Thread: Hiroshima And Nagasaki

We are wrong saying that the bombs didn't save more lives than they took? If America accepted these meaningless demands (meaningless for the lives of 150,000 people killed), nukes wouldn't be used.
You saying that they had to do it to show the world the might of the USA. How is that different from trying to intimidate Soviet Union? Who else was there to impress?


EDITED

hmm me and universal need lessons on how to quote...but the things I added are in ((((_______))))

wtf? Hamas was elected democratically? they are trying to destroy themselves??? jesus christ...

I have no idea what you mean by that. Hamas is trying to destroy Israel. Hamas was put in power in Palestine because a lot of people in Palestine want to destroy Israel. What are you talking about? [/quote]

((((((I mean Hamas was elected democratically. fact. You say they want to destroy democracy? yet they participate in democracy.))))))

damn I made a mistake! I was going to leave out Chomsky's name at the end of the article...because I knew there'd be some shallow..narrow minded person who wouldn't even read it because who said it. As bin laden? well I wouldn't say chomsky has quite that much credibility...but shouldn't you read his argument and then disagree because of what he says not who he is? btw Chomsky has said america is the best country in the world...he just points out its not perfect and questions things from time to time without blindly following. I don't see how that is hating america as much as bin Laden? and then you said I might as well have quoted HItler? if I quote chomsky I might as well quote hitler? lol

[/quote]

Wow, I can see you are reaching for the personal insult card because your arguments suck. How unpredictable. I did read the Chomsky point and have no plans of assuming any of it is true on the weak basis that he said it. Are you too narrow minded to comprehend that? Chomsky is an extreme hater of my country, as are you and many of our own citizens. That is a recipe for little more than pitiful reasoning and vicious delusion.

(((((no chomsky is not an extreme hater of your country...wrong(didnt you read my other post?). so did you look up all Chomskys examples of US terrorism?...dont go by what he says...research what he said...IF you would have, you would see it is historically accurate. SO are you so narrowminded that you think whatever chomsky says is instantly wrong? sure dont believe him...but dont just assume its wrong because you dont agree with it or like the man)))))

reallly?

hmm anyways now im hopelessly off topic. ...and I was just trying to talk like a politician, make my point and Then if I feel like it stay on topic and be part of the actual debate...why in the world did I want to talk liek politician? I have no idea. [/quote]

My best wishes go out to you and your sanity.

((((isnt this hypocracy for what you said ealier like only a few lines up about insults? what makes me insane btw lol id like to know?))))

[/quote] I don't even have a segway...hmm too bad...but what blue meanie and kramari are saying is the point of the whole debate. [/quote]

And they are incorrect. No matter what the demands of the Japanese were, they were in no position to have demands. Succumbing to any demands, even just for Truman's autograph, is dangerous. It rewards evil aggression, and it cannot happen. France and Poland might do it, but look at their record of being the world's bitches. We don't believe in it. We ended up allowing the Emporer to remain in power because we struck a reform deal with him.

((((((did you even read the post? You missed the point. Practice reading, it might be hard at first but just keep trying ! and you can do it! ...and then come back and reply to the actual ideas.)))))))



[/quote] so Clearly the bomb was dropped for more than making the japanese surrender...and more than making them surrender on our terms.
[/quote]

Uh, no. We struck a reform deal. The great Japan of today is the result of it. Before the reform deal, the notion of allowing the Emporer to remain in power did not come out ahead in a cost benefit analysis. And once again, caving in to ANY demands by attackers is pathetic policy. Somehow I get the impression that I might have to explain that again. (?) So that is why we did not cave but later made a deal and gave them what they had demanded before post-treaty negotiation. So it is fallacious to ASSUME that the U.S. policy was based on anything other than the legitimate war purposes I have described. It is leaping to a conclusion to hold that the bombs were dropped solely to intimidate the Soviet Union. That is a hypothesis that is interesting but not logically conclusive. The next time I get stoned and listen to Art Bell's radio show at 3 a.m., maybe I will call him and talk to him about that idea. But I will not assert it with conclusive certainty or even suggest a mere preponderance of the evidence. [/quote]



(((((how come the people who most disagree with me come from places were education is the weakest? like mississippi? the soviet thing is not just some insane conspiracy theory...its well written about. why cant it make sense america was doing this? )))))

hmm me and universal need lessons on how to quote...but the things I added are in ((((_______))))
I have no idea what you mean by that. Hamas is trying to destroy Israel. Hamas was put in power in Palestine because a lot of people in Palestine want to destroy Israel. What are you talking about?

((((((I mean Hamas was elected democratically. fact. You say they want to destroy democracy? yet they participate in democracy.))))))

Islamofascist terrorist organizations and regimes, such as Hamas, want to destroy Israel, Israel's chief ally the United States, the U.S.'s chief allies Britain, and the whole rest of the realm of all that is percieved to be American influenced and supportive, which includes Europe, Australia, and Canada. The whole "free world", which is what I just described, is perceived as a huge threat to Islam and the world Islamofascism seeks. And don't put too much stock in the notion that Hamas is about democracy. They are much more theocratic than you are admitting. If they loved democracy so much, they would be willing to share a democracy with the Jews. That is what Israel is. Did you know that there are lots of Muslims living in Israel? Israel has and wants a real democracy. Hamas wants a "Palestinian state". That is what they blow up buses full of children in the name of so futilly.





[/quote] (((((no chomsky is not an extreme hater of your country...wrong(didnt you read my other post?). so did you look up all Chomskys examples of US terrorism?...dont go by what he says...research what he said...IF you would have, you would see it is historically accurate. SO are you so narrowminded that you think whatever chomsky says is instantly wrong? sure dont believe him...but dont just assume its wrong because you dont agree with it or like the man)))))
hmm anyways now im hopelessly off topic. ...and I was just trying to talk like a politician, make my point and Then if I feel like it stay on topic and be part of the actual debate...why in the world did I want to talk liek politician? I have no idea.
((((isnt this hypocracy for what you said ealier like only a few lines up about insults? what makes me insane btw lol id like to know?)))) [/quote]

It's called retaliation. Retaliation is not hypocritical. Let me know when your level of sanity allows you to know why you are saying whatever you may end up saying. I do wish you luck on that.

[/quote] I don't even have a segway...hmm too bad...but what blue meanie and kramari are saying is the point of the whole debate.
((((((did you even read the post? You missed the point. Practice reading, it might be hard at first but just keep trying ! and you can do it! ...and then come back and reply to the actual ideas.))))))) [/quote]

That's cute, but you be a little more vague?

[/quote] so Clearly the bomb was dropped for more than making the japanese surrender...and more than making them surrender on our terms.
Uh, no. We struck a reform deal. The great Japan of today is the result of it. Before the reform deal, the notion of allowing the Emporer to remain in power did not come out ahead in a cost benefit analysis. And once again, caving in to ANY demands by attackers is pathetic policy. Somehow I get the impression that I might have to explain that again. (?) So that is why we did not cave but later made a deal and gave them what they had demanded before post-treaty negotiation. So it is fallacious to ASSUME that the U.S. policy was based on anything other than the legitimate war purposes I have described. It is leaping to a conclusion to hold that the bombs were dropped solely to intimidate the Soviet Union. That is a hypothesis that is interesting but not logically conclusive. The next time I get stoned and listen to Art Bell's radio show at 3 a.m., maybe I will call him and talk to him about that idea. But I will not assert it with conclusive certainty or even suggest a mere preponderance of the evidence.
(((((how come the people who most disagree with me come from places were education is the weakest? like mississippi? the soviet thing is not just some insane conspiracy theory...its well written about. why cant it make sense america was doing this? )))))
[/quote]

Woes, an attack on my state? So because my state has so many idiots I am therefore one myself? If you would get yourself educated on the laws of logic, you would see that you just committed two fallacies in making that point. I challenge you to name them. Do you think you can? I don't. For whatever relevance it may have to your childish mind, I graduated from the top ranked high school in Mississippi, one of the top ranked colleges in the southeast, and what was ranked a few years ago as the second best law school in the nation. Do you have any more fallacies you would like to spew? As for the Soviet point, I have explained my stance in thorough detail. Do I need to explain it to you yet again? Practice reading. It might be hard the whole time, but just keep trying. I don't think you can do it, but it is worth a try.

Originally Posted by kramari

We are wrong saying that the bombs didn't save more lives than they took? If America accepted these meaningless demands (meaningless for the lives of 150,000 people killed), nukes wouldn't be used.
You saying that they had to do it to show the world the might of the USA. How is that different from trying to intimidate Soviet Union? Who else was there to impress?
EDITED
[/b]

Attacks cannot be rewarded, period. Do you really think they should be? Please explain to me how that is not dangerous policy. Our purpose was not to initiate the showing of might, but to merely not show weakness. Not backing down is completely different from saying, "Hey, let's drop some bombs and scare one specific country we are not even fighting." Our lack of backing down to our attackers was meant not to use an opportunity to send out a strong message to one country, but to instead refrain from sending out a weak message to the whole world. What you are talking about would have been evil. You speak of our actions as though we might as well have come out of the clear blue and said, "Let's scare the Soviets by killing more than a hundred thousand people in some other country." That is not what happened. What instead happened was that we said, "The Japanese attacked us, and they are asking for demands. We cannot give them ANYTHING they demand because that would be dangerous. If they would unconditionally surrender, the war is over. Until then, it is not. Giving in to any demand would send out the wrong message to THE ENTIRE WORLD, not just the Soviet Union. We need to go ahead and get the Japanese to surrender sooner rather than later, especially much later."

Originally Posted by Universal

Attacks cannot be rewarded, period. Do you really think they should be? Please explain to me how that is not dangerous policy. Our purpose was not to initiate the showing of might, but to merely not show weakness. Not backing down is completely different from saying, "Hey, let's drop some bombs and scare one specific country we are not even fighting." Our lack of backing down to our attackers was meant not to use an opportunity to send out a strong message to one country, but to instead refrain from sending out a weak message to the whole world. What you are talking about would have been evil. You speak of our actions as though we might as well have come out of the clear blue and said, "Let's scare the Soviets by killing more than a hundred thousand people in some other country." That is not what happened. What instead happened was that we said, "The Japanese attacked us, and they are asking for demands. We cannot give them ANYTHING they demand because that would be dangerous. If they would unconditionally surrender, the war is over. Until then, it is not. Giving in to any demand would send out the wrong message to THE ENTIRE WORLD, not just the Soviet Union. We need to go ahead and get the Japanese to surrender sooner rather than later, especially much later."
[/b]

We can really debate as much as we want. I'll say one thing you'll say that USA would appear weak in the eyes of the world. So there is really not much point. Just to sum up the topic. The question on the poll was: "Did the bombs in Heroshima and Nagasaki save lives?" And I can only say that it did not save lives as a surrender could have been agreed.

ad hominum. ha since I don't really value internet debates...I commit this all the time and I know it. I may have commited to even more...I really don't take this serious enough? w/e

It's called retaliation. Retaliation is not hypocritical. Let me know when your level of sanity allows you to know why you are saying whatever you may end up saying. I do wish you luck on that. [/b]

so you did insult me...! ahem you commited fallacies...

Wow, I can see you are reaching for the personal insult card because your arguments suck. How unpredictable.[/b]

i just enjoy insulting ppl who think different then me! why do you do it in your arguments btw?

Woes, an attack on my state? So because my state has so many idiots I am therefore one myself? If you would get yourself educated on the laws of logic, you would see that you just committed two fallacies in making that point. I challenge you to name them. Do you think you can? I don't. For whatever relevance it may have to your childish mind, I graduated from the top ranked high school in Mississippi, one of the top ranked colleges in the southeast, and what was ranked a few years ago as the second best law school in the nation. [/b]

thanks for telling us your schooling...? im just wondering why so many ppl from the southern united states disagree with me on everything thats all, not that you are an idiot...its just something I noticed....calm down I didn't even expect a response explaining why you are so special. hey i wasnt even really all that serious...


btw i said so many more things that were actual points...and you didn;t give answers to hardly anything of those!

That's cute, but you be a little more vague? [/b]

no you be a litte more vague?!


anyways w/e i dont even care and this is so offtopic...hey if you wanna defend nuking civilians for w/e reason...thats cool...i guess.

(about the whole palestine thing...thats another debate...im not really gonna get into.) btw did you say that I hated america in one of your posts I seem to remeber that? just wondering

First and foremost, let me say that I do not value a civilian life over the life of a soldier, they are both living beings.

Secondly, let me say that in microeconomics, which is based entirely on cost-benifit principle, the way that a decision is decided is by deciding which choice has the highest MARGINAL benefit. That is to say that it has the greatest gainst, the least costs, and of which the most certainty is involved.

Therefore, from a purely logical, none opinionated point of view, aside from the value of all life equally, the decision to kill 200,000 people, innocent or otherwise, was the only choice available. Costs taken into effect must not only be lives lost, but also time, money, and socail effect.

#1 The United States had just left/was leaving the Great Depression and needed a rallying victory to turbocharge the economy.

#2 The Japanese suicide attack on Pearl Harbor had dealt a significant blow to the American Navy in the Pacific, and a continuation of war with Japan may have meant a loss, not just of lives.

#3 The Japanese knew this, which is why Pearl Harbor was staged in the first place, and were not about to give up, even after the first bomb, andalmost even after the second.

#4 All other options would have led to more overall destruction, both of lives, economy, the FUTURE of the Japanese, which is much better know than in thier isolationism.

And finally, due to the sunk costs of creating the weapons (They had been in developement for some time before thier actualy use was determined to be against Japan) The United States was going to have to make good in the eyes of all the Europeon countries that had suffered many more casualties than America by delivering a deciding and final blow to the War to End all Wars.

So, while I may not ethically believe that blowing up 200,000 men women and children is right. I do believe it saved more lives, both immediate and long term, than any other solution. Which is what the original question was, I believe.

ad hominum. ha since I don't really value internet debates...I commit this all the time and I know it. I may have commited to even more...I really don't take this serious enough? w/e

so you did insult me...! ahem you commited fallacies...

Fallacies? I believe the term you are trying to go for, though incorrectly, is hypocrisy. I need to explain this to you again, so here it is... It was your INITIATION of insults that I was insulting. Insulting someone back is legitimate behavior and not evidence of lack of substance. You should try reading.



[/quote] i just enjoy insulting ppl who think different then me! why do you do it in your arguments btw? [/quote]

I only insult people who invite it by doing things like initiating insults. But don't misunderstand. I love arguments when they get personal and insulting. It is one of the things that makes me a discussion forum addict. I just don't ever insult people on a personal level until they initiate the insults. I like having substantive debate until the other person wrecks it. I don't like personally insulting people who are just trying to have a debate with me. It is a rotten way to act. I value peace with the innocent, when it is a viable option.

[/quote] thanks for telling us your schooling...? im just wondering why so many ppl from the southern united states disagree with me on everything thats all, not that you are an idiot...its just something I noticed....calm down I didn't even expect a response explaining why you are so special. hey i wasnt even really all that serious...
btw i said so many more things that were actual points...and you didn;t give answers to hardly anything of those! [/quote]

I did answer to your other points. I have done it thoroughly, step by step. You should try reading. You should also try being logical. How old are you, by the way? Don't waste your time trying to convince me that you didn't go off on an ad hominem tangent by insulting my state's educational statistics. There was no other purpose in it. I mentioned my educational history only to disprove what was obviously your indirect point. To answer your revised form of the tangent, Southerners are more likely to support war efforts because with poverty comes a more dangerous environment than other environments, and people who come from dangerous environments are quicker than others to see the bad in people, the need for violence for protection, and the nature of humanity that is much darker than it appears to be on the surface. There is also some religious type element of patriotism that I don't have but most Southerners do. Holy rollers, which the South is full of, tend to worship their militaries. I don't worship my military, but I do respect it and recognize the need to sometimes employ it.

[/quote] no you be a litte more vague?!
anyways w/e i dont even care and this is so offtopic...hey if you wanna defend nuking civilians for w/e reason...thats cool...i guess. [/quote]

I have no idea what you are trying to say there. What is w/e?

[/quote] (about the whole palestine thing...thats another debate...im not really gonna get into.) btw did you say that I hated america in one of your posts I seem to remeber that? just wondering
[/quote]

That just clicked in your head? Yes, I did say that. You might not hate all Americans, but you hate the big picture of America and its policies. You are quick to blame the U.S. and very slow to blame our enemies. The Palestine stuff is a good example. You have said nothing to condemn a terrorist organization that wants us all dead, but you have said several things to take up for them. That is a clear sign of what I am talking about. How do you feel about the Japanese government for putting us in the situation that led to our decision to use nukes? I haven't seen you say anything bad about them yet.

Originally Posted by kramari

We can really debate as much as we want. I'll say one thing you'll say that USA would appear weak in the eyes of the world. So there is really not much point. Just to sum up the topic. The question on the poll was: "Did the bombs in Heroshima and Nagasaki save lives?" And I can only say that it did not save lives as a surrender could have been agreed.
[/b]

We would have invited a lot more aggression against us and our allies if we had given in to any Japanese demands, even for Truman's autograph or $2 of blackmail money. Rewarding attackers is out of the question. If we had done that, no telling who else, quite possibly even the Japanese again, would say, "Hey, if you attack the United States, you get to make them agree to meet demands." Bin Laden flat out said that our retreat from Somalia was a major influence on his decision to attack us on 9/11, thanks to that used car salesman circus clown Bill Clinton. Weakness invites aggression. Ask France. Of course nobody messes with them now because they know from WWII that France has an ally who will turn things upside down for anybody who tries it. The worst thing you can do in dealing with a bully is to give him your lunch money. It is not like if you give him your money he is finished with you. You have given him an invitation to return. You have also given all of the other bullies invitations to come at you. The best thing you can do is to knock him out. After that, he no longer sees you as a source of getting what he wants. He sees you as somebody who will make his efforts not worth it. The same goes for the other bullies.

The bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not save lives.

It is really difficult to judge if the act saved lives or not. We’d have to travel to an alternate reality to prove it.

Coldly said, on a global scale, the sheer intimidation factor that such a device could be used again probably led to a quicker resolve. One would have to calculate how much longer the war would have lasted, around the world, and the casualties that would have resulted for such a prolongation.

The strike on Pear Harbour was brilliant. An opportunistic decision to gain control of the pacific. Japan’s resources dwindling, Acquisition of foreign resources needed to maintain the status quo impeded by the American forces present in the pacific was a big problem for Japan. Finding all the ships in one spot was the perfect time to force the hand with minimal human cost (a few soldiers). A decisive strike to eliminate the competition and to proceed with the acquisition of resourced unhindered. It is a shame the US navy created such an opportunistic target by docking all their ships at the same place.

The added bonus of helping Hitler’s war in Europe by eliminating what was known to be the huge factor in winning the war, the US coming in with a huge force, proved too much a temptation to resist.

The use of nuclear weapon proved to be as brilliant as the Pear Harbour attack, proving to the world that even though critically crippled, the US had the means (and the guts backed with insanity) to end the war at any cost. I think that is why the Allies called the American soldiers crazy. “Ha, you are the crazy American, just what we need to end this war!”

So, in regards to applying the numbers on Japan only, no, it did not save as many lives as stated by the popular belief. Embargo on Japan would have ended this in a few months. But did the US have the resources at the time, after Pearl Harbour, to do this? No.

On a global scale though, the bomb probably did help. If they had use the devices on unpopulated regions, it probably would have the same effect though having proof of the devastating effects by causing massive casualties probably proved more effective. And, between making a decision based on what might be effective and what will surely be effective, well, you know what is the military answer…. War is f’ing gross.

As far as saying that the targets were military and that it was just unfortunate that there was civilians living around the targeted military complex. Well, that’s just to make you feel better. Just like there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They knew they would wipe the cities, not just the military complex.

What was needed was fear over the enemy and appeasement of the US population who wanted vendetta. They got both.. 200000 lives for 2000. Hmmm these numbers seem to be close to what’s going on today.

Military and politically speaking, it made perfect sense. Fun world huh?

Don't waste your time trying to convince me that you didn't go off on an ad hominem tangent by insulting my state's educational statistics. There was no other purpose in it. I mentioned my educational history only to disprove what was obviously your indirect point. To answer your revised form of the tangent, Southerners are more likely to support war efforts because with poverty comes a more dangerous environment than other environments, and people who come from dangerous environments are quicker than others to see the bad in people, the need for violence for protection, and the nature of humanity that is much darker than it appears to be on the surface. There is also some religious type element of patriotism that I don't have but most Southerners do. Holy rollers, which the South is full of, tend to worship their militaries. I don't worship my military, but I do respect it and recognize the need to sometimes employ it. [/b]

..fine I won't waste my time, you don't have to believe me that is what the tangent was about. I'm glad to hear you don't worship the military. hmm interesting ideas why the south thinks different than me.

That just clicked in your head? Yes, I did say that. You might not hate all Americans, but you hate the big picture of America and its policies. You are quick to blame the U.S. and very slow to blame our enemies. The Palestine stuff is a good example. You have said nothing to condemn a terrorist organization that wants us all dead, but you have said several things to take up for them. That is a clear sign of what I am talking about. How do you feel about the Japanese government for putting us in the situation that led to our decision to use nukes? I haven't seen you say anything bad about them yet.[/b]

I also think america is one of the best places in the world...I'd just prefer they stop doing some of the bad things they do...

So every time a say something bad about america, I have to say something bad about terrorists too? Just because I don't like america doesn't mean I, in any way support terrorists...dont make assumptions like that...the south always seems to do this...the second someone merely questions america..they are said to be unpatriotic and support the enemy. I havn't said anything bad about the japanese...yah so what? does that mean I agree with the japanese? no..


anyways thats enough of this(sorry for highjacking this thread so offtopic like btw..)... btw UniMin I think you should maybe consider spending more time trying to figure out what leo is saying about pedophiles...

Originally Posted by ;310511

I havn't said anything bad about the japanese...yah so what? does that mean I agree with the japanese? no..

[/b]

yur absolutely right. you havent said anything bad about the japanese. so i will.
tiny penises.
yeah. i said it.

So every time a say something bad about america, I have to say something bad about terrorists too? Just because I don't like america doesn't mean I, in any way support terrorists...dont make assumptions like that...the south always seems to do this...the second someone merely questions america..they are said to be unpatriotic and support the enemy. I havn't said anything bad about the japanese...yah so what? does that mean I agree with the japanese? no..

I am not talking about doing it in every single instance. I am talking about ANYWHERE in this thread. You seem to have a severe anti-American bias.

[/quote] btw UniMin I think you should maybe consider spending more time trying to figure out what leo is saying about pedophiles...
[/quote]

I have kept up with it pretty well. I'll mention some of it right now... Leo thinks that the victims of pedophilia are not innocent, they know what they are doing, they very often initiate it themselves, they are "sluts", the molestation is good for their self esteem if it is kept secret, when they are found out they are "caught", and that there is no variable in pedophilia that goes negatively beyond whatever bad variables may be involved in sex between consenting adults. He also completely dodges the point that children who are molested are screwed up emotionally for life and often develop shizophrenia. Which of those views do you have a problem with, if any? You seem to have a bias regarding this dispute also.

I believe that the bombs didn't save lives. Many many people died. Japan was just about to break, but America dropped the bomb anyway. Why drop one bomb, drop two!! You really can't say it saved lives. The atomic bomb is just a pure manifestation of human evil put into a bomb form.

I have to say no to did it save lives. I don't know that much, but I am betting it did a lot more destruction than it saved. That being said, if asked should it have been done I'm going to have to say yes. If a powerful enemy is threatening you, you do anything you must to force them to stop, even if it is extremely gruesome, and the effects very sad. I believe that considering the circumstances it was necessary action, and that if any other country was in the same position, they would have done the same thing if not more.

Originally Posted by PenguinLord13

I have to say no to did it save lives. I don't know that much, but I am betting it did a lot more destruction than it saved. That being said, if asked should it have been done I'm going to have to say yes. If a powerful enemy is threatening you, you do anything you must to force them to stop, even if it is extremely gruesome, and the effects very sad. I believe that considering the circumstances it was necessary action, and that if any other country was in the same position, they would have done the same thing if not more.
[/b]

dude the bomb saved lives, a full scale invasion of japan would have costs millions of american lives and many years of more war, as opposed to only another month. if the bomb was so big it caused a decrease in the penis size of asians for generations to come, thats just the cost of doing buisness.

Japan was about to surrender...

I really can't think up why a 2nd bomb was needed. Japan allready knew american's were willing to bomb civilians, and they knew america had more atomic bombs.

It would be illogical not to give up at one nuke but do at the second, becouse you can just know that another bomb is going to come your way, probably with some fun text written on it by soldiers

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Japan was about to surrender...
[/b]

Japan was not about to surrender, even after the first nuclear bombing. They were playing games about surrendering, but they were not about to surrender. You can't just bilndly accept the words of people who attacked your country. If they were so on the edge of surrendering, they would have surrendered easily and immediately after the first nuclear bombing.

The second bomb was necessary to insure surrender. The first one did not do it. The second one raised the question of how many we had. The first one was such a big deal that it could have easily been written off as an isolated event. The second bomb took away that issue and ended World War II.

Originally Posted by Universal

Japan was not about to surrender, even after the first nuclear bombing. They were playing games about surrendering, but they were not about to surrender. You can't just bilndly accept the words of people who attacked your country. If they were so on the edge of surrendering, they would have surrendered easily and immediately after the first nuclear bombing.

The second bomb was necessary to insure surrender. The first one did not do it. The second one raised the question of how many we had. The first one was such a big deal that it could have easily been written off as an isolated event. The second bomb took away that issue and ended World War II.
[/b]

Yeah those japs were just acting like they were giving up... BUT WAIT?!?!? MAYBE THEY JUST PLAYED A TRICK! THEY DIDN'T GAVE UP 60 YEARS AGO!!11! OMG THEY ARE INVADING MEH!11111

-

But really, silly japs if they don't surrender after one bomb if you can expect more...


-

EDIT: Oh, and universal, why did you respond to bonsay, and not to me? My reply this time is about the same as what I allready posted, why not awnser me right away? ^__^

Originally Posted by Neruo

Yeah those japs were just acting like they were giving up... BUT WAIT?!?!? MAYBE THEY JUST PLAYED A TRICK! THEY DIDN'T GAVE UP 60 YEARS AGO!!11! OMG THEY ARE INVADING MEH!11111

-

But really, silly japs if they don't surrender after one bomb if you can expect more...
[/b]

If they were not going to surrender after one nuclear bomb, they were not going to surrender before one nuclear bomb.

Originally Posted by Universal

If they were not going to surrender after one nuclear bomb, they were not going to surrender before one nuclear bomb.
[/b]

Funny, I was going to say:

If they were not going to surrender after one nuclear bomb, they were not going to surrender after two nuclear bombs.

-

really, we could do a poll what statement makes more logic? lol

Originally Posted by Neruo

Funny, I was going to say:

If they were not going to surrender after one nuclear bomb, they were not going to surrender after two nuclear bombs.


[/b]

But they in fact were. Do some reading.

They also were in fact not ready to surrender after the first bomb. Do even more reading.

Originally Posted by Universal

But they in fact were. Do some reading.

They also were in fact not ready to surrender after the first bomb. Do even more reading.
[/b]

Perhaps it is so. However, it doesn't seem very logic of the japs. Hence I said: Silly japanse.

And your scoures of books are ofcourse american writers. However, no matter or it was justified, it's just to bad you couldn't have used some FAB's (Fuel Air Bombs) or even MOABs. I mean, raditation is a bitch, yo.