KingFate said:
mrstickball said:
Does not change the fact there were no viable alternatives.
What would you rather happen:
- Kill 250,000 Japanese
- Kill 1,00,000 Americans, 3,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 20 years
- Kill 15,000,000 Japanese (or more). Cripple Japanese economy for another 15 years
I'd choose #1 every time. Using horriffic weapons is never a great option, but in rare cases, there is no 'better' option.
I've said it before, and I will say it again:
Using the nuke on Japan is the reason I exist today. Rhubang may have been at Hiroshima during its anniversary, but so was my grandpa over 64 years ago. He was part of the shore team that was to invade Japan in the case of an invasion. There is a high probability he would of died, thus preventing me from living. I'd imagine there are many other VGCers that would have had their lives removed from them had a ground war, or mass starvation been the answer for the war.
|
If the US was nuked by a military power would it be right? If it avoided more deaths on both sides, but it would leave us a broken and crippled country?
|
It would be right if we were pursuing the kind of inhuman subjugation and destruction of Asia like the Japanese did in WW2.
Secondly, nuking Japan didn't break and cripple the country - the carpet bombings of everywhere else by conventional means did.
Which city would you of prefered to live in after the bombing?
Take your pick of a city. Guess which ones were nuked, and which ones weren't. You can't tell me that the damage to Tokyo or Osaka were any less economically destructive than Hiroshima, Dresden, or Nagasaki.
