Quote:
Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER
the distinction is that this is a weapon that can potentially, in one night, destroy 50% or more of a countries population, slit their throat in an instant. The honorable thing to do, as the worlds remaining superpower by a very large margin at that point with the bomb, may be to give them a specific and direct warning of the calamity or put more weight into decisions to demonstrate it on a non-civilian target, but im sure that minte was right, the compassion was not there
|
first of all... the US was not a "super power" in 1945. get that idea out of your head. that came long after the war.
why does everyone seem to think that dropping a single bomb on a city is any different than fire bombing Tokyo or anywhere else? Dresden? its all the same. they could drop 2000 of thier biggest bombs in the ocean in front of Tokyo just to prove they could do it... what would that stop? what would that change? i seriously doubt it would change a thing... other than risk and waste hardware and risk US military lives. and that IS the point. the point of those two bombs was simple... "how do you end the war next week"
whats the best way to demostrate the massive and unparalleled destructive power of a bomb? you drop it in a place where shit can be destroyed. i dont see another solution. if you want to use a bomb as a deterrant, you have to bomb shit that matters to prove its destructive force.
The worst part of the arguments here is that it was for "revenge". That argument just doesn't hold water. countless cities were bombed throughout world war 2, millions of people were killed. they were bombed to achieve military objectives, whether it was for psychological warfare and to demoralize a population and weaking their resolve, to boost morale of a particular side or to bomb infrastructure, economic centers and military targets.. not one is screaming or crying about that. how many allied bombs killed jews working for the nazis? was that revenge? or.. are you gonna start drawing distinctions between good slaughter and bad slaughter?
its just so fucking retarded to watch a bunch of morons draw conclusions about the mindset of a bunch of people fighting a war in the year 1945, when they are sitting in your moms basement building galleries and watching South Park.
at a minimum, you guys should have the intelligence to use language like "its my opinion that.." or "i believe that..." etc. but you don't. you are telling everyone "what really happened" as if you are privy to some facts that the rest of the world never had and its totally idiotic and pathetic to watch.