Churchill was a warmongering bully. Hardly a statesmen to view with any sort of good will. He was elected as PM in WW2 because he was the PM we needed for a war, after that he was just detestable, as he proved with the Iranian 1953 coup.Here's your very own Winston Churchill:
1.) USA won't interfere with other countries' problems anymore and bomb whenever they have a chance, killing many many many innocent people.
2.) It would demonstrate the power of all the bombing weapons America uses on other countries, to discourage them from such use in the future.
There you go.
Oh how convenient that the majority of US scholars and officials as well as those affected by Japan's war on their country argue in that way. I don't know what to say.
Just to clariy: Reconstructing the TRUTH, whatever that is, won't be possible. Nevertheless, when reading on such a debatable topic, take a look on who is saying what.
In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties per 1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities per 1,000 man-days were developed. This implied the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million U.S. casualties, including 380,000 dead.
From this, a low figure of somewhat more than 200,000 Japanese deaths can be calculated for a short invasion of two weeks, and almost 3 million Japanese deaths if the fighting lasted four months.
When survival is the goal, it's into the spider hole!
Clearly those people don't know a fucking thing either.A widely cited estimate of 5 to 10 million Japanese deaths came from a study by William Shockley and Quincy Wright; the upper figure was used by Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy who characterized it as conservative. Some 400,000 additional Japanese deaths might have been suffered in the expected Soviet invasion of Hokkaido, the northernmost of Japan's main islands.
MY X/Y POKEMON FRIEND CODE: 1418-7279-9541 In Game Name: Michael__
Aside from being politically-unstable, North Korea and Pakistan are inhabited by people of a certain philosophical ilk wherein pyrrhic victories are viewed with some level of respectability. Suicide and martyrdom do not mesh well with nuclear capability. It's best to keep weapons of mass destruction in the hands of those people with a respect for life.
So, why not Iran? I won't disparage any religious background since you're prone to tattling, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough to discern the differences between responsible nuclear powers and irresponsible owners.