Why the world still needs nuclear weapons

[Kasz216]

Samus Aran said:

Kasz216 said:
Point being... Hiroshima and Nagasaki aren't even the worst thing the allies did in the war... combined Churchill's approved attack on Dresden was still worse... and the alternatives actually look worse.

The only thing they really could of did otherwise is pick different targets in Japan.

The reason they didn't is because they only wanted to drop 1 or 2 atomic bombs. They feared if they hit only military targets it wouldn't compel a surrender... so they choose targets valuable to the Japanese national ego, kill civilians, but also kill as few civilians as possible while achieving those first two objectives.

Hiroshima was an army depot, and it would kill people if they missed the depot part.

Nagasaki, was just bad luck for Nagasaki. Kokura was the second target... but it was foggy.

The worst war crime the allies commited was letting Woodrow Wilson lead the peace conference at Paris in 1919.(together with 3 other useless tools)

 

I think it's unfair to blame Woodrow Wilson.  I mean he was the one argueing for restraint afterall with his 14 points..  It was however hilariously short sited that his big push, the League of Nations was something he didn't bother to check with congress first.

Had Wilson had his way WW2 may have never happened.  It's just he was in a poor bargaining position.  Afterall the USA wasn't invaded and only entered the war later... and the US while helpful wasn't really instrumental in the war... the US was just there because of it's newfound power.