No, that's the definition of war in movies and video games. In the real world, things are more complicated. I'm willing to wager I've spent more time in warzones than you, plus I've been studying the history of this issue for a decade. You have no idea what you are talking about.
- - - Updated - - -
So, 9/11 was a necessary evil then?
"It doesn't matter if you believe me or not but common sense doesn't really work here. You're mad, I'm mad. We're all MAD here."
The only really difference about the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the number of aircraft required to produce the damage, not the damage itself. Operation Meetinghouse was more devastating than either nuclear attack.
They dropped one, and Japan didn't flinch a fucking inch. If they were on the verge, as you and your other omniscient friends like to continually point out, don't you think that would have sent them over the the edge? You're acting like there was some massive lull in the war where people weren't still in the process of dying on a daily basis. So please stop with the *couldn't they just wait a few weeks* bullshit, as if war is a computer game you just press the pause button on to make the killing stop for a short period.
It's war, W-A-R. The point is to move as quickly and decisively as possible to force your opponent into a position where the only option is surrender. Not to pussy-foot around for periods of time hoping things will eventually work themselves out.
I am not an expert but you should read the quote of Admiral William Leahy that you can also find here : http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-rea...-lives/5308192
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."
Which facts that are not up for dispute amongst reasonable, honest, and intelligent people are you struggling with? That the US made a new demand for Japan's surrender prior to both bombs? That an amphibious invasion of mainland Japan and ultimate march to Tokyo would have netted significantly more loss in human life -- American and Japanese -- than the two bombs did? Nearly twice as many Germans and Allies died on D-Day, on the day, than were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let alone in the campaign through western Europe to actually defeat the Nazis. There are zero reputable military historians that would tell you that landing on Japan would have been a less bloody proposition than landing in France was. And then there would have been the proposition of actually finishing the war after accomplishing that landing.
The real evil was that the Japanese didn't surrender before Nagasaki.
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!"
Oh not this shit again. Are you not tired yet?
P.S.
This thread is trying to tell me that japanese populace was actually more in favour of surrender. Riiiiiight.
I am fascinated by this xD
Well the bombings certainly gave the narrative of the war a fitting conclusion, which might seem like a trivial point but was certainly lacking in WWI which certainly contributed to the dolchstosslegende and what not. Besides, once people figured out how to build nuclear weapons it was inevitable that they'd be used somewhere, most likely in the USA/USSR war that was only ever prevented by the existence of the nuclear deterrent.