"Your an idiot on this"
And YOU are a bloviating ***** trying to rely on projected estimations that amount to excuses. I bet it takes an American hating muslim as much energy to rationalize flying a plane into New York buildings. ooops.. do as I say, not.. gotcha.
, WE did not nuke anyone for Revenge. In fact those nukes SAVED lives and ended a war that would have , if it continued, caused MILLIONS of dead , mostly Japanese. I have provided ample proof of this. Shall i go find you that link to SOURCE documents that prove Japan would not have surrendered with out their use?
On the contrary. We didn't enter the war UNTIL Pearl Harbour and you can't prove that a sense of revenge wasn't in the air after dropping two NUKES onto civilians. You identify with the side that dropped the nukes so OF COURSE you want to believe that dropping nukes saved lives. You have provided source docs that SUGGEST that lives were saved, MOSLTY AMERICAN SOLDIERS, but falls WAY short of being some crystal ball peak into what may have been the case without the nukes. In case you haven't noticed, nations tend to polish their own turd. hell, look at what lengths YOU will go to validate the Iraq war this side of the Phantom WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION scare. Sure, you can rationalize nukes just like a nazi could rationalize the final solution and a jihadist can rationalize 9/11. Why don't you gather something from JAPAN that admits as much as you'd like to believe from an AMERICAN source? I guess they might be a little slow to agree with you.
Here: Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard
"Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?"[50]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Even assuming, which is a BIG assumption considering even after 2 nukes and a war with the Soviets did not budge the ruling members of the Japanese Government, that Japan eventually surrendered before we invaded, it would have been months, during which we bombed them, and they starved because they had no shipping left to bring in food and fuel.
Oh hey.. Can I make shit up and pretend that it's true too? I tellya, your crystal "FUTURE-O-matic" ball didn't work in 2001 and it sure as **** doesn't hold much water here. But, I guess if you bomb enough CIVILIANS lot's of things are possible, right buddy? Ever stop to wonder who took notes on America's ability to rationalize while planning a trip on a commercial airliner?
Why don't you stick to the facts that you can prove instead of speculating? Once again, speculation isn't something you have a monopoly on.
An Invasion would have seen millions of dead Japanese , civilian and military. We would have lost hundreds of thousands, the predictions were 1 million casualties on the invasion force. Lets look at Iwo Jima , 1 in 3 military personnel that landed on that island became a casualty over 26 thousand, of which over 6 thousand died. 75000 were eventually landed on the island over all. Yet as I recall there were no where near that number of Japanese troops there.
Can you give me tonights lottery numbers while you are at it? hell, imagine how many MORE would ahve died in ww1 if not for the mustard gas and trenches! Hell, I can assume that a gazillion more would have died without the use of napalm in vietnam too! Doesn't make it any truer than any other speculation but I'll remember that when someone nukes an American city and you call foul.. Here, let me hit you with the actual words behind the Japanese surrender. Let's see if you notice the disdain for an America who actually used a nuke:
Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
The Japanese plan for defense of the Home Islands included the order that all civilians get bamboo spears and that they charge allied positions in human wave assaults to drive the invaders off the island. Further when that failed Saipan and Okinawa showed graphicly that the surviving civilian and military population would commit suicide rather than surrender. Nearly the entire Japanese race could have died on the first Island we invaded. And there is no reason to think the Army Generals that controlled the Government would have surrendered even then.[/QUOTE]
Oh well yea, RGS! the OBVIOUS alternative to bamboo poles is obviously NUKING THE **** OUT OF THEM!
indeed... your humanity is a pillar of altruism!
Dr. James Franck, seven scientists submitted a report to the Interim Committee (which advised the President) in May 1945, saying:
"If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons."[1
CHECK!
In 1946, a report by the Federal Council of Churches entitled Atomic Warfare and the Christian Faith, includes the following passage:
"As American Christians, we are deeply penitent for the irresponsible use already made of the atomic bomb. We are agreed that, whatever be one's judgment of the war in principle, the surprise bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are morally indefensible."
Takashi Hiraoka, mayor of Hiroshima, upholding nuclear disarmament, said in a hearing to The Hague International Court of Justice (ICJ):
"It is clear that the use of nuclear weapons, which cause indiscriminate mass murder that leaves [effects on] survivors for decades, is a violation of international law".[23][24]
, the mayor of Nagasaki, declared in the same hearing:
"It is said that the descendants of the atomic bomb survivors will have to be monitored for several generations to clarify the genetic impact, which means that the descendants will live in anxiety for [decades] to come. [...] with their colossal power and capacity for slaughter and destruction, nuclear weapons make no distinction between combatants and non-combatants or between military installations and civilian communities [...] The use of nuclear weapons [...] therefore is a manifest infraction of international law."[23]
General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[31][32]
Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[34]
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[35]
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]
The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."[36][35]
Indeed, peddle that gnarled crusty geriatric leatherneck routine at someone else.
