politicartoons | (no subject)

Do you truly think we could easily move on after dropping a nuke?

I think the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to the surrendering of Japan. Americas needing to be 'politically correct' has created more issues. Seriously what do you think has been accomplished from our troops being out there for over a decade? This war feels a lot like the vietnam war. Who won that? There is no point for our country to have anything to do with the middle east. You cannot reason with people who will die for their god.

I think the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki lead to the surrendering of Japan.

The timeline is undeniable. The necessity of that action is debated. It lead to the nuclear arms race we have today. if we shoot off 25% of our arsenal in the next decade, then it clearly wasn't a good thing. Well see.

Americas needing to be 'politically correct' has created more issues.

If by politically correct, you mean launching a war of choice and then an occupation, sure.

Seriously what do you think has been accomplished from our troops being out there for over a decade?

Seriously? Saddam is out of the picture. Iran is surrounded. Iraqi oil is traded near the petro dollar again. And we have the anger of all those muslims we drug through the mud for a decade. Good thing the dead don't complain as much.

This war feels a lot like the vietnam war. Who won that?

USA. 50,000 American dead. 2.5 million vietnamese dead. Climb atop the bigger pile of corpses and declare victory!

But the humidity is was different.....

You cannot reason with people who will die for their god.

Okay. Let's split. I'm with you.

I think that the firebombings reducing every city in Japan but Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Kobe (I think it was) to rubble, the mass starvation of the island due to our sinking virtually its entire merchant marine, the whole rolling juggernaut of defeats on godforsaken jungle islands most people in the USA couldn't even name the ocean they're in on the map, and August Storm had as much to do with the surrender as the atomic bombings did. The firebombing of Tokyo alone still has a death toll higher than both atomic bombings. We didn't even force Japan to a truly unconditional surrender and fight over every nook and cranny of it as happened with Germany and Italy.

Is it more moral to use one bomb to do the work of a fleet of bombers over time and kills less than the bomber fleet or to maintain a series of bomber sorties that do more damage over more time and kill more people, when both motivate surrenders?

The answer as to who won the Vietnam war is obvious: Hanoi.

The answer as to who won the Vietnam war is obvious: Hanoi.

I always find it an amusing display of American jingoism when people muse over who won the American War. We got our arses handed to us on a chopper.

Depends upon how you define victory. Do you climb atop the pile of corpses and measure the larger one?

In reality I think there is more loss in war than winning.

You cannot reason with people who will die for their god.

Yes, Americans are difficult in that manner.

Actually historians seem pretty much in agreement that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not a major factor in the Japanese surrender.

Yeah, had the United States agreed earlier about the Emperor staying in power, things would have been concluded sooner if I recall correctly from Oliver Stones "Untold History."

Except that the USA didn't do this with the white German and Italian regimes, so expecting it to give non-white Japan greater slack than it did to Hitler or Mussolini stretches the meaning of plausibility. Germany and Italy were told to surrender unconditionally or else, and the result was that both countries were fought over, bombed, and shelled into abattoirs. Japan actually got the conditional surrender and the ability to escape being so fought over.

Yeah, Stone goes into a lot of that.

I was agreeing with your point, not disagreeing with it.

Yeah, I'm just saying Stone goes into a lot about those things as well (Germany / Italy / unconditional surrender etc). It's a cool series, but I'm skeptical of some of what Stone suggests. And the New York Times has written a lengthy article about his playing loose and fast with historical fact in the series.

Edited 2013-02-07 02:21 (UTC)