Iranian blockade of persian gulf

[chorba 10]

............

Edited February 11, 2012 by chorba

[MrSmith 10]

Absolutely nothing.

 

I just don't like it when victims (Japanese civilians) are considered as collateral victims when they are not.

 

It’s interesting that you think the aggressor is the victim.

[chorba 10]

.............

Edited February 11, 2012 by chorba

[chorba 10]

..................

Edited February 11, 2012 by chorba

[JFKvsNixon 11]

Because the thread is about nuclear weapons.

 

So you refuse to acknowledge the context that the nuclear weapons were used, they were not used in isolation. Maybe you need to grasp this point to better understand history.

 

I would have started by not dropping two nuclear bombs the most powerful weapon that exists on civilians.

 

Actually the bombs dropped upon the Japanese cities are tiny when compared to ones that came later, but lets not let this point derail matters.

 

Anyway, you misunderstand me. It is unquestionable that the atomic attacks upon Japan were an extension of the allies policy of area attacks upon the Axis cities, this is where the airforces attacked the cities themselves rather than individual establishments.

 

So I ask you again, how would have you fought the war without attacking any of the cities?

[truman 10]

I think it's naive to think that USA dropped two nuclear bombs for the world's interest.

 

Poor Americans they had to sacrifice two of their most expensive bombs to save the world.

 

Go on then... why did they do it?..

[MrSmith 10]

The civilians are the aggressors?

 

MrSmith is going too far.

 

Japan was the aggressor and they are responsible for all the civilian deaths on both sides.

[JFKvsNixon 11]

No. It's because the number actually means something to me but clearly not to everyone since for some people think the two nuclear bombs were "a good thing".

 

But the number killed during the attack upon Tokyo doesn't?

[truman 10]

No. It's because the number actually means something to me but clearly not to everyone since for some people think the two nuclear bombs were "a good thing".

 

"Good" is relative...the bombs brought on a quicker end to the war than would otherwise have happened..saving more lives..both civilian and military..

[L00b 441]

No. It's because the number actually means something to me but clearly not to everyone since for some people think the two nuclear bombs were "a good thing".

Why does 'your' 200,000 casualties mean more than, say, the 150,000 (at least...however routinely exaggerated to nearly 500,000) Dresden casualties at the hands of the Allies, using conventional ordnance?

 

Is it the extra 50,000 bodies, or the nuclear tech that is at issue?

 

EDIT - after that one, let's have a chat about a country willing to obtain a nuclear weapons for "deterrent purposes", yet ready and willing to let 10s of 1,000s of its children partake in frontline combat with Iraq less than 3 decades ago, shall we?

Edited January 25, 2012 by L00b

[chorba 10]

................

Edited February 11, 2012 by chorba

[chorba 10]

...............

Edited February 11, 2012 by chorba