On the anniversary of Hiroshima - was it really necessary to A-bomb Japan? (WWII, war)

[gorgeet]

Stinson and Roosevelt wanted to try out the bomb.

The Lies of Hiroshima Live On, Props in the War Crimes of the 20th CenturyThe 1945 attack was murder on an epic scale. In its victims’ names, we must not allow a nuclear repeat in the Middle East - CommonDreams.org

[swagger]

On the anniversary of Hiroshima - was it really necessary to A-bomb Japan?

Absolutely. If we hadn't used the bomb, Hitler would have in a couple more months.

If you're not willing to use the weapons you have available to you, you may as well not have them. Our using them let the world know that if it becomes absolutely necessary, we'll use whatever tools we have at our disposal - including "the bomb".

[cityconvo]

Originally Posted by swagger

Absolutely. If we hadn't used the bomb, Hitler would have in a couple more months.

Huh? I don't think he could of pulled that off, being dead and all.

[Goodpasture]

An invasion of the Home Islands would have caused an estimated 100,000 plus American casualties. The idea is to not die for our cause, but to make the other guy die for his.

Nuc the Japanese? Absolutely. Nuc Iran? Certainly worth considering

[truckingbronco]

Originally Posted by swagger

Absolutely. If we hadn't used the bomb, Hitler would have in a couple more months.

If you're not willing to use the weapons you have available to you, you may as well not have them. Our using them let the world know that if it becomes absolutely necessary, we'll use whatever tools we have at our disposal - including "the bomb".

Germany already surrendered before we dropped the bomb...we dropped it on Japan, ya know?

With that said, I think the bomb was necessary as the land invasion would have resulted in many more casualties.

[j760]

Originally Posted by swagger

Absolutely. If we hadn't used the bomb, Hitler would have in a couple more months.

So that makes it right?

That's a great concept, let's kill a ton of innocent people because if it wouldn't have been us it would have been someone else.

[Full-Blooded American]

By the same token, where are the people asking the Japs if they needed to bomb Pearl...

[ebitdadada]

Originally Posted by swagger

Absolutely. If we hadn't used the bomb, Hitler would have in a couple more months.

You may be the biggest moron I've ever encountered, anywhere. Kudos on that.

[jamesandveybe]

Originally Posted by swagger

Absolutely. If we hadn't used the bomb, Hitler would have in a couple more months.

True, and according to the Japanese, they were working on their own A-bomb. Kill or be killed. Glad we acted first. And second.

[jamesandveybe]

Originally Posted by j760

So that makes it right? That's a great concept, let's kill a ton of innocent people because if it wouldn't have been us it would have been someone else.

If you are asking if self-defense, or preventing the slaughter of Americans, was justified by using mass weapons against a nation who struck us first, who was at war with us, and that had it's own A-bomb project, the answer is obvious. People who would never defend themselves or their families are clucless to me. Is this the gene pool where anti-gun wackos come from?

Your lack of perspective about the WWII-era Japanese empire is striking.