Look at how many Nukes America has!!! http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/ http://www.truemajority.org/bensbbs/
Yea, we all know this. But why does this matter? Every country could use them if they wanted to. But the thing is, is that it doesn't matter how many America has. It matters who uses them. America is realtivly a safe country. But the only thing is that America has only used them for practice and protection. While other countrys are more likely to use them for massive destruction on a terroristic level.
...and we've got a death-ray reverse engineered from aliens that crashed in Roswell, NM. Grab your tin-foil hats, we're under attack!!!!!!!! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Wow, I was under the impression that nukes being used on was very Japan destructive. But it all matters who uses them and who there being used on. I would venture to guess that all the people who perished and were mamed in Japan considered the use of nukes on them to be of a terrorist nature. I would also venture to guess that any country in the Middle East who is currently at odds with the United States would consider nuking DC as an act of protection.
nukeing DC will not save a country from an american nuclear attack nukeing DC will not wipe out the american government either
Well I guess when you look at it from that angle, its okay..................................... Why are you a part of the intelligent community?
Nuking Japan, the nation who had sucker punched us, certainly saved thousands of American lives. It also probably saved Japanese lives by getting them to surrender. Remember, many Americans had vowed that when the war was over, Japanese would only be spoken in hell. Without the overwhelming destructive power unleashed on those two cities, the Japanese would have never surrendered until their entire country was a smoking wreck. But faced with this "superweapon", the Japanese could surrender honorably.
<insert sarcasm> Yes, What a humanitary act it was. I wonder why the Japanese are so against nuclear weapons. It's bloody ridiculous of them. Nukes brought them peace and love and saved many lives. And finally they could rebuilt nagasaki and hiroshima according to modern design without hindrance of a city being in the way. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There were a few houses left standing but luckily the inhabitants were dead so they could be bulldozered down to make space for a modern city. <end sarcasm>
it did save lives spurious the japanese did not surrender period on their outlying islands (not japan proper) the number of japanese that surrendered was less than 1% the rest had to be killed or when capture seemed eminent they killed themselves by falling on their swords invading the japanese homeland would have been a bloodbath there would be only 1% of the japanese left alive if we did so yes the bomb definately saved lives i really don't know why people show the destruction of hiroshima because the fire bombings of tokyo killed more people than the hiroshima bomb did
Yeah, invading Japan would almost certainly have resulted in more Japanese deaths than the atomic bombings did. I'm not sure if the casualty rate would have been as high as 99% of the Japanese population, but it would have been huge. As you say, the US was killing much larger numbers of people with incendiary bombings (i.e., dropping napalm on wooden cities) than the atom bombs ever did, and you can be sure that such bombings would have redoubled ahead of an invasion. Go look up some pictures of Tokyo after it was firebombed; it looks very similar to the picture of Hiroshima after it was bombed. Many parts of Germany got similarly decimated, without the use of atom bombs. Also, there can be no dispute that the atomic bombs saved American lives, which, along with reaching a speedy conclusion to WWII, was a paramount concern for the executives who made the decision. It may be cruel, but the goal in warfare is to *maximize* the damage to your enemy and minimize damage to yourself; preventing civilian casualties is always a secondary consideration. It might sound noble to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of (conscripted) American soldiers in order to save as many Japanese civilians, but it's not the kind of policy that one pursues if one intends to remain Chief Executive of the USA for very long.
That's true, and then we helped them rebuild their industries to modern standards, enabling them to produce better cars and electronic than us. An American in charge of doing this introduced quality control techniques that weren't used in American factories until recently. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Joseph_Moses_Juran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming
Solve et Coagula : thx for the clip. Iran got full right to have a-bomb! leopold99: regarding ur ignorant answer ...the japs had allready surrended but usa a-bombed japan anyway so rest of the world would see that usa have a-bomb! motherfucker ur nation have killed since the day america was found! ur nation is truly the nation of voilence/killing! and historie is the prove!
Let's examine the dogma 'Nuking Japan saved more lives than it took.' There is not proof for this statement. The statement is used to condone the use of nukes by the US in the past. The statement is made to make the US look better. The statement however has very little value: See for instance this: http://www.doug-long.com/hiroshim.htm what was the real nature of the problem of japan's surrender? The japanese emporer was a God in Japan. America's insistence on an unconditional surrender without mentioning what would happen to the emporer made surrender impossible. The Americans fabricated the continuance of the war. Were civilians really a hot target for bombing as has been suggested? The US had become dependent on military solutions and had forgotten about diplomacy altogether. less casualties you say? see also here: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html
all that aside, America is stable with their nuclear weapons. countries like iran and north korea are not very stable, and that is why it is dangerous for them to have nukes.
The US used nukes while being stable. Doesn't make much difference apparently, being stable or unstable. Well, unstable countries so far haven't nuked another country.
We wouldn't have had to invade Japan. The Soviets were already in the process of doing so. But yes, dropping both bombs did save lives -- Soviet and Japenese ones. It would have been a bloodbath there. Thanks to our dropping of the bombs, we kept the Soviets out of there from having yet another Communist country while allowing *us* to be in control of Japan and have them as our future ally. - N