Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-03-29 at 20:20:37
And Golden-Fist biznatches at me for proving people wrong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Cloud on 2006-03-30 at 21:14:46
QUOTE(Deathawk @ Mar 28 2006, 05:36 AM)
I'll let DTBK rebuttle to that one, Cloud =\
[right][snapback]454704[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]454704[/snapback][/right]
My puny brain doesnt understand the word "rebuttle"
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2006-03-31 at 01:17:50
Rebuttal: The introduction of contradicting or opposing evidence.
And the use of warheads in world war II was not necessary, it simply changed our enemies. Although you can never tell exactly what would have happened if we never used them, I suspect that the show of power in those detonations was the cause of more casualties then necessary. (Both the enemy and our own later consequences.)
And the use of warheads in world war II was not necessary, it simply changed our enemies. Although you can never tell exactly what would have happened if we never used them, I suspect that the show of power in those detonations was the cause of more casualties then necessary. (Both the enemy and our own later consequences.)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Do-0dan on 2006-03-31 at 01:29:46
since the U.S. defeated almost all of Japan's naval forces, they could've sent ships to Japan, close to the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and force Japan to surrender
if they would not have surrendered, the U.S. naval forces could've bombarded the navy ports using the ships until they did surrender
if the bombardment would not have worked, the U.S. could've bombed military bases using aircraft
if they would not have surrendered, the U.S. naval forces could've bombarded the navy ports using the ships until they did surrender
if the bombardment would not have worked, the U.S. could've bombed military bases using aircraft
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-03-31 at 01:45:12
QUOTE(Do-0dan @ Mar 30 2006, 10:29 PM)
since the U.S. defeated almost all of Japan's naval forces, they could've sent ships to Japan, close to the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and force Japan to surrender
if they would not have surrendered, the U.S. naval forces could've bombarded the navy ports using the ships until they did surrender
if the bombardment would not have worked, the U.S. could've bombed military bases using aircraft
[right][snapback]456448[/snapback][/right]
if they would not have surrendered, the U.S. naval forces could've bombarded the navy ports using the ships until they did surrender
if the bombardment would not have worked, the U.S. could've bombed military bases using aircraft
[right][snapback]456448[/snapback][/right]
If I am not misstaken when I say this, by the time we had a ready atomic bomb to drop on Japan (bomb already waiting to be deployed) we had already started day after day of carpet bombing on Japan.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2006-04-01 at 02:39:02
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never touched by any bombs of any sort until the A-Bombs. This is fact. It was a test of the atomic power of the bomb on a city. IT also sent a messege to Russia that we had this bomb that could destroy them. It wasn't just to "save lives".
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2006-04-01 at 12:20:50
Uh yeah I know, Im talking about Japan as a whole...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Japan
QUOTE
The March 1945 firebombing of Tokyo may have killed as many as 100,000 people. By August, about 60 Japanese cities had been destroyed through a massive aerial campaign, including large firebombing raids on the cities of Tokyo and Kobe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Japan
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Voyager7456(MM) on 2006-04-02 at 11:16:26
I think that maybe Hiroshima was necessary, but I'm not sure why Nagasaki was bombed... wouldn't one city be enough to show the power of the bomb?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-04-02 at 13:32:39
We bombed Nagasaki because they still wouldn't surrender after we bombed Hiroshima.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by n2o-SiMpSoNs on 2006-04-02 at 13:46:16
We also never wanted to kill the emporer. So we bombed were he wasnt.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Exploit on 2006-04-02 at 13:47:02
Japan would have very likely countinue to fight till the death if we had not nuked them. It would have resulted in the deaths of millions of more Allied troops. 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (DI)Yulla on 2006-04-02 at 16:30:29
The bomb was necessary to end the pacific war. The Japanese wouldn't give up. They even had to take two atomic hits to surrender. I think it was necessary..
This is post is obviously biased since I am korean.
This is post is obviously biased since I am korean.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2006-04-03 at 02:11:55
For their own good it was necessary though. The civilians would have fought to the death if the government was ousted without a formal cessation of hostilities.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-05 at 11:02:55
they dropped the bombs to show taht they are the most powerful & not to fight with the japaneese
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-04-05 at 19:33:54
-_-
They dropped them to show the Japs we wouldn't fark with them (Also, to end the war)
They dropped them to show the Japs we wouldn't fark with them (Also, to end the war)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-15 at 07:49:06
US had the possibility to reach the same effect with usual bombs.
a good example for this is Dresden (or how it's spelled correctly?). after the bombing of it, there were more casualties than after the first nuclear explosion.
at first they dropped big bombs to destroy the roads. after that, they dropped small shard bombs to destroy the roofs & windows of buildings, so the future fire can spread fast. the third phase was to drop the 'fire bombs". they started the HUGE fire, that destroyed allmost everything. if i remember correctly, 97% of buildings were destroyed after using this method.
that is not cheaper cheaper, but anyway, they COULD destroy those cities with normal bombs & not spread radioactive sh** all over.
so i say NO, a-bombs were necessary to end the war. just to show that they were the most powerful.
a good example for this is Dresden (or how it's spelled correctly?). after the bombing of it, there were more casualties than after the first nuclear explosion.
at first they dropped big bombs to destroy the roads. after that, they dropped small shard bombs to destroy the roofs & windows of buildings, so the future fire can spread fast. the third phase was to drop the 'fire bombs". they started the HUGE fire, that destroyed allmost everything. if i remember correctly, 97% of buildings were destroyed after using this method.
that is not cheaper cheaper, but anyway, they COULD destroy those cities with normal bombs & not spread radioactive sh** all over.
so i say NO, a-bombs were necessary to end the war. just to show that they were the most powerful.