The Nuking of Nagasaki: Even More Immoral and Unnecessary than Hiroshima

Uh no. We didnt need to fight at all. Just sit and wait. They surrendered when Russia entered the war.
Uh, history is how it happened, you can speculate all you want but the fact remains, Russia and Japan fought until the beginning of September, your opinion is that with much less bombing, if we did not destroy two cities and the military capabilities of those cities the war won of ended in days?

Had we not destroyed two cities and the military capacities of those cities the war would of ended sooner is your opinion.

Thank God nobody with your opinion was in charge.
 
Uh, history is how it happened, you can speculate all you want but the fact remains, Russia and Japan fought until the beginning of September, your opinion is that with much less bombing, if we did not destroy two cities and the military capabilities of those cities the war won of ended in days?

Had we not destroyed two cities and the military capacities of those cities the war would of ended sooner is your opinion.

Thank God nobody with your opinion was in charge.
Did Japan surrender to the US after Russia entered the war?
 
You offered no facts, you offered your opinion, not the opinion of military leaders. You offered no quotes or links, you referenced no books.

What you did was offered an opinion of your own, that is a fact.
Their statements are facts. Their testimony is nearly unanimous.


They were the experts on the war. They knew better than anyone what we should do.


Not a former VP kept out of the loop for most of the war
 
Their statements are facts. Their testimony is nearly unanimous.


They were the experts on the war. They knew better than anyone what we should do.


Not a former VP kept out of the loop for most of the war
They did not know the bomb existed and never stated it should not be dropped.

Your opinion is not the opinion of the leaders you fail to quote
 
Did Japan surrender to Russia, no, they fought Russia until the beginning of September.

Japan, the leaders if Japan refused to surrender so your premise is based on a false narrative.

Japan was at war until September, Russia prolonged the fighting.
Japan surrendered to us which is all we cared about
 
You would go before the American people and say, "I'll give Japan a pass here, as that is a legitimate military target. No response from the United States"?

There is no "pass". You hit any US target (civilian, military, infrastructure, cultural, etc.) and the response should be so horrifying that nobody ever wants to hit the US again. That's how you prevent unnecessary atrocities.

Pearl Harbor was not an atrocity. It was a legitimate military target. Just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.

Now an atrocity is what they did to Nanking, and most areas they occupied. How POWs were treated was an atrocity. The Bataan Death March was an atrocity. Pearl Harbor was not an atrocity.

And here is the biggest thing about atrocities, those that do them have the might to do them. And there is never any thought they could lose or get captured (or even that what they are doing is wrong), so such claims that it will prevent others later is pointless. Japan with their sick form of Bushido during the Showa era is a perfect example of that. They knew they were the rightful owners of East Asian, and they could not lose, nothing could stop them. Anything they did to others was allowed, as it was their right as conquerors.

Not unlike the atrocities ISIS did. Including burning POWs alive and filming it. They knew they were going to win, that God was on their side, so no past punishment would mean anything to them.

Enacting "retribution" on people like that does nothing. Because the next group will once again know it is their right to do what they want, and such "lessons" will not apply to them.
 
Pearl Harbor was not an atrocity. It was a legitimate military target. Just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets.
I consider it an atrocity for them to have attacked in peacetime. I would only consider Pearl Harbor a valid target after war was declared.

And I consider it to have been Japan's responsibility to have verified that war was declared before they launched their attack.
 
I consider it an atrocity for them to have attacked in peacetime. I would only consider Pearl Harbor a valid target after war was declared.

And I consider it to have been Japan's responsibility to have verified that war was declared before they launched their attack.
War always starts by one side attacking first.


You are being ridiculous
 
Prove that


I await your evidence
You made the statement. You made the claim Prove your assertions, prove your opinion.

We await your evidence that the biggest secret, a literal top secret, was known outside Stimson, Marshall, Bush, Grove, and Roosevelt.

Not even Truman, the vice president knew there was a atomic bomb being built.

Now you assert people under the level of the vice president, who had nothing to do with this Top Secret knew?

And on top of that you assert that they stated it should not be used.

You have made the claim, voiced your opinion, now the burden is on you to back your mouth with facts.
 
Their statements are facts. Their testimony is nearly unanimous.

They were the experts on the war. They knew better than anyone what we should do.
Some of thier statements could be fact, most are opinion, and they never testified, there was no testimony.

"They", never acted as one and offered an overall strategy, as one. Not one of these people acted alone, some never commented on strategy. Some simply executed the orders given.

You are making bold wide statement that do not reflect reality
 
Some of thier statements could be fact, most are opinion, and they never testified, there was no testimony.

"They", never acted as one and offered an overall strategy, as one. Not one of these people acted alone, some never commented on strategy. Some simply executed the orders given.

You are making bold wide statement that do not reflect reality
Some of thier statements could be fact, most are opinion, and they never testified, there was no testimony.

"They", never acted as one and offered an overall strategy, as one. Not one of these people acted alone, some never commented on strategy. Some simply executed the orders given.

You are making bold wide statement that do not reflect reality
All of their statements are opinion.

You have an opinion on the bomb


They had an opinion on the bomb


I'm gonna go with theres. Lol
 

Forum List

Back
Top