A land invasion was tactically unnecessary, given hindsight and the full range of intel. Whether US command had the full range of intel available at the time of the decision to use the bombs is somewhat unclear, but at the time of the bombings a naval blockade would have been fully feasible with almost zero risk to our navy. The Japanese Navy had been devastated, they had no real ability to project force beyond the home islands.
3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.
Uh yes? It wasn't that Japan wanted the war, the emperor and military did and were lying to the people about winning in China. Blame those retards for getting so power hungry as to enter a world war. We needed to stop them after them annexing korea and trying to annex china and the countries to the south.
A better question than was it neccessary (it was more of a decision than neccessary), is did doing it save vast numbers of both Japanese and American lives? The answer to that is a pretty simple yes. Most estimates are around 160k US and over a million Japanese lives were saved by the war ending quickly, rather than a to the last man Okinawa or Stalingrad type battle across all of Japan which the Japanese were very committed to and would have happened otherwise. Keep in mind the US warned Japanese officials that they had a new city-destroying superweapon and would use it prior to dropping both bombs and the Japanese refused to surrender and believed the US was bluffing, until after the 2nd one was dropped and they realized they weren't.
As for the OP, I think he got his description of Obama's Asis trip off a Sean Hannity commentary apparently. The visit to Asia is to improve diplomatic relations there, not to declare our military might lol. Holy smokes there are a lot of incredibly impressionable and gullible far right conservatives that will gobble up and regurgitate anything Fox News tells them without any fact checking or critical thinking whatsoever. Same with them comparing Bernie Sanders policies to Venezuela, even though they aren't remotely similar policies or situations. If it fits in a 8 sentence radio blurb or bumper sticker, it must be true...
Last edited by Auxora; 2016-05-27 at 08:57 PM.
Exactly. If it came out a year later that the President of the United States had a weapon at his disposal that could've ended the war earlier and he decided not to use it, costing thousands of more lives of G.I.'s, at best he would've been ran out of town.
There's no way an American President responsible to his people could not have used this weapon.
I think it's the wrong question to ask. We can't predict what the outcome would have been otherwise, all we can do is learn from our mistakes and hope that a World War 3 never happens.
"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance." Paradox of tolerance
No, I don't believe it was necessary, but I also don't believe the scope of damage was understood. Basically, the mistake really wasn't dropping the bomb, but the estimates of the damage it would cause.
I think the bombing had less to do with WW2, but more of a prequel to the Cold War.
- - - Updated - - -
I think it prevented WW3. It's why the Cold War was cold...
Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
We have faced trials and danger, threats to our world and our way of life. And yet, we persevere. We are the Horde. We will not let anything break our spirits!"
don't start no shit there won't be no shit.
Japan woke the sleeping giant with a sucker punch and got knocked out.
Nuking japan made em smart,look how far they are ahead of us on technology.
"Definitions of Terrorism in the U.S. Code
....
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping
...."
Any more question?
edit: It`s not from wikipedia or some noname website...https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investi...ism-definition
The funny thing is the US is largely responsible for making Japan be on the world stage and their government in that time period. Japan had been an isolationist country until the US forced them to be open which lead to civil war in Japan. So, the US isn't exactly blameless in this.
We have faced trials and danger, threats to our world and our way of life. And yet, we persevere. We are the Horde. We will not let anything break our spirits!"
I disagree, the Americans would continue to "test" nuclear explosions in plain sight of the USSR and the point would still be made.
Granted maybe not to the full effect that it did by dropping them on cities but both sides would have still continued in the same cold war as they have in reality.
How many times are we going to have this thread?
Really? I was kinda sure wars were fought on battlefields..ohh except the heroic Bombing of Dresden..or the even more heroic Nuke Japanese Civilians mission...It was purely and clearly terrorist attack, against unarmed civilian population...Hell yes, the Axis did as well, but it does not make acceptable from the Allies....