err and allow innocents to die.
 
Army Vet said:
We went overboard looolooo

The Communists wrote your history books. How can one debate against this lunacy? looolllooo
This is my repost....
"The Pastor has a fundamental misunderstanding of WWII. This is a repost but it gives the perspective of the era. My father was a corpsman that went in with the marines at Tarawa and Iwo Jima. I'm not sure he would have survived an invasion of Japan so I don't look unfavorably on dropping the bomb....just sayin'."


 
interesting idea
and it would have shown the soviets as well which was one goal satisfied by bombing hiroshima
curtis lemay was a sadistic fuck
 
Spartacus said:
interesting idea
and it would have shown the soviets as well which was one goal satisfied by bombing hiroshima
curtis lemay was a sadistic fuck
The Soviets already knew, they had spies in the "Manhattan Project." That's how they got "the bomb" so quickly.
 
javaguru said:
The Soviets already knew, they had spies in the "Manhattan Project." That's how they got "the bomb" so quickly.
yeah but I think it was still necessary to actually detonate one
 
Spartacus said:
yeah but I think it was still necessary to actually detonate one
The point is we had to detonate two and still some of the inner circle of the Japanese staff were willing to depose their God/Emperor to continue the war.
Blowing up some isolated island would have had little impact and we only had two bombs; That's why we chose cities that were untouched by conventional bombing, to make the most impact.
 
If you bomb places just to kill people and get them to surrender, that is a terrorist act. Pearl harbor was not Nagasaki or Hiroshima. They went after boats, we destroyed a city. Now, if they had bombed San Diego, I might agree with the eye for an eye theory.
 
Top Bottom