Thankfully very few people here have had to live throught he nightmare of a World War and hope we never to again, though if India and Pakistan don't get there acts together, then some of us may have that dubious insight.
Andy from the ShireNukes, were they justified...
-
Benjamin Fanjoy
- Banned
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: 10 Apr 2002, 11:53
- Location: Canada
Gidday All
Before I start please please please understand that I am not here to put down any particular nation, all of our countries have skeletons in the closet and secrets they dont want known, so my opinion is mine only, no one elses, If you dont agree thats great, thats what makes the world go round, good conversation.
My country Australia suffered at the hands of the Japanese, In one Air Raid alone our Northern Territory Capital City of DARWIN had more bombs dropped in one attack than the Japs dropped on Pearl Harbour, Our New South Wales Capitol City of SYDNEY had its Harbour invaded by Jap Midget Subs and alot of Aussie live were lost.
We lost many of our Men in the fighting in New Guinea, Burma, Singapore etc etc etc, My Grandfather was a Prisoner of War at CHANGI, a most savage and Brutal POW camp run by the Japs.
BUT !!!!!!!! My opinion is that it was very very wrong to drop the Bomb on Japan, and I believe it should have been classed as a WAR CRIME with those responsible brought to Justice.
I believe the USA should have learnt its lesson with DRESDON, a beautiful city destroyed for no reason, the bad intelligence reporting with their target already gone from the city (Panzer Army) the USA went ahead and killed many civillians.
Every war has accidents, people die, BUT lessons should be learnt !
What happened with the Japanese was no accident and the Bomb was dropped killing many Civillians. Could someone tell me what the difference is between seeing dead Jewish bodies piled up at Death Camps and then pictures of Dead Japanese Children Burnt and dieing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both forms of death were intentional and both lots of victims could not fight back.
I know that many of our American friends on this site will not like this, and I am not trying to upset you but you must look at it from all angles, not just the USA way. MY COUNTRY HAS BEEN ALLIES WITH USA for many years, we have fought together in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Samalia etc but please understand that alot of people around the world see that America acts like a Empirialistic nation wanting all countries to live, breath eat sleep and act like Americans. I know you guys dont like hearing this becauseyou are a very very very nationalistic country and because of your teachings you may find it very hard to hear things like this and may tend to fob off critisism as an insult to your country.
I have no intetion of insulting you guys, so please dont take me wrong, please please please dont get angry, just discuss these issues calmly.
I have never been able to understand why the USA used the BOMB, and can never imagine why they would have used it TWICE, The Bomb should have been a last resort weapon and only used at the last moment when there was no other choices. I have heard alot of Americans say that the bomb had to be dropped to save US soldiers lives if an invasion of Mainland Japan had been ordered, then please explain why America did not use the BOMB against North Vietnam, casualties where very high, the war was being lost and there was no end in site, please tell me why the BOMB was not used there ????
I hope this letter is not taken the wrong way but this is a subject I feel very strongly about, even tho Japan was our enemy as well I still shudder every time I think of those little children and women and old people burning and the poor unfortunates that died the horrible slow death from Radiation Poisoning.
There is an old saying that says --------- "You wouldnt wish that on your worst enemy !"
I think the BOMB suits this case perfectly, No one deserves that kind of death, especially not Children.
Hoo-Roo
Scragz
Before I start please please please understand that I am not here to put down any particular nation, all of our countries have skeletons in the closet and secrets they dont want known, so my opinion is mine only, no one elses, If you dont agree thats great, thats what makes the world go round, good conversation.
My country Australia suffered at the hands of the Japanese, In one Air Raid alone our Northern Territory Capital City of DARWIN had more bombs dropped in one attack than the Japs dropped on Pearl Harbour, Our New South Wales Capitol City of SYDNEY had its Harbour invaded by Jap Midget Subs and alot of Aussie live were lost.
We lost many of our Men in the fighting in New Guinea, Burma, Singapore etc etc etc, My Grandfather was a Prisoner of War at CHANGI, a most savage and Brutal POW camp run by the Japs.
BUT !!!!!!!! My opinion is that it was very very wrong to drop the Bomb on Japan, and I believe it should have been classed as a WAR CRIME with those responsible brought to Justice.
I believe the USA should have learnt its lesson with DRESDON, a beautiful city destroyed for no reason, the bad intelligence reporting with their target already gone from the city (Panzer Army) the USA went ahead and killed many civillians.
Every war has accidents, people die, BUT lessons should be learnt !
What happened with the Japanese was no accident and the Bomb was dropped killing many Civillians. Could someone tell me what the difference is between seeing dead Jewish bodies piled up at Death Camps and then pictures of Dead Japanese Children Burnt and dieing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, both forms of death were intentional and both lots of victims could not fight back.
I know that many of our American friends on this site will not like this, and I am not trying to upset you but you must look at it from all angles, not just the USA way. MY COUNTRY HAS BEEN ALLIES WITH USA for many years, we have fought together in WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Samalia etc but please understand that alot of people around the world see that America acts like a Empirialistic nation wanting all countries to live, breath eat sleep and act like Americans. I know you guys dont like hearing this becauseyou are a very very very nationalistic country and because of your teachings you may find it very hard to hear things like this and may tend to fob off critisism as an insult to your country.
I have no intetion of insulting you guys, so please dont take me wrong, please please please dont get angry, just discuss these issues calmly.
I have never been able to understand why the USA used the BOMB, and can never imagine why they would have used it TWICE, The Bomb should have been a last resort weapon and only used at the last moment when there was no other choices. I have heard alot of Americans say that the bomb had to be dropped to save US soldiers lives if an invasion of Mainland Japan had been ordered, then please explain why America did not use the BOMB against North Vietnam, casualties where very high, the war was being lost and there was no end in site, please tell me why the BOMB was not used there ????
I hope this letter is not taken the wrong way but this is a subject I feel very strongly about, even tho Japan was our enemy as well I still shudder every time I think of those little children and women and old people burning and the poor unfortunates that died the horrible slow death from Radiation Poisoning.
There is an old saying that says --------- "You wouldnt wish that on your worst enemy !"
I think the BOMB suits this case perfectly, No one deserves that kind of death, especially not Children.
Hoo-Roo
Scragz
Nuking Japan
1. A crime is a crime, no matter who, what, where and when. Period.
2. Mass murdering some hundreds of thousands of people is a crime just as horrible as those committed by any one else during World War II.
3. The fact that the Allies warned Japan they possessed a weapon capable of enormous destruction and they were going to use it in case Japan refused to sign the unconditional surrender, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE an attenuation of the crime itself nor, which would be even worse, a legitimation to perpetrate it. By that standard, there is no difference between such a procedure and a typical act of blackmailing in the usual gangster kind of attitude. Imagine yourself, I mean your own Country in place of Japan being threatened in such a way and tell me whether you'd consecrate it as a legitimate, ethically proposable, way of acting on the part of any possible enemy of your own choice.
This takes in the concept of "global war" but the point is NO GLOBAL WAR, whether practiced steadily or once in a while, CAN EVER ENJOY THE STATUS OF AN ACCEPTABLE, CIVIL WAY OF WARFARING BETWEEN OR AMONG COMMUNITIES OF ANY KIND, STATES INCLUDED.
4. On the other hand we should consider the official explanation given as well as the non-official basic reason laying behind that monstrous bombing.
a) It has been said that the nuke bombings were necessary in order to avoid a prolonged stage of the war in the Japanese area which would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of losses for the Allies (and the Japanese too, of course) due to the fanatic and unshrinkable will to defend their home Country against the invasion.
Even giving for granted that such was the situation, that DOES NOT AUTHORIZE the attacking power to indiscriminately kill ENTIRE POPULATIONS with no consideration for children, the elderly, the sick, women and even men not actively employed in defense duties or in connection with the local army activities. Such a decision deserves just one single attribute: SAVAGE. (In its worst and less acceptable connotation.)
b) Unofficialy it was said that along with the official motivation there was the much more important fact that the Soviet Union, declaring war to Japan according to the agreements previously adhered to between Churchill and Roosevelt on one side and Stalin on the other, would have had plenty of time to get a hold of the northern section of Japan, Hokkaido and not just to the Kurili Islands which Russia had been always claiming as her own territory.
Well, this, other than easing out the problem in the sense of eventually attenuating the liabilities of the Allies, actually gives that tragic episode a connotation of dishumanity even greater and totally unacceptable.
If this is the kind of "Realpolitik" so dear to Metternich and from then on to any one else who washed his hands in the red of innocent blood, I allow myself to SPIT ALL THE VENOM A HEART CAN HOLD to these champs of brutality functional to their own dirty and miserable interests.
I said it many times before and I'll never cease to repeat it: if I vomit whenever I think of monsters like Hitler and Stalin, my hatred against so-called "democrats", "liberals", and the rest of the multicolored fauna trailing behind them is even greater whenever they accomplish deeds which connotate as crimes of the worst kind, exactly comparable, for their outcome and consequences to those of their dictatorial counterparts.
No excuse for any one.
I would add a last consideration: if I'd put death as the just pain for the crimes of those dictators, well I'd need a double death (but we can't have it, can we) to adequately punish these monsters wearing the mask of respectable guardians of the best and most civil way to live, that is democratically and in conformity with the laws of equality, brotherhood and liberty.
If that is the way they think they can get away with it, well let them hope I'll never be a ruler where they live.
Amen.
Allelujah! Bum again!
2. Mass murdering some hundreds of thousands of people is a crime just as horrible as those committed by any one else during World War II.
3. The fact that the Allies warned Japan they possessed a weapon capable of enormous destruction and they were going to use it in case Japan refused to sign the unconditional surrender, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE an attenuation of the crime itself nor, which would be even worse, a legitimation to perpetrate it. By that standard, there is no difference between such a procedure and a typical act of blackmailing in the usual gangster kind of attitude. Imagine yourself, I mean your own Country in place of Japan being threatened in such a way and tell me whether you'd consecrate it as a legitimate, ethically proposable, way of acting on the part of any possible enemy of your own choice.
This takes in the concept of "global war" but the point is NO GLOBAL WAR, whether practiced steadily or once in a while, CAN EVER ENJOY THE STATUS OF AN ACCEPTABLE, CIVIL WAY OF WARFARING BETWEEN OR AMONG COMMUNITIES OF ANY KIND, STATES INCLUDED.
4. On the other hand we should consider the official explanation given as well as the non-official basic reason laying behind that monstrous bombing.
a) It has been said that the nuke bombings were necessary in order to avoid a prolonged stage of the war in the Japanese area which would have resulted in hundreds of thousands of losses for the Allies (and the Japanese too, of course) due to the fanatic and unshrinkable will to defend their home Country against the invasion.
Even giving for granted that such was the situation, that DOES NOT AUTHORIZE the attacking power to indiscriminately kill ENTIRE POPULATIONS with no consideration for children, the elderly, the sick, women and even men not actively employed in defense duties or in connection with the local army activities. Such a decision deserves just one single attribute: SAVAGE. (In its worst and less acceptable connotation.)
b) Unofficialy it was said that along with the official motivation there was the much more important fact that the Soviet Union, declaring war to Japan according to the agreements previously adhered to between Churchill and Roosevelt on one side and Stalin on the other, would have had plenty of time to get a hold of the northern section of Japan, Hokkaido and not just to the Kurili Islands which Russia had been always claiming as her own territory.
Well, this, other than easing out the problem in the sense of eventually attenuating the liabilities of the Allies, actually gives that tragic episode a connotation of dishumanity even greater and totally unacceptable.
If this is the kind of "Realpolitik" so dear to Metternich and from then on to any one else who washed his hands in the red of innocent blood, I allow myself to SPIT ALL THE VENOM A HEART CAN HOLD to these champs of brutality functional to their own dirty and miserable interests.
I said it many times before and I'll never cease to repeat it: if I vomit whenever I think of monsters like Hitler and Stalin, my hatred against so-called "democrats", "liberals", and the rest of the multicolored fauna trailing behind them is even greater whenever they accomplish deeds which connotate as crimes of the worst kind, exactly comparable, for their outcome and consequences to those of their dictatorial counterparts.
No excuse for any one.
I would add a last consideration: if I'd put death as the just pain for the crimes of those dictators, well I'd need a double death (but we can't have it, can we) to adequately punish these monsters wearing the mask of respectable guardians of the best and most civil way to live, that is democratically and in conformity with the laws of equality, brotherhood and liberty.
If that is the way they think they can get away with it, well let them hope I'll never be a ruler where they live.
Amen.
Allelujah! Bum again!
Last edited by Angelo V on 27 Jun 2002, 04:45, edited 1 time in total.
-
gebirgsjager
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 23 Jun 2002, 19:56
- Location: Pennsylvania
The bomb
The Japanese were fanatical and desperate (kamakazes for example) and the defense of the main islands would have been long and brutal. Allied lives were saved by dropping the bombs and probably many Japanese lives also. Ask any American or Allied GI who was to take part in the invasion if the A-bombs were appropriate.
Trying to answer without the advantage of hindsight, what do you think was the viable alternative to the A-Bomb, I can think of three
1) Invasion
2) Continuation of aerial bombing
3) Starvation through blockade
We all know the possible consequences of Option 1 for the allied side. Option 2 would become ineffective as the Japanesse economy had been decimated, leaving no large scale industry but lot's of smaller operations operating out of garage's and houses etc. Option 3 again ineffective as there was no shipping to blockade and it would be a long drawn out affair and finally the moralists against the bomb would also find Options 2&3 morally wrong, so that leaves just Option 1. Got get'em boys and put all the morale do-gooders at the front.
Andy from the Shire
1) Invasion
2) Continuation of aerial bombing
3) Starvation through blockade
We all know the possible consequences of Option 1 for the allied side. Option 2 would become ineffective as the Japanesse economy had been decimated, leaving no large scale industry but lot's of smaller operations operating out of garage's and houses etc. Option 3 again ineffective as there was no shipping to blockade and it would be a long drawn out affair and finally the moralists against the bomb would also find Options 2&3 morally wrong, so that leaves just Option 1. Got get'em boys and put all the morale do-gooders at the front.
Andy from the Shire-
gebirgsjager
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 23 Jun 2002, 19:56
- Location: Pennsylvania
The bomb
Thanks Marcus
I agree with you Cheshire. There were no nice, "politically correct" options for Harry Truman. The Japanese were going to suffer horrible casualties no matter what course was taken. Truman's job was to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible with the least number of US and Allied casualties. He did that, knowing that he would be criticized. I believe he did the right thing. Hopefully that decision will never have to be made again.
I agree with you Cheshire. There were no nice, "politically correct" options for Harry Truman. The Japanese were going to suffer horrible casualties no matter what course was taken. Truman's job was to bring the war to an end as quickly as possible with the least number of US and Allied casualties. He did that, knowing that he would be criticized. I believe he did the right thing. Hopefully that decision will never have to be made again.
-
THENIELANDS
- Member
- Posts: 60
- Joined: 17 Jun 2002, 06:14
- Location: CALIFORNIA
Hi Friends!
First, let me say I don't know why, but I guess you're all young bucks hiding a thousand devils under your skin ready to blow up the world even before Gabriel blows his horn.
That's fine, I wish I felt the same way, but hey, time's running even faster than we may realize and so I'm on the other side of the hill. But that's fine too, every season has its fruits, so they say. I'm about 59 and I always wonder where the hell I've been all these years...Seems it was only yesterday I was going to school. OK., same old story.
Now, the point is this. Somebody said "war is war" and I might add "love is love", "money is money" and the more the better.
There's something wrong though... I guess we should start revising such old sayings and views or we'll all end up as miserably as our fathers and forefathers did since the days of Adam and Eve.
Why not say "humanity is humanity" or "life is life" and start from the bottom to the way up instead of viceversa.
Let me say that for those of us who are believers, well we'd have a reason more to criticize such an attitude, but even if we don't believe, we still have one very good reason to try to turn that philosophy into something better.
If we really consider a human being as the most interesting and precious thing this earth can hold, we're bound to think that too many things just work against him and that is bad. No problem admitting to cases when the necessity of selfdefence makes it hard for any one to avoid a fight, a struggle and even a war. But why shouldn't we be trying to contain the damages and sufferings against innocent people, at least, so that the tragedy of the war, which already is a horrible experience, doesn't get to be even more tragic by making victims who had the right to be preserved and safeguarded from such consequenses.
I don't expect you to change your ideas or give mine a value higher than they have, all I'd like to hear from you is just something like "it looks mighty hard to do but we will try".
What makes me feel bad is the sense of hopelessness pervading that "war is war", and more so if you're as young as I'd love to be.
I talked about bucks at the start, they kick and run like hell when they're young but providing they had a way to know they sooner or later would be nothing but "horse meat" I'm sure they wouldn't give up by saying "butchers are butchers".
Let's give it a try. That is a true challenge, not the one about who killed more, destroyed more, and all such sorts of things which necessarily turn to be the reference point if we will keep on believing that no matter how we feel about it wars will keep on being waged and the smarter will make it while the others won't.
Scragz message is worth more than a thought, in my opinion, but if it comes from those like me, who are on the way down of their tripping, ehm... it won't get us all anywhere too far, while if it comes from those who are younger, chances are that such an authentic revolution will take place even before we might dare to tell.
Hope I didn't annoy you too much for too long, but I felt like I wanted to thank you for your contributions and this was my way to do it.
Ciao!
First, let me say I don't know why, but I guess you're all young bucks hiding a thousand devils under your skin ready to blow up the world even before Gabriel blows his horn.
That's fine, I wish I felt the same way, but hey, time's running even faster than we may realize and so I'm on the other side of the hill. But that's fine too, every season has its fruits, so they say. I'm about 59 and I always wonder where the hell I've been all these years...Seems it was only yesterday I was going to school. OK., same old story.Now, the point is this. Somebody said "war is war" and I might add "love is love", "money is money" and the more the better.
There's something wrong though... I guess we should start revising such old sayings and views or we'll all end up as miserably as our fathers and forefathers did since the days of Adam and Eve.
Why not say "humanity is humanity" or "life is life" and start from the bottom to the way up instead of viceversa.
Let me say that for those of us who are believers, well we'd have a reason more to criticize such an attitude, but even if we don't believe, we still have one very good reason to try to turn that philosophy into something better.
If we really consider a human being as the most interesting and precious thing this earth can hold, we're bound to think that too many things just work against him and that is bad. No problem admitting to cases when the necessity of selfdefence makes it hard for any one to avoid a fight, a struggle and even a war. But why shouldn't we be trying to contain the damages and sufferings against innocent people, at least, so that the tragedy of the war, which already is a horrible experience, doesn't get to be even more tragic by making victims who had the right to be preserved and safeguarded from such consequenses.
I don't expect you to change your ideas or give mine a value higher than they have, all I'd like to hear from you is just something like "it looks mighty hard to do but we will try".
What makes me feel bad is the sense of hopelessness pervading that "war is war", and more so if you're as young as I'd love to be.
I talked about bucks at the start, they kick and run like hell when they're young but providing they had a way to know they sooner or later would be nothing but "horse meat" I'm sure they wouldn't give up by saying "butchers are butchers".
Let's give it a try. That is a true challenge, not the one about who killed more, destroyed more, and all such sorts of things which necessarily turn to be the reference point if we will keep on believing that no matter how we feel about it wars will keep on being waged and the smarter will make it while the others won't.
Scragz message is worth more than a thought, in my opinion, but if it comes from those like me, who are on the way down of their tripping, ehm... it won't get us all anywhere too far, while if it comes from those who are younger, chances are that such an authentic revolution will take place even before we might dare to tell.
Hope I didn't annoy you too much for too long, but I felt like I wanted to thank you for your contributions and this was my way to do it.
Ciao!
Thanks Andy!
I guess, contrary to the then current opinion, that the war would have ended, anyway, in the next 3 months for these reasons:
1) Japan was forced to face an attack from the Northern side (Kurili Isl. and Hokkaido) from the Soviet Union.
2) Progressive pushing inland from the South from the US.
No people, though fanatically imbued as they may be, can keep on starving eating roots and grass when their country is sorrounded.
Of course, intensification of bombings on military objectives and installations such as coast defense, depots, airports, docks and the like should have been routine practice, but that's within the limits I have in mind.
A friend of mine who fought the air battles over Okinawa and who was later among the first occupation units on Jap mainland told me, back in 1956, when I met him, that the great majority of the population was just on the brink of starvation. Malnutrition was a common sight anywhere, except for a minority of people (those related to the officers or high ranking administration officials) who didn't lack almost anything by that time's and nation's standards.
He was convinced and he still is that the nukes could be avoided without the prejudicial catastrophic toll figures we've been reading ever since.
Thanks for your post.
Angelo from Italy
I guess, contrary to the then current opinion, that the war would have ended, anyway, in the next 3 months for these reasons:
1) Japan was forced to face an attack from the Northern side (Kurili Isl. and Hokkaido) from the Soviet Union.
2) Progressive pushing inland from the South from the US.
No people, though fanatically imbued as they may be, can keep on starving eating roots and grass when their country is sorrounded.
Of course, intensification of bombings on military objectives and installations such as coast defense, depots, airports, docks and the like should have been routine practice, but that's within the limits I have in mind.
A friend of mine who fought the air battles over Okinawa and who was later among the first occupation units on Jap mainland told me, back in 1956, when I met him, that the great majority of the population was just on the brink of starvation. Malnutrition was a common sight anywhere, except for a minority of people (those related to the officers or high ranking administration officials) who didn't lack almost anything by that time's and nation's standards.
He was convinced and he still is that the nukes could be avoided without the prejudicial catastrophic toll figures we've been reading ever since.
Thanks for your post.
Angelo from Italy
Yalta/Jap
Andy wrote:
Here's the Jap related portion of the Yalta Conference:
http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/BYRD/CONF ... LTA_CO.TXT
As a matter of fact the northern island of Hokkaido fell within the U.S. sphere of influence as the rest of Japan, but even considering the Russians would have not cooperated on that side, the British and the U.S. had, by that time, more than enough manpower, mainland/carrier bases to take care of that by themselves.
The nukes, of course, made everything quicker and "simpler" and we all know what that meant.
Angelo
Yes, basically it was convened that the Soviet Union should have declared war against Japan within 2 or 3 moths from V-Day Europe and that she had the right to occupy the little archipelago of the Kurili Islands, north of Hokkaido.Did the Russians and the Western Aliies have a 'Demarcation' line as to how each could advance, similar to Germany?.
Here's the Jap related portion of the Yalta Conference:
You can read the whole text of the conference at:AGREEMENT REGARDING JAPANThe leaders of the three great powers - the Soviet Union, the United States of America and Great Britain - have agreed that in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated, the Soviet Union shall enter into war against Japan on the side of the Allies on condition that:
1. The status quo in Outer Mongolia (the Mongolian People's Republic) shall be preserved.
2. The former rights of Russia violated by the treacherous attack of Japan in 1904 shall be restored, viz.:
(a) The southern part of Sakhalin as well as the islands adjacent to it shall be returned to the Soviet Union;
(b) The commercial port of Dairen shall be internationalized, the pre-eminent interests of the Soviet Union in this port being safeguarded, and the lease of Port Arthur as a naval base of the U.S.S.R. restored;
(c) The Chinese-Eastern Railroad and the South Manchurian Railroad, which provide an outlet to Dairen, shall be jointly operated by the establishment of a joint Soviet-Chinese company, it being understood that the pre-eminent interests of the Soviet Union shall be safeguarded and that China shall retain sovereignty in Manchuria;
3. The Kurile Islands shall be handed over to the Soviet Union.It is understood that the agreement concerning Outer Mongolia and the ports and railroads referred to above will require concurrence of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. The President will take measures in order to maintain this concurrence on advice from Marshal Stalin.
The heads of the three great powers have agreed that these claims of the Soviet Union shall be unquestionably fulfilled after Japan has been defeated.
For its part, the Soviet Union expresses it readiness to conclude with the National Government of China a pact of friendship and alliance between the U.S.S.R. and China in order to render assistance to China with its armed forces for the purpose of liberating China from the Japanese yoke.
Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston S. Churchill
February 11, 1945.
http://history.acusd.edu/cdr2/BYRD/CONF ... LTA_CO.TXT
As a matter of fact the northern island of Hokkaido fell within the U.S. sphere of influence as the rest of Japan, but even considering the Russians would have not cooperated on that side, the British and the U.S. had, by that time, more than enough manpower, mainland/carrier bases to take care of that by themselves.
The nukes, of course, made everything quicker and "simpler" and we all know what that meant.
Angelo
The use of Nukes can not EVER be justified, not because they kill civilians in the main blast but because of the radiation poisoning to people and to the planet. I see nothing wrong with bombing the hell out of Civilians in a time of war, when the Civilians are actively aiding and supporting their government in the war as was the case with the Japanese and the Germans, but particularly Japanese.
I hate Nukes I hope that somehow they will all dissappear.
I hate Nukes I hope that somehow they will all dissappear.