6th of August. Day of Hiroshima bombing.

[KLAMarine]

SvennoJ said:

KLAMarine said:

The idea is it reduced war casualties by bringing the war to a close much quicker with the use of a frightening new weapon. No need for a long and drawn out land invasion. Scare the enemy into surrender rather than having to fight the millions who were being mobilized to defend the homeland.

Except it doesn't work. Would the USA surrender when one of more cities get levelled with a Nuclear bomb?

If up against overwhelming odds, I would consider it. Consider Japan's circumstances at the time of surrender: Japan's major ally Germany had long surrendered, its cities were getting bombed with almost no way to retaliate, the USSR had just declared war. It's a culmination of factors that brought Japan to the surrender table, not just one. Bombing alone doesn't bring surrender but it can still play its role. Provides incentive: surrender and the bombing stops.

akuseru said:

KLAMarine said:

akuseru said:
I think it is ironic that the 'world police' who is spreading fear about other nations having nuclear weapons, and in some cases even lying about it (Iraq), is the only country that has ever used one. Not only have they used it once, but twice even.

Who better to warn the world of nuclear weapons than those who have first-hand experience?

They are not "warning" anyone. They only want to stay in control. The whole world, and especially Japan experienced the bombs. The US did not experience anything other than that they know that they are in possession of a weapon that can annihilate any threats.

Funny you accuse the United States of wanting to stay in control when for the past decades, the US has been dismantling its stockpile in collaboration with their European allies and the USSR/Russia. Seems more like an attempt to avoid a catastrophic world war than to try to "stay in control".