Iran

#22,327
#22,327
rikberry31 said:
Well I thought we were making progress, but you fell off the wagon. Back to the lib way, censoring and taking statements out of context. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Nothing after the first three words mattered, so no need to pontificate further in a new post.
 
Last edited:
#22,332
#22,332
#22,338
#22,338
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#22,341
#22,341
Ttucke11 said:
Agreed, and I'm of the opinion at least Nagasaki was unwarranted. Personally I think both were. But that enrages people for some reason.
Click to expand...
Generally it’s because if we hadn’t forced them to surrender, estimates were that we would have suffered as many as a million casualties if we had to invade. Don’t know how accurate that was but that was the projection. If it was half that, it was still unacceptable to our leadership.

The general feeling is that their leadership wanted to keep going but the bombs forced Hirohito to give it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#22,342
#22,342
tim said:
I can’t make it any more clear. Sorry
Click to expand...
Forgive me for overestimating your reading comprehension skills.

She literally said there was no sign they were trying to rebuild their capabilities currently, so any excavation work at the site, she does not believe contributes to an attempt to rebuild their nuclear weapons capabilities.
 
#22,343
#22,343
Delmar said:
Generally it’s because if we hadn’t forced them to surrender, estimates were that we would have suffered as many as a million casualties if we had to invade. Don’t know how accurate that was but that was the projection. If it was half that, it was still unacceptable to our leadership.

The general feeling is that their leadership wanted to keep going but the bombs forced Hirohito to give it up.
Click to expand...
I understand the reasoning. And as I get older I understand how many lies we are told by our government. We gave them 3 days then killed 40K more civilians. It was unnecessary. They probably would've surrendered or come to some kind of terms. Jmo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#22,344
#22,344
Ttucke11 said:
I understand the reasoning. And as I get older I understand how many lies we are told by our government. We gave them 3 days then killed 40K more civilians. It was unnecessary. They probably would've surrendered or come to some kind of terms. Jmo.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. We’ll never know. But Hirohito thought about for 3 days and had a chance to capitulate and didn’t. Second bomb forced it. I can’t question Truman and the leadership if they didn’t want to risk hundreds of thousands of additional casualties by invading. Obviously I wasn’t there (my parents were though) but I can guarantee the vast majority of the US population was glad to see it end by any means necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and norrislakevol
#22,345
#22,345
Delmar said:
Maybe, maybe not. We’ll never know. But Hirohito thought about for 3 days and had a chance to capitulate and didn’t. Second bomb forced it. I can’t question Truman and the leadership if they didn’t want to risk hundreds of thousands of additional casualties by invading. Obviously I wasn’t there (my parents were though) but I can guarantee the vast majority of the US population was glad to see it end by any means necessary.
Click to expand...
Thats a perfectly fair opinion I just disagree. I think we should ponder more than 3 days before condemning 40K more civilians to death. And probably shouldn't have introduced it to the world in the first place. But I do understand the reasoning for the development, that makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#22,346
#22,346
Ttucke11 said:
Thats a perfectly fair opinion I just disagree. I think we should ponder more than 3 days before condemning 40K more civilians to death. And probably shouldn't have introduced it to the world in the first place. But I do understand the reasoning for the development, that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I understand the sentiment of not dropping another one. And the atomic bomb in itself is controversial. I just think a second one was coming whether it was 3 days or 3 months. The Jap leaders were very stubborn in their belief that they could defend the homeland and extract maximum casualties on the invaders. Don’t believe they thought they could win but they had already exhibited just how fanatical they were. In addition to huge losses for the Allies, they would have sacrificed millions more of their own population including civilians. The 40,000 figure pales in comparison to the number of civilians that would have died if the war had continued.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and Ttucke11
#22,347
#22,347
Delmar said:
I understand the sentiment of not dropping another one. And the atomic bomb in itself is controversial. I just think a second one was coming whether it was 3 days or 3 months. The Jap leaders were very stubborn in their belief that they could defend the homeland and extract maximum casualties on the invaders. Don’t believe they thought they could win but they had already exhibited just how fanatical they were. In addition to huge losses for the Allies, they would have sacrificed millions more of their own population including civilians. The 40,000 figure pales in comparison to the number of civilians that would have died if the war had continued.
Click to expand...
Yes. In a war such as WWII, the distinction between civilian and soldier is a challenge. Many US soldiers, after all, would have preferred to remain peaceful civilians than to go fight, kill and die in some foreign land. Those soldiers that did die, most of them were not professional soldiers.

Here is a good read. About anything by this guy is a good read:

en.wikipedia.org

Citizen Soldiers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top