|The Ghost of RubangB said:
|The Ghost of RubangB said:
I don't know TheRealMafoo, nukular bombs cost a looooooot of money.
Japan was already destroyed. They didn't need any more bombs. They were out of fuel and ammo and food and starving to death.
It was just like the space race, between us and the Soviets, to see who could finish off Japan faster, to come out as the sole victor of WW2. We were all mad that we met halfway in Germany, and we wanted to smash Japan by ourselves to make up for it.
As soon as we dropped the nuke, the Soviets got worried that we'd beat Japan without them and we'd look better, like we did it alone, so they immediately invaded and started slaughtering people.
So we dropped another bomb.
umm.... no. We dropped the bomb because we really did want to have to do an Iwo Jima-style fight-to-the-death-for-every-yard slog through 1200 miles of Japan while slaughtering tens of millions of Japanese soldiers and civilians and probably losing 2-3 million of our own soldiers; and we would have had to do that too, because the Japanese would have fought to the death for every millimetre of land they gave up. imo, dropping a couple low-yield nukes is much better than having to wipe a 380000km2 country with more than 100000000 people off the face of the earth.
OT: I don't know. However, a good reason to go back would be to mine titanium. The moon's "soil" has almost 11% titanium in a lot of places.
Japan could not have afforded to keep fighting. They were out of ammo, food, and fuel. The military had hijacked the country and was ordering Japanese people to their death. The American media was making it look like a long grueling war, and we fell for their "kamikaze" bullshit (they were forced to do it, not willing suicide bombers).
Our Air Force General Curtis LeMay said we didn't need to use the nuke because he'd already personally "bombed Japan back into the stone age." Tokyo was completely wiped off the map with regular bombs. Why did Hiroshima, a much smaller city, require a nuke? The radiation from the bombs has been killing and injuring people long after our peace treaty.
It would have been cheaper and more humane to use regular bombs, but we didn't give a fuck about either of those issues, because we were focused on our image as a war machine contrasted with the Soviets.
I am not defending all the evil shit Japan did in WW2, but I'm sure as fuck not defending all the evil shit the U.S. did in WW2 either. Targeting civilians should be a war crime and a crime against humanity. Why did America get a free pass with the nuke, but now they get to whine and play the victim about 9/11? We're the victims when we're on the receiving end, but when we're massacreing the innocent, we get away with it. Americans have a very selective memory when it comes to all the bullshit we've done and still do.
Its been a while since my classes on WWII but I distinctly remember that Hirohito was unwilling to surrender the island and that they were planning to fight to the bitter end because they assumed we wanted to control their country and felt they had to fight for the survival of their culture. I also remember recently hearing about documents being released from the period showing that they had no intention of surrendering even after the bombs!
Oh found that link: Source - Aug 12th 2008
Japanese Second World War leader Hideki Tojo wanted to keep fighting even after U.S. atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, accusing surrender proponents of being “frightened,” a newly released diary reveals.
Excerpts from the approximately 20 pages written by Tojo in the final days of the war and held by the National Archives of Japan were published for the first time in several newspapers Tuesday.
The culture of Japan was one of no surrender, just imagine how hard and long they would have fought without the bombs... I personally have no doubt tha the bombs not only saved American lives but Japanese, Russian, and many other nation's citizens and soldiers from death as well. The bombs are pretty universally accepted as saving lives...at least in the mainstream. I would want to hear a pretty convincing case to believe otherwise and frankly I have a hard time buying the idea that it was just to show off.
The reason there were no stars in the background is elementary photography. The background of the photograph is underexposed because the foreground is so bright. In short a bright scene in the foreground requires a shorter exposure so that the colors of the foreground are preserved and aren't overexposed, since the background is a secondary concern in this type of image allowing it to be underexposed is of no concern.
I have only a basic knowledge of cameras and I can answer that question without needing to look elsewhere. I'm sure if you check other sites they will present a very similar argument although probably with much more accurate and properly used terminology.