Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Scholarly stuff...They say the fog of war is intense and the first casualty is the truth. It appears that the fog might be thicker 6o years later...Just wondering - with the previous posts..are there really people out there typing this stuff out- paragraphs containing infinite detail of the events? Some sure have taken a lot of time in study- Does anyone have the simple answer- was the A bomb needed or not?
Scholarly stuff...They say the fog of war is intense and the first casualty is the truth. It appears that the fog might be thicker 6o years later...Just wondering - with the previous posts..are there really people out there typing this stuff out- paragraphs containing infinite detail of the events? Some sure have taken a lot of time in study- Does anyone have the simple answer- was the A bomb needed or not?
No, nobody has that answer.
Many claim to, but none do. So the endless posturing and pontificating will continue.
The goal was the unconditional surrender of Japan, who started the war. The "sub-goal" was to lose as few Americans as possible in achieving the goal. Unconditional surrender was desired ASAP, not after a protracted land assault. In the end, the use of the Atomic Bomb became - at the very least - the lesser of two evils.
Also, the fact that it sent a VERY clear message to the entire world about American military capability, was a bonus.
Scholarly stuff...They say the fog of war is intense and the first casualty is the truth. It appears that the fog might be thicker 6o years later...Just wondering - with the previous posts..are there really people out there typing this stuff out- paragraphs containing infinite detail of the events? Some sure have taken a lot of time in study- Does anyone have the simple answer- was the A bomb needed or not?
I believe the A Bomb ended the war saving thousands of lives on both sides.. Japan was prepared to continue fighting for a much longer time, knowing they would loose anyway.
One thing we don't see today is that back then no one really knew the radioactive parts as we do know.
I know this is true, no matter what anyone NOW, has to say about it, because I have around 6 antique 35 mm slides with my relatives standing in the wide open watching the dam thing going off. They are not even standing behind any cement walls!
So you get to decide if the A bomb was worth it, or not. Do any of the lives saved on both sides matter today?
I hate war and death as much as anyone. Honest question-What SHOULD the US have done to end WWII?
We should have bought em off. Bombarded Japan with sugar, cheap cars and electrical appliances .. gotten them all hooked on the decadent western lifestyle. Then with their moral fiber eroded, we threaten to cut off supplies of Hershey Bars, nylons and Jack Daniels...they surrender.
I hate war and death as much as anyone. Honest question-What SHOULD the US have done to end WWII?
Be nice to sent 4 men to duke it out with pistols or maybe swords eh? The pres and vice pres of each warring nation. I bet then these poly ticn leech SOB's would find a way to war in words instead of death.
Second, what would bombing the train tracks to Auschwitz have accomplished?
I agree that "first of all it is off topic."
If so, why is there a "second?" If it is off topic, why are you soliciting an elaboration?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.