Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
Okay, so in an attempt to get this thread back on track (almost certainly doomed to failure but I gotta try), what is the consensus on America bombing Japan? Needed? Unnecessary? A show of force rather than a means to an end? The only way to end the war? An attempt by Truman to show he wasn't just an accidental, placeholder president? Right? Wrong?
|
Even with the atomic strikes Japan would not have surrendered unless instructed to by Hirohito. The Tokyo firebombing three day napalm raid killed more people than either atomic blast.
Dude, the war is over.
Japan’s infrastructure was so decimated at the time there wasn’t a clear understanding of the destructive force behind the Hiroshima strike before Nagasaki.
One argument goes like goddamn they didn’t surrender even after Hiroshima. And the other one is like I get Hiroshima but wtf was with Nagasaki.
If I had been an Allied soldier who suffered through that horrible **** in Okinawa and I heard they had some new super big stick weapon they weren’t using I would have felt like **** that.
If I were the mother of a child who drowned in the river he jumped in because he was on fire I would’ve thought the Americans were barbaric cowards that attacked civilian targets.
What confounds me is that people think it’s acceptable to continue building weapons even 1000 times more powerful. We must really hate ourselves.