Why the world still needs nuclear weapons

[KingFate]

Kasz216 said:

KingFate said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

mrstickball said:
So RubangB -

How were we to resolve the war in the Pacific against Japan?

Not by mutating generations of children, including people born long after the war is resolved, and not by bombing a town with a huge immigrant Korean population that had nothing to do with the war.

But I don't buy into the idea that that war in particular needed drastic measures because they were fanatics.  Conventional weapons are always enough.  The bombing of Tokyo wiped out 100,000 non-combatants (almost as many as the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and more than Nagasaki), and 25% of the city.  But the next generation was born without birth defects from radiation.

An interesting thing is the US actions in WW 2 were more horrific than ANY attack on the US in the past 100 years. It's a dangerous thing to say it's ok for us to do it and not another group. For instance 9/11 horrific as it was, was not nearly as cruel and destructive as what happened to the Japanese.

What I am saying is if you condem 9/11 then you must also condem the actions made by the US in WW 2.

Why? 

1) WW2 was a war.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't even the biggest loss of civilian life in WW2.

The afore mentioned bombing of Tokyo killed more people... as did the Firebombing of Dresden.  Which unlike the other 3 bombings, the fire bombing of Dresden happened after Germany had lost, and was rapidly retreating.

3) Due to the military leader mindset... the Japanese were never going to surrender, even if we kept conventionally firebombing them... it would of took massive drastic measures that would of cost more human life.  Even after the first Nuclear attack, the leadership outside of the emperor didn't want to make peace... without concessions from the US and there was little the emperor could do about it.

Heck even then, the emperor had to actually avoid someone who wanted to kidnap him and lock him up so he couldn't surrender even after the two A-bombs proved we had more then 1.

 

Personally I think Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a better alternative then killing over half the population of Japan with a blockade. 

That's a double standard though, in their eyes(Al Qaeda) we are were and are at war with them. They know that if they fought our troops it wouldn't be nearly as effective , but if they kill ciivilians they can sway our thoughts. Killing civilians is NEVER justified. It's basically killing people who have no say in the end over the reasons they are fighting for. It's like killing an entire village of people because the mayor of town upset you.