0th anniversary of VJ Day: Thank the atomic bomb for saving millions of lives

[M14 Shooter]

Your entire post was a speculation on fantasy.
Fact is you never once considered how many people would have died has we completely cut japan off from the outside world and waited for them to surrender -- not once.
Now, consider your answer to that question and then tell us how terrible it was to drop the bombs.

Useless specualtion ....and diversion.

You and I both understand that you do not want to soundly address the question I asked because doing so will negate the point you tried to make - I therefore accept your concession.

Compared to any realistic alternative, dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives.
The sooner you accept that, the better off you are.

LMAO...you ask me to debunk a fantasy scenario you made up in your own mind...

Starving them into surrender is YOUR scenario, bub.
YOU neglected to consuder the costs of doing that and got caught.

LMAO...you're still basing your whole argument on fantasy and speculation.

Starving them into surrender - YOUR scenario - is nothing but fantasy and speculation.

 

[Rotagilla]

Useless specualtion ....and diversion.

You and I both understand that you do not want to soundly address the question I asked because doing so will negate the point you tried to make - I therefore accept your concession.

Compared to any realistic alternative, dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives.
The sooner you accept that, the better off you are.

LMAO...you ask me to debunk a fantasy scenario you made up in your own mind...

Starving them into surrender is YOUR scenario, bub.
YOU neglected to consuder the costs of doing that and got caught.

LMAO...you're still basing your whole argument on fantasy and speculation.

Starving them into surrender - YOUR scenario - is nothing but fantasy and speculation.

Not true..It is an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
The japs offered to surrender conditionally. We wouldn't allow it. We wanted to nuke somebody...

 

[M14 Shooter]

You and I both understand that you do not want to soundly address the question I asked because doing so will negate the point you tried to make - I therefore accept your concession.

Compared to any realistic alternative, dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives.
The sooner you accept that, the better off you are.

LMAO...you ask me to debunk a fantasy scenario you made up in your own mind...

Starving them into surrender is YOUR scenario, bub.
YOU neglected to consuder the costs of doing that and got caught.

LMAO...you're still basing your whole argument on fantasy and speculation.

Starving them into surrender - YOUR scenario - is nothing but fantasy and speculation.

Not true..It is an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.

OK.. and so, in your non-speculative, non-fantasy alternative scenario, where we starve the Japanese into surrender, how many civilians die?

 

[Rotagilla]

LMAO...you ask me to debunk a fantasy scenario you made up in your own mind...

Starving them into surrender is YOUR scenario, bub.
YOU neglected to consuder the costs of doing that and got caught.

LMAO...you're still basing your whole argument on fantasy and speculation.

Starving them into surrender - YOUR scenario - is nothing but fantasy and speculation.

Not true..It is an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.

OK.. and so, in your non-speculative, non-fantasy alternative scenario, where we starve the Japanese into surrender, how many civilians die?

You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you're becoming unhinged.
I've told you speculating on your fantasy scenarios is pointless.
The japs offered to surrender.
We had already defeated their army, navy and air force...we pushed them back from all sources of war materials so they had no way to maintain any "war effort". They live on an island..They aren't going anywhere.
THEY HAD ALREADY OFFERED TO SURRENDER CONDITIONALLY...There was no "need" to invade...no need to nuke civilians.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Starving them into surrender is YOUR scenario, bub.
YOU neglected to consuder the costs of doing that and got caught.

LMAO...you're still basing your whole argument on fantasy and speculation.

Starving them into surrender - YOUR scenario - is nothing but fantasy and speculation.

Not true..It is an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.

OK.. and so, in your non-speculative, non-fantasy alternative scenario, where we starve the Japanese into surrender, how many civilians die?

You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you're becoming unhinged.
I've told you speculating on your fantasy scenarios is pointless.

Wait.... you said your idea of starving Japan into surrender was not fantasy and speculation, but an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
So... which is it?

 

[Rotagilla]

LMAO...you're still basing your whole argument on fantasy and speculation.

Starving them into surrender - YOUR scenario - is nothing but fantasy and speculation.

Not true..It is an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.

OK.. and so, in your non-speculative, non-fantasy alternative scenario, where we starve the Japanese into surrender, how many civilians die?

You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you're becoming unhinged.
I've told you speculating on your fantasy scenarios is pointless.

Wait.... you said your idea of starving Japan into surrender was not fantasy and speculation, but an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
So... which is it?

hahaha...you're really confused now...
I said we didn't have to invade OR nuke civilians.The japs were done..they tried to surrender....we wanted to nuke them, though.
In your mind it's ok to nuke civilians..That's on you....

 

[M14 Shooter]

Starving them into surrender - YOUR scenario - is nothing but fantasy and speculation.

Not true..It is an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.

OK.. and so, in your non-speculative, non-fantasy alternative scenario, where we starve the Japanese into surrender, how many civilians die?

You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you're becoming unhinged.
I've told you speculating on your fantasy scenarios is pointless.

Wait.... you said your idea of starving Japan into surrender was not fantasy and speculation, but an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
So... which is it?

hahaha...you're really confused now...
I said we didn't have to invade OR nuke civilians.

Aha. And so, what is your alternative, absent their consent to unconditional surrender?

 

[Rotagilla]

Not true..It is an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.

OK.. and so, in your non-speculative, non-fantasy alternative scenario, where we starve the Japanese into surrender, how many civilians die?

You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you're becoming unhinged.
I've told you speculating on your fantasy scenarios is pointless.

Wait.... you said your idea of starving Japan into surrender was not fantasy and speculation, but an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
So... which is it?

hahaha...you're really confused now...
I said we didn't have to invade OR nuke civilians.

Aha. And so, what is your alternative, absent their consent to unconditional surrender?

Blockade/siege, of course...been done thousands of times throughout history.
After some period of time the citizens would get tired of living under those conditions and would force the gvt to surrender.
Been done thousands of times throughout history.

What is interesting is your refusal to accept possibilities other than nuking civilians...

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK.. and so, in your non-speculative, non-fantasy alternative scenario, where we starve the Japanese into surrender, how many civilians die?

You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you're becoming unhinged.
I've told you speculating on your fantasy scenarios is pointless.

Wait.... you said your idea of starving Japan into surrender was not fantasy and speculation, but an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
So... which is it?

hahaha...you're really confused now...
I said we didn't have to invade OR nuke civilians.

Aha. And so, what is your alternative, absent their consent to unconditional surrender?

Blockade/siege, of course...

And how many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

 

[Rotagilla]

You are so wrapped up in your fantasy that you're becoming unhinged.
I've told you speculating on your fantasy scenarios is pointless.

Wait.... you said your idea of starving Japan into surrender was not fantasy and speculation, but an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
So... which is it?

hahaha...you're really confused now...
I said we didn't have to invade OR nuke civilians.

Aha. And so, what is your alternative, absent their consent to unconditional surrender?

Blockade/siege, of course...

And how many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

I told you several times I'm not going to play your game of speculating on fantasy scenarios you invent out of thin air..

You see nuking civilians as a viable option. You'd fit right in among isis. They love murdering civilians.

 

[Unkotare]

We had defeated their army, their navy and their air force.
We rolled them back until all they had left was their island...No access to oil, tin, aluminum, iron or the resources needed to continue to "fight".

A question you have never asked yourself:
How many civilians do you suppose would have died had we starved them into surrender?

No point in speculating on fantasy.

We did not "have" to invade to force them to surrender..

In fact the japs offered a conditional surrender if they could be allowed to keep the emperor...The U.S. refused...We thought it would be better to show off for russia and demonstrate what we could do with our new toys....

You ok with nuking civilians?

The word is "Japanese." Otherwise, good post.

 

[Unkotare]

Compared to any realistic alternative, dropping the bombs saved American and Japanese lives. ....

You, of course, don't know that. AND you are missing another important distinction.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wait.... you said your idea of starving Japan into surrender was not fantasy and speculation, but an alternative to nuking innocent civilians.
So... which is it?

hahaha...you're really confused now...
I said we didn't have to invade OR nuke civilians.

Aha. And so, what is your alternative, absent their consent to unconditional surrender?

Blockade/siege, of course...

And how many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

I told you several times I'm not going to play your game of speculating on fantasy scenarios you invent out of thin air..

Blockade/siege is your idea.
How many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

 

[Rotagilla]

hahaha...you're really confused now...
I said we didn't have to invade OR nuke civilians.

Aha. And so, what is your alternative, absent their consent to unconditional surrender?

Blockade/siege, of course...

And how many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

I told you several times I'm not going to play your game of speculating on fantasy scenarios you invent out of thin air..

Blockade/siege is your idea.
How many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

no way of knowing, is there?..you ask a question that has no answer...because it never happened.... and then declare victory because there is no answer..LMAO....

the point is that nuking civilians is ok with you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Aha. And so, what is your alternative, absent their consent to unconditional surrender?

Blockade/siege, of course...

And how many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

I told you several times I'm not going to play your game of speculating on fantasy scenarios you invent out of thin air..

Blockade/siege is your idea.
How many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

No way of knowing, is there?..you ask a question that has no answer.

Which means of course, there's no way you can argue with any degree o soundness that your idea would cost fewer lives.
That being the case, how can you soundly argue that Blockade/siege it a viable alternative?

 

[Rotagilla]

Blockade/siege, of course...

And how many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

I told you several times I'm not going to play your game of speculating on fantasy scenarios you invent out of thin air..

Blockade/siege is your idea.
How many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

No way of knowing, is there?..you ask a question that has no answer.

Which means of course, there's no way you can argue with any degree o soundness that your idea would cost fewer lives.
That being the case, how can you soundly argue that Blockade/siege it a viable alternative?

Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.

I said there was no "need" to invade japan OR nuke them.They offered to surrender.
...murdering civilians and non combatants is ok with you..fine..own it..

 

[M14 Shooter]

And how many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

I told you several times I'm not going to play your game of speculating on fantasy scenarios you invent out of thin air..

Blockade/siege is your idea.
How many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

No way of knowing, is there?..you ask a question that has no answer.

Which means of course, there's no way you can argue with any degree o soundness that your idea would cost fewer lives.
That being the case, how can you soundly argue that Blockade/siege it a viable alternative?

Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.

I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.

 

[Rotagilla]

I told you several times I'm not going to play your game of speculating on fantasy scenarios you invent out of thin air..

Blockade/siege is your idea.
How many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

No way of knowing, is there?..you ask a question that has no answer.

Which means of course, there's no way you can argue with any degree o soundness that your idea would cost fewer lives.
That being the case, how can you soundly argue that Blockade/siege it a viable alternative?

Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.

I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.

sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...
I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians. One of them would have been to accept their conditional surrender...you think murdering civilians is a legitimate way to impose your will...kind of like isis.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Blockade/siege is your idea.
How many civilians does this kill thru starvation, disease, etc?

No way of knowing, is there?..you ask a question that has no answer.

Which means of course, there's no way you can argue with any degree o soundness that your idea would cost fewer lives.
That being the case, how can you soundly argue that Blockade/siege it a viable alternative?

Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.

I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.

sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...

Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?

I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.

You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.

 

[Rotagilla]

No way of knowing, is there?..you ask a question that has no answer.

Which means of course, there's no way you can argue with any degree o soundness that your idea would cost fewer lives.
That being the case, how can you soundly argue that Blockade/siege it a viable alternative?

Don't try to deflect or muddy up clear water. I never speculated on death tolls...you made that up.

I see. So there's no real reason to blockade Japan, rather than invade or drop the bombs.

sure..sure..twist and spin...LMAO...whatever you say...

Why should have we blockaded Japan rather than invading or dropping the bombs?

I made my points quite well. There were options available other than nuking helpless civilians.

You have not in any way made a case for choosing any of them; the fact that you cited the existence of other possibilities is only stating the obvious.

I know..it's SO obvious that it went right over your head..
...and now you (halfheartedly) agree that there WERE, in fact, other ways to end the war with japan...but you just PREFER the nuclear option..