By a few weeks? you mean months or more with 100's of thousands and possibly millions on each side. They would not of surrender. The propaganda alone meant that every soldier would or rather died in combat than be taken prisoner by the Americans.
Little Boy dropped 64 years ago, today.
- Thread starter cheets64
- Start date
By a few weeks? you mean months or more with 100's of thousands and possibly millions on each side. They would not of surrender. The propaganda alone meant that every soldier would or rather died in combat than be taken prisoner by the Americans.
Not necessarily. We're certainly at a stage where we can begin to massively (and responsibly) reduce nuclear stock piles. That would be an acceptable step forward no?. Realistically neither the US nor Russia have any need for anything further than the kind of limited Nuclear capacity that we or the french have. With advanced methods of delivery, and a drastically decreased nuclear threat from the communist/ex-communist states to me it makes no sense. Granted they have agreed to reduce stocks (active deployed stocks) to "below 1,700 each", but I mean, 1700, it's absolutely ludicrous. Barring an arms race in the middle east (A hugely epic arms race I'm talking, ala cold war) and a hard hard turn in NK, there's no need for that number of deployed nuclear weapons. It literally defies belief.
Reduce stock piles drastically as soon as safely possible, enforce a global ban on nuclear proliferation, with real hard military consequences, and increase diplomacy and understanding with Russia/China and somehow deal with the whole middle eastern thing there, offer NK some kind of stake in the world and dissolve the one party system, evoila. How's that for a simplistic solution
.
Last edited:
Bad choice of words. All wars are wars. But we haven't even had anything that resembles ww2.
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 5,488
It's not a distinction between war and 'real' war. Its a distinction between the type of war. I don't recall the U.S. dropping nukes on Vietnam or Afghanistan. They're totally disimilar types of conflict.
You don't need to 'justify' an act of war with another act of war. It's called an action and a reaction and the Japanese were on the end of a long-overdue reaction.
Reduce stock piles drastically as soon as safely possible, enforce a global ban on nuclear proliferation, with real hard military consequences, and increase diplomacy and understanding with Russia/China and somehow deal with the whole middle eastern thing there, offer NK some kind of stake in the world and dissolve the one party system, evoila. How's that for a simplistic solution
What would reducing stock achieve?
How are you going to enforce such a ban? You going to go to war with ruissia or america if they ignore the ban?
NJK are interested in any of that.
Yep far to simplistic.
The Nagasaki bomb killed several of the allied forces 'prisoners of war'.
Also, Japan's final straw for surrender was the Soviet Union invading them.
Since we're wiki'ing away:
Until August 9, the war council had still insisted on its four conditions for surrender. On that day Hirohito ordered Kido to "quickly control the situation ... because the Soviet Union has declared war against us". He then held an Imperial conference during which he authorized minister Tōgō to notify the Allies that Japan would accept their terms on one condition, that the declaration "does not compromise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign ruler".
Also:
Throughout the war, Tōgō was among those who doubted that Japan could succeed in a war with the United States. Towards the end, he was one of the chief proponents for acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration which, he felt, contained the best conditions for peace Japan could hope to be offered. Up until the last, he hoped for favorable terms from the Soviet Union. At Tōgō's suggestion, no official response was made to the Declaration at first, though a censored version was released to the Japanese public, while Tōgō waited to hear from Moscow. Unfortunately, many Allied leaders interpreted this silence as a rejection of the Declaration, and so bombing was allowed to continue.
Japan were considering surrender.
So, no, the only thing that was a "necessary evil" was the name of the plane that took the photos of the bombing missions...
Considering, not surrendering. If they were so goign to surrender. why not after the first bomb.
Simply although many in Japan wanted to surrender, it simply was not going to happen.
Reducing stocks would make an eventual abolition of nuclear weapons much more feasible. Also we could consider moving into an arena that doesn't present a doomsday scenario. By reducing the number of available warheads we would reduce the chance of total extinction.. Which to me seems like a reasonable idea. Well the idea would be to back up an agreement (for reductions in nuclear arsenals) with increase in trade and commerce, which I'm sure is what Obama/Medvedev are working towards at the moment, I would just liek to see it on a much larger scale. Countries that "do business" do not go to war.
NK would appear to be a wreck of a country with a government that spends the majority of its wealth on its unused armed forces because they're totally paranoid that the USA will invade, and they enjoy willy waving, and they're dangerously insular. I have no idea how that would be overcome, especially whilst the US have a heavy hand in SK.
That was never a stated reason for the bombings. Trueman never made such suggestions.
Thing is stock piles can't be launched fast. You need would need a reduction in operation silos/subs/planes. butt even 10 per major country. Would be more than enough to obliterate most things. As most are multi warhead.
Reduction to me just seems pointless. Either you have nukes or you don't. the number of nukes you have really makes little difference.
As said, it was because of the invasion of Japan by the Soviet Union that they moved from considering surrender to the action of surrendering promptly.
In essence, from the comment above the Hiroshima atomic bombing was not a suitable resolution.
Thing is, when will the next World War kick off? It is bound to happen sooner or later and it's the most disgraceful thing humanity can do. But, it will happen due to someone wanting more power than is possible for them...
Only good thing that ever came from War's is the technology jump's. Each time their is a War, technology jumps 10 years ahead. But thats no where near enough reason.
ags
Only good thing that ever came from War's is the technology jump's. Each time their is a War, technology jumps 10 years ahead. But thats no where near enough reason.
ags
Maybe not, but could that have been a closed doors reasoning?
Extremly unlikely with nukes. Which is why we should never get rid of nukes.
Once something has been designed you can never take it away. Someone could build one and you would have no protection as you have totally disarmed.
Make up your mind.
Also, I didn't make out/suggest/imply the above was a full blown confusion; I contested others making out it was an absolute necessary evil without knowing enough about the situation. How you read it is more your issue than mine.
That's just an indication that those people couldn't think for themselves.