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

[candycorn]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

 

[candycorn]

...Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans........

False premise.

Actual premise.

 

[candycorn]

...We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

As a matter of fact, we did not.

History disagrees with you.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Pretty simple stuff we have the intercepts and the minutes from the Japanese Government meetings. At NO TIME did Japan offer to surrender. All they offered was a ceasefire and return to 41 start lines. No concessions in China and no occupation no dismantling the military no foreigners in Japan at all. That is what they ask the Soviets to convey to the allies and that is what they offered before the nukes.

 

[candycorn]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.

It got the job done. I think nuking Tokyo would have sent a message to the Soviet Union. You hit one of our bases and we come back with total disaster on your capitol.
The half-measure of taking out their industrial hubs was effective for 1945. However, in the bigger picture, wiping out Tokyo would had a very loud and log echo.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.

It got the job done. I think nuking Tokyo would have sent a message to the Soviet Union. You hit one of our bases and we come back with total disaster on your capitol.
The half-measure of taking out their industrial hubs was effective for 1945. However, in the bigger picture, wiping out Tokyo would had a very loud and log echo.

Tokyo had already been destroyed, you ignorant douche bag.

 

[Unkotare]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.

Only two atom bombs existed at the time, you ignorant douche bag.

 

[Unkotare]

...We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

As a matter of fact, we did not.

History disagrees with you.

Wrong.

 

[Unkotare]

...Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans........

False premise.

Actual premise.

False.

 

[candycorn]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.

It got the job done. I think nuking Tokyo would have sent a message to the Soviet Union. You hit one of our bases and we come back with total disaster on your capitol.
The half-measure of taking out their industrial hubs was effective for 1945. However, in the bigger picture, wiping out Tokyo would had a very loud and log echo.

Tokyo had already been destroyed, you ignorant douche bag.

Wow shitbrains; You're missing the point; on purpose I'm afraid.

The reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki are known worldwide was because they were dusted with unconventional weapons. And, oh by the way, has anyone heard a peep from the Japanese Military since 1945? No.

Of course the dynamic between what happens with Japan and the USSR are quite different. But in the back of the mind of Kruschev, Breznehev (sp?), Andropov, Chernyenko, etc... going forward would be what happened to Tokyo whenever they were thinking about tangling with the US. In the mind of a dictator/emperor having a city wiped out is one thing; having their palace wiped out is quite different; having their wives, sons, daughters, and pet cat reduced to dust in a microsecond is a bit of a different kettle of fish than nameless faceless people hundreds of miles away.

 

[candycorn]

...We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

As a matter of fact, we did not.

History disagrees with you.

Wrong.

The history that everyone else reads does.

 

[candycorn]

...Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans........

False premise.

Actual premise.

False.

Actual premise. Nuking Japan saved American lives. Whether you want to believe reality is your business.

 

[JoeB131]

Really? May be, it would end Russia (China) and/or the US. May be not. Depends on how many Russian and/or Chinese nukes we can destroy before start, how many will be intercepted, how effective will be evacuation, mobilisation and retaliation. In fact we can try to kill them all and lost only half of our own population. But clearly it can do nothing about the whole civilisation.

Quite the contrary, even if a certain percentage survived, the civilization would be over. Food distribution would end, central government would end.

Bla-bla-bla. Just a stupid environmentalistic crap.

Funny thing about Science, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it stops being a thing.

Really? Where do you see it? In your leftist newspapers?

Um, no, I see it in the economy around me with most of the stores closed, most people working from home, 33 million unemployed, international trade coming to a stop. This is from a VIRUS. Not having hundreds of cities leveled to the ground and rendered as radioactive wastelands.

Yes. If you mean Japan civilians, of course.
BTW, do you know, that Japanese leaders called their new "Light carrier", Izuma-class DDH-184, as "Kaga"?
Looks like, two nukes were not enough to imprint pacifism into the Japanese mentality.
If they want to repeat - somebody will repeat this lesson.

Kaga is the name of a province in Japan. The Izuma Class has nowhere near the capabilities of the Nimitz or Ford class carriers we have. They only carry 28 aircraft compared to 75 for the Fords or 85 for the Nimitzes

Oh, yeah, and they have to get the fighters from us... so there's that.

 

[JoeB131]

No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."

But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.

One more time. Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized. In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs. Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.

At the time it was used, it was just another weapon. 60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII. Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

Yes, I agree. What about next time? Local conflict, Japan's Neo-Imperial Fleet use tactical nukes against US Navy military bases. We have their fleet crushed, their silo destroyed and Japan's government try to surrender. We have a choice - accept their surrender immediately, of burn their main cities first. What should we choose?

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

Tokyo was almost destroyed in March.

Bombing of Tokyo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We should always choose to save American lives during combat. Which is what we did.

Therefore, if nuking of Japan cities (even after formal attempt of their surrender) and destruction of their industry will protect our Pacific bases from another potentional treasonous attack - it should be done?

I was talking about 1945.

And what about 2025?
History make sense only as a lesson. "What was our mistake?" "How we can avoid it?" "What should be done to not repeat it? "

Let me know when we get to 2025.

As for 1945; we didn't make a mistake. We did what was necessary.

May be, there was a way to do it better? For example, to use three bombs instead two.

Only two atom bombs existed at the time, you ignorant douche bag.

Yes, but only because "The Gadget" was tested in New Mexico, not in Kyoto.

 

[gipper]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.

Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.

They were not "defenseless". Their husbands and fathers were fighting against both soldiers and civilians.

Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By summer 1945, they were defenseless. This is why the US air forces could daylight bomb with impunity. They had no air defenses. This means they were defenseless

 

[Silver Cat]

Really? May be, it would end Russia (China) and/or the US. May be not. Depends on how many Russian and/or Chinese nukes we can destroy before start, how many will be intercepted, how effective will be evacuation, mobilisation and retaliation. In fact we can try to kill them all and lost only half of our own population. But clearly it can do nothing about the whole civilisation.

Quite the contrary, even if a certain percentage survived, the civilization would be over. Food distribution would end, central government would end.

Bla-bla-bla. Just a stupid environmentalistic crap.

Funny thing about Science, just because you don't believe in it doesn't mean it stops being a thing.

Really? Where do you see it? In your leftist newspapers?

Um, no, I see it in the economy around me with most of the stores closed, most people working from home, 33 million unemployed, international trade coming to a stop. This is from a VIRUS. Not having hundreds of cities leveled to the ground and rendered as radioactive wastelands.

Yes. If you mean Japan civilians, of course.
BTW, do you know, that Japanese leaders called their new "Light carrier", Izuma-class DDH-184, as "Kaga"?
Looks like, two nukes were not enough to imprint pacifism into the Japanese mentality.
If they want to repeat - somebody will repeat this lesson.

Kaga is the name of a province in Japan.

And a name of a Japan carrier, attacked Pearl Harbour.
I mean, if Germans name one of their "pocket carriers" "Bismarch" Brits may be upset.
Creatures with the effective survival instinct must avoid such names.

 

[gipper]

No, you're just some dickless bigmouth on the internet. Real American military leaders understand war and life and death.

"Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, the tough and outspoken commander of the U.S. Third Fleet, which participated in the American offensive against the Japanese home islands in the final months of the war, publicly stated in 1946 that "the first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment." The Japanese, he noted, had "put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before" the bomb was used."

But all those "Peace feelers" were contingent on Japan keeping the territories they had seized and not holding the war criminals to account.

One more time. Everyone had second thoughts about the bomb after the war, when the true potential of atomic weaponry was realized. In many ways, guys like Halsey and Patton realized the A-bomb put them out of jobs. Fleets and Armies became kind of meaningless when you can just erase whole countries from the map.

At the time it was used, it was just another weapon. 60,000 dead at Hiroshima might SEEM bad, until you realize 70,000,000 died in the war, and Hiroshima represented less than 0.1% of the deaths in WWII. Dragging the war on for another month while "peace feelers" were explored would have resulted in more deaths than the bombing did.

Wrong. They only asked that the emperor not be harmed. They feared the Americans would hang him. A logical fear the Americans never addressed until after Truman did his war crime. Then Dirty Harry assured them the emperor wouldn’t be harmed. Nice guy old Dirty Harry.

 

[Silver Cat]

Here's the thing. At the time, it was just another weapon in a war that saw all sorts of weapons used by all sides... Horror on a level most of us couldn't understand today.

Later on, when Nukes became an existential threat to the species, people asked why we used them, but at the time, there was no question. We were at war, they started it.

It's a wonderful case of applying modern values to people in the past who would have looked at you funny.

Nucleophobia detected. Nukes are just ordinary (but powerful) weapon. It is not any kind of "an existential threat" in any way.
And yes, killing Japans was good, not bad.

Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians was "good"?

Compared to losing hundreds of thousands of Americans.... "good"? No. Preferable. Yes.

Compared to their immediate surrender?
Next time, should we accept their surrender immediately, or burn their cities first?

They could have surrendered at any point. They chose not to. So they got their ass nuked. In all honesty, I'm not sure, if the tables had been turned, we would have surrendered either.

But the tables remained upright.

So...the fact remains they could have surrendered at any point and chose not to....

My only regret is that we didn't nuke Tokyo on the way back.

They tried surrendering several times. I just don’t know it because you’re fooled by propaganda. Truman told them to fuck off and then committed world history’s greatest war crime.

He was right. There was no need to accept their "surrender". They must have been bombed and nuked. At least to make a little lesson for them and a little show for the world.

Yeah it’s great to mass murder defenseless women and children for show.

They were not "defenseless". Their husbands and fathers were fighting against both soldiers and civilians.

Nanjing Massacre - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

By summer 1945, they were defenseless. This is why the US air forces could daylight bomb with impunity. They had no air defenses. This means they were defenseless

It was only their problem and their responsibility. When they started war they were sure that they can win.