Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
30 days????!!!!!!!!!!!There were plenty of targetswhat do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
It was a combination of both. I posted the link. Do fuck yourself you antisemitic asshole.
30 days!!!There were plenty of targetswhat do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
We could have chose a military target on a remote island. Completely obliterated it and documented the results. Allow Japan to evaluate what had happened and give them thirty days to unconditionally surrender.
Terms are....next one hits Tokyo
Most of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot.
Commies at their finest.
Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.
defense does not take much training at all compared to offenseMost of the Soviets lost were civilians who were handed a stick and told to charge the German lines or be shot on the spot.
Commies at their finest.
Um, yeah, given the Germans were going to turn them into lampshades and bars of soap, they didn't need that much coaxing.
By 1945, they were battle-hardened divisions... Ones that raped the crap out of Germany and were looking for more in Japan.
Look at the loss of life on just Okinawa and you have your answer on what the mainland invasion was going to be like.
Actually, not really. Most of the hard-core divisions were deployed in China or had been lost in the Pacific. What they had left in Japan were the reserves, not well armed, not well trained.
Not impressive?You can post whatever links you want.. The A-bombs just weren't all that impressive (small compared to today's bombs). The fact that 100 new battled hardened divisions of Rape-y Soviets just showed up on their western flank did.
what do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
hahhahahahwhat do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?we've been over this a million times
it was necessary -- plain and simple
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
nuked an army or a navy....
heck....both.
if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
now you see em....
now ya don't!
now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
you prove ignorant of the subject-----they had NO navyThe question is....Did we need to kill 150,000 civilians in order to get Japan to surrender ?
Irrelevant. In my mind it would have been acceptable to nuke every moderate or larger sized city in Japan as punishment for Pearl Harbor and their atrocities.
yes
that is your opinion
because you are a conservative
you have no empathy and you demand total destruction as payback....
you don't care that the people you are slaughtering are really no different than you.
they didn't start the war
they probably didn't want the war
and if they supported it they did so out of patriotic duty the way you would
hahhahahahwhat do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and NagasakiWhy?
What would have happened if we didn’t kill 150,000 civilians?
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
nuked an army or a navy....
heck....both.
if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
now you see em....
now ya don't!
now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
MORE proof you are ignorant on the subjecthahhahahahwhat do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
nuked an army or a navy....
heck....both.
if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
now you see em....
now ya don't!
now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
you do realize you made yourself look--and are--stupid by mentioning the navy?hahhahahahwhat do you not understand?We had a bombno surrender and MORE Japanese dead than at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
......for the millionth time--even after the bombs --the vote to surrender was TIED
get it??
and---MORE would've died if we did NOT bomb them!!!!!!!!!!!
How Hiroshima and Nagasaki Saved Millions of Lives
AND more died in the Tokyo conventional bombing LONG before the A bombs and no surrender---ETC
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
nuked an army or a navy....
heck....both.
if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
now you see em....
now ya don't!
now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
Recall that they attacked us.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves. There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.
Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
You are partially right. The Japanese indeed did have a navy. And much of it was under water, just not at the bottom of the sea. The USS Indianapolis is proof of that. 900 sailors lost their lives when the Japanese Navy sank the USS Indianapolis on July 30th, 1945. How many more ships could the Japanese Navy sink?hahhahahah
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
MORE proof you are ignorant on the subjecthahhahahahwhat do you not understand?We had a bomb
Nobody else did
There was no reason to invade
Was two bombs on densely populated civilian cities the only option to get them to realize the war was lost?
...do you people know we ''ran out of targets and low on conventional bombs'' BEFORE the A-bombs
we destroyed all of their major cities
and they were NOT surrendering
there--in big black letters
also---Germany was NOT surrendering UNTIL the Russians took over the Reichstag
they were NOT surrendering
please--all of you Great Politicians/ MILITARY leaders---please tell me what you would done??????!!!!!
nuked an army or a navy....
heck....both.
if bombing 2 cities forced them to surrender then i'm sure losing an army and a navy would have been even more of an eye opener.....
now you see em....
now ya don't!
now...calm down and just admit that you are a murderous psychopath who enjoys killing innocent people.....
you PROVE you are ignorant on the subject
their navy was at the bottom of the ocean
if they had no forces left to fight with then there was no reason to nuke those cities.
other than your desire to kill innocent people, of course.
not only did they have troops left--but the civilians would die fighting for their country
Helpless? They had the protection of the Japanese Military? They also had the option of fleeing. It was pretty clear that living in cities with the military was a pretty dangerous thing. We also dropped leaflets warning them.That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.
Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
Recall that they attacked us.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves. There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.
Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.
Whatever labored, embarrassing arguments one can make for the nuking of Hiroshima cannot be made for the nuking of Nagasaki just three days later. From my article "Did We Really Need to Use the Atomic Bomb Against Japan?":
On August 9, 1945, just three days after we nuked Hiroshima, and before Japan’s leaders had sufficient time to process and respond to our nuclear attack on Hiroshima, we dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, which was home to Japan’s largest Christian population. The atomic bombing of Nagasaki was even more inexcusable than the nuking of Hiroshima. . . .
On August 9, we nuked Nagasaki, just three days after Hiroshima, and hours after the Soviets began to maul the Japanese army in Manchuria,, and while Japan’s civilian leaders were understandably absorbed with trying to process what had happened to Hiroshima and with responding to the Soviet attack in Manchuria. Surely Truman and other high officials knew that three days was not enough time for Japan’s government to formulate a formal response to the unprecedented use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria. Even McGeorge Bundy, who helped Henry Stimson write his defense of the atomic bombing of Japan, acknowledged that Truman was too quick to nuke Nagasaki:
"It is hard to see that much could have been lost if there had been more time between the two bombs. . . . Such a delay would have been relatively easy, and I think right." (https://miketgriffith.com/files/immoraluse.pdf)The Japanese were not even able to get a scientific team to Hiroshima until August 7, the day after the attack. Meanwhile, Japan's leaders were getting conflicting, fragmentary information about what had happened in Hiroshima. Some Army officials were telling the government that the bombing of Hiroshima was merely a very large conventional bombing raid, and they were suppressing information about the kinds of wounds that had been inflicted. There was no Internet back then, no fax machines, no Skype.
Surely it was obscene for us to nuke Nagasaki just three days, 72 hours, after we had nuked Hiroshima.
Recall that they attacked us.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent the obvious message that we had a weapon that could destroy them quickly and at no risk to ourselves. There was nothing for the Japanese military to "process", nor any reason for us to give quarter, or a time-out.
Did the bomb end the war? Undoubtedly, and that was the intent. I had two uncles who DIDN'T invade Japan, and instead came home.
That appeal to emotion fallacy is just another way of avoiding the central moral issue of the matter. Invasion was not the only other option besides unleashing the worst weapon in history on helpless civilians.
A moot point. It performed as intended.
LOL negotiating their offer was a cease fire return to dec 41 start lines except in China no concessions there and no troops in Japan. You people are beyond stupid when you listen to revisionist stories about how Japan was gonna surrender, lets talk FACTS shall we? After 2 Atomic Bombs the Government REFUSED to surrender. the Emperor over rode them and then the Army staged a Coup to stop that.The primary reason is they couldn't stomach defeat.
nope
they knew they were done, and were negotiating
the Russians were a huge part of that
~S~
