Hiroshima August 1945

It was the US's demonstration of strength to the Soviets, at the cost of the Japanese.

It spurred the Soviets on to develop their own and that has saved humanity for 80 years.

And after all that, the world is quickly turning to conventional weapons to defend against US aggression, after all!
 
Donald H said:
It was the US's demonstration of strength to the Soviets, at the cost of the Japanese.

It spurred the Soviets on to develop their own and that has saved humanity for 80 years.

And after all that, the world is quickly turning to conventional weapons to defend against US aggression, after all!
Click to expand...


".. The decision has sparked disagreements between historians, with the main three groups being orthodox, revisionist, and post-revisionist. Orthodox historians argue that the atomic bombs were necessary and saved both American and Japanese lives.1 On the other hand, revisionist historians argue that the bombing was unnecessary and used to intimate the Soviet Union and limit its expansion in East Asia and Europe. Lastly, post-revisionists argue that the bombs would be used regardless of the Soviets but the Soviet problems added a supplementary reason for their use. Despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki being credited to prevent the world from nuclear wars, around2,000 nuclear weapons were tested in the last five decades.2 Thus, the nuclear danger is present nowadays and, by having a better understanding of why the A-bombs were used against Japan, it becomes easier to prevent their future usage. This brings forth the important question: “To what extent was Truman’s decision to deploy the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945intended to limit Soviet influence in the region?” This essay will address this question, using these three schools of thought, primary and secondary sources with incorporated source evaluation to answer the question at hand."
 
BlindBoo said:

".. The decision has sparked disagreements between historians, with the main three groups being orthodox, revisionist, and post-revisionist. Orthodox historians argue that the atomic bombs were necessary and saved both American and Japanese lives.1 On the other hand, revisionist historians argue that the bombing was unnecessary and used to intimate the Soviet Union and limit its expansion in East Asia and Europe. Lastly, post-revisionists argue that the bombs would be used regardless of the Soviets but the Soviet problems added a supplementary reason for their use. Despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki being credited to prevent the world from nuclear wars, around2,000 nuclear weapons were tested in the last five decades.2 Thus, the nuclear danger is present nowadays and, by having a better understanding of why the A-bombs were used against Japan, it becomes easier to prevent their future usage. This brings forth the important question: “To what extent was Truman’s decision to deploy the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945intended to limit Soviet influence in the region?” This essay will address this question, using these three schools of thought, primary and secondary sources with incorporated source evaluation to answer the question at hand."
Click to expand...
Cut to the chase. MAD saved the world from US plans of world dominance after 1945.

Now suddenly with the current US plans for the same, everything has shifted away from the nuclear threat!
 
Zebra said:
80 years ago.

the first Atom Bomb fell onto a city

Just a reminder ....
Click to expand...

A YT channel said Japan was done for, USA didn't need the nukes. But the USA did it anyway to send a message to Stalin. You check it out to see if true.

water.webp
 
The victors write the history books and the intent of historians at the time was the justification for the use of a diabolical weapon on civilians. Left out of the "historical" account was the part that Japan was defeated and was enduring daylight raids on the mainland. The Bushido holdouts were desperately trying to negotiate terms of surrender but Truman felt that he was bound by FDR's concept of unconditional surrender and refused to talk. Apparently one of the major issues was sparing the life of the emperor and ironically this was done anyway. Could Truman have avoided the use of nuclear bombs on Japanese citizens? This would be a subject for an honest unbiased historian.
 
BlindBoo said:

".. The decision has sparked disagreements between historians, with the main three groups being orthodox, revisionist, and post-revisionist. Orthodox historians argue that the atomic bombs were necessary and saved both American and Japanese lives.1 On the other hand, revisionist historians argue that the bombing was unnecessary and used to intimate the Soviet Union and limit its expansion in East Asia and Europe. Lastly, post-revisionists argue that the bombs would be used regardless of the Soviets but the Soviet problems added a supplementary reason for their use. Despite Hiroshima and Nagasaki being credited to prevent the world from nuclear wars, around2,000 nuclear weapons were tested in the last five decades.2 Thus, the nuclear danger is present nowadays and, by having a better understanding of why the A-bombs were used against Japan, it becomes easier to prevent their future usage. This brings forth the important question: “To what extent was Truman’s decision to deploy the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945intended to limit Soviet influence in the region?” This essay will address this question, using these three schools of thought, primary and secondary sources with incorporated source evaluation to answer the question at hand."
Click to expand...
This was the second world war of the globalists. After each one they consolidated power.
 
BlindBoo said:
It's too bad the Japanese didn't surrender after they were roundly defeated in the Pacific and driven back to their home island. Those are terrible weapons and should never be used like that again.
Click to expand...
There were over 100 thousand deaths immediately from the bombs that dropped. There were 100 thousand more deaths over the next few months from radiation sickness. The lucky ones died in the initial blasts.
 
We, as a society, are shocked and indignant about the use of nuclear weapons on enemy populations.

But, at the time, Japan was the most fanatical enemy America had ever faced. Throwing thousands of heavily armed suicidal attackers against Allied Forces and vowing to die to the last man, woman, and child rather than surrender.

The application of just two, very small, nuclear weapons turned them literally overnight from suicidal fanatics to Democracy-loving pacifists.

From an empirical perspective and if you discount the remote possibility of creating giant ants or 50-foot prehistoric lizards, nuclear weapons have been the greatest contribution to peace the world has ever known.
 
15th post
We all have heard of the Enola Gay, but many have never heard of Bockscar.

Bockscar dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki, but the intended target was Kokura, due to poor visibility, it was scrubbed. For years some Japanese would say "the luck of Kokura" when describing good fortune.



blog.nuclearsecrecy.com

The luck of Kokura

The original target for the second atomic bomb was Kokura, not Nagasaki. Why was Kokura spared? Three theories are considered.
blog.nuclearsecrecy.com blog.nuclearsecrecy.com
 
Truman could have done a lot to avoid using nuclear weapons but history tells us that he was a freaking clueless democrat pick and the generals and the eggheads were calling the shots. The generals wanted revenge and the eggheads wanted to see what their doomsday weapons could do on real humans. The eggheads did what eggheads always did and avoided responsibility for the monster they created and the politicians avoided responsibility for the monster they unleased because the historians write history.
 
Donald H said:
Cut to the chase. MAD saved the world from US plans of world dominance after 1945.

Now suddenly with the current US plans for the same, everything has shifted away from the nuclear threat!
Click to expand...
The U.S. had world dominance after 1945. For four years we were the only superpower. We could have exterminated the USSR if we had desired. Even after the Soviets produced their nukes, they lacked delivery systems. The only aircraft they had that could carry a nuke was their carbon copy of the B-29, the Tupolev Tu-4 Bull and it lacked the range to reach the Western Hemisphere. The U.S. was immune to Soviet nukes until the Tupolev Tu-95 Bear in 1952 and R-7 ICBM in 1959 were developed.
If the table was flipped, the USSR would have used its nukes and would be dominating the entire Earth today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

putin´s war lord Girkin: "Our war with the West " – Crimea War 2.0? Do you agree with Girkin?

< Previous Thread

WITHOUT GOOGLING — Without googling—what do you know about Lidia Pereprygina? Who was she? , and...

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Anomalism
Zone1 Hello? Can anybody hear me?...
2
Replies
22
Views
437
DennisPTate
DennisPTate
JBG
U.N. condemnation of Iran's bloodlust and international aggression? If not now, when?
Replies
8
Views
141
Cassandro
C
Robert W
Do Komodo Dragons kill by bacteria or Venom? Or???
Replies
3
Views
114
Captain Creeper
Captain Creeper
Litwin
By the end of the 1960s, the Bolshevik empire was deeply involved in mass terrorism against Jews
Replies
0
Views
126
Litwin
Litwin
excalibur
The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 (CMHA) Began the Downfall
Replies
0
Views
72
excalibur
excalibur

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom