Would you have used the atom bomb on Japan in WWII if you were Prez?

I cited the greatest military experts of the day. That is simply a fact

 

No you didn't. Mostly you cited who killed the most civilians by bombing cities. They didn't like that they couldn't firebomb cities anymore or otherwise get to have their war anymore.

Most military commanders - who are not a risk themselves - no more want a war to end than corporate management wants a company to go bankrupt and close. How many years was it that who you call "military experts" said we were winning in Vietnam and that North Vietnam was going to surrender?

 

I didn't cite the greatest military experts of the day? Really? Who was a greater military expert than anyone I quoted? Lol

 

The General who was in charge of planning the final conquest of Japan: General Marshall.

Gen. Marshall Saw Dropping of Bomb on Japan as Necessary

"It was General Marshall who wrote and signed the letters to parents and wives of soldiers killed in action. Marshall himself said: "I was aware of the peace offerings Japan was making to the Russians in the summer of '45. But the Japanese Prime Minister was unable to control the Army. The Army was dominant in these matters, and they could only apparently be slugged into submission. And we slugged them. . . . The bomb stopped the war. Therefore, it was justifiable. I think it was very wise to use it."

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/05/o...ing-of-bomb-on-japan-as-necessary-360095.html

"The bomb stopped the war.Therefore, it was justified" is the ONLY reasoning that matters. The atom bombs being dropped ended the war. Nothing else had.

 

You have seem my quotes from over a dozen military generals and admirals....haven't you? Why do you ONLY trust this one? It is laughable

 

Spending a trillion dollars a war is not exactly what I would call "not trying" but the "not winning" part is another matter. First of all you have to define what a "win" is. Outside of surrender followed by treaty agreements, most would say that we should receive a finical kick-back to pay for the war or that we are able to assimilate them among our list of allies. The latter is more difficult because it could complicate alliances we have with other allies. And in truth this mutual reconciliation among alliance members is what make "winning a war nearly impossible in todays world (outside of wars that include repealing an invading enemy). Africa and South America are the easiest places to win a war, while the middle east and south east Asia are the most difficult. This is because of competitive trade agreements that are in conflict between trade agreements.

 

If you want to reply to me, don't do it alongside everyone else on the thread. The only terrorists in the ME all carry Israeli citizenship. If you don't understand that then there's really no point in having conversations about what's considered a War-Crime by date that it was considered a war-crime. I'm not even sure what you would consider a crime if it's not clearly spelled out for you in some legal order first. Are you one of these people that wishes you had a time machine so that you could go back in time to do things before they were written into law as being identified as criminal (because somehow that would make it okay)? If you want to do things that today are recognized as criminal, but try to justify it by contemplating the idea before it was identified as criminal, then by today's standards your reasoning would be considered criminal. I hope that my explanation isn't too complicated for you to understand, but I would not be at all surprised to find out that for you, it is.

 

First, none of us are sure where or how that "trillion" dollars was spent. [or whether that was an actual amount or just another convenient meme]
If the basis for any conflict is ideological, then no, winning will never take place.

 

What military targets Toggle Almendro? Those two cities were just cities full of civilians (even kids...)
A military target is this Legitimate military target - Wikipedia

 

It was Marshall specifically who was in charge of planning the final conquest and invasion of Japan. The others had no skin in the game and just wanted to continue to play war. Yes, you have quoted generals who killed millions of civilians by firebombings and wanted to continue to do so, who wanted to drop atomic bombs on China over Korea, who wanted drop hydrogen bombs on Russia over the Berlin blockaid and who were fired for continually pushing for another world war or nuclear war.

Military experts as you call them told us we were winning in Vietnam, that we had defeated and eliminated the Taliban, defeated ISIS, that and even one you quote that Germany would surrender if we bombed and killed enough civilians - the same about Japan. In addition, if what you are claiming is true then your experts mostly were mass murdering war criminals since most could have refused to do their part in the delivery of the atom bomb.

Most notable, you have no response to General Marshall's simple logic. The Japanese army was never going to surrender - because the Japanese Army NEVER surrendered. The atom bombs ended the war, meaning ending civilian deaths, which continued to be happening in China, and ended American deaths, which was continuing to happen, and ended more Japanese deaths too. You have no response to that other than to pretend YOU were both the Emperor of Japan AND the end of Japan's Army and that YOU in that pretend role were going to surrender "in a few weeks."

How many more Chinese civilians would have been slaughtered by the Japanese Army in your pretend few weeks? How many more thousands of American soldiers would have died in your pretend few weeks? How many more Japanese civilians would have died in your "experts" mass firebombing Japanese cities? How many more Chinese soldiers, Russian soldiers, Japanese soldiers dead?

Your experts said Germany would surrender too - and it didn't, not until completely over run. The Japanese were far more radical than the Germans were, but they never surrendered - all of Germany had to be overrun. Your experts were 100% wrong - all of them. At least 20,000,000 people would have died to overrun Japan, with over a million American casualities. That is why Marshall supported dropping the atom bombs, believing this would end the war. Unlike YOUR experts, he was 100% right about what would end a war. Your's were 100% wrong.

 

All of Japanese military industry was in their cities and the civilians had been militarized. Generally speaking, factories are where people live, not out in the middle of nowhere. How many USA factories are in Death Valley?

 

The most bigoted anti-Semitic message I've ever read on this forum - and there have been thousands and thousands of them.

 

So you don't blame Marshall for all the same things you blame those other generals for? He didn't approve of all that? He was just a helpless little kitten right up until the bombs were needed? LOL

Face it. He HAD to support the bombing or resign. Your post just screams hypocrisy.

 

Yes....especially the children....right?

 

Japan lost the war and you can't change that history. On this entire thread of 42 pages - mostly because you have spammed the same false claim at least 100+ times, you have not shown the slightest concern for any Americans, Chinese or anyone else killed by the Japanese - millions and millions of people, mostly civilians. The Japanese military was continuing to do so every day. You openly said we should have least given the Japanese Army many more weeks to mass murder civilians plus kill Americans.

That is the real story of your messages in my opinion.

 

Because thread is not about war, it is about if we - people living today and right now - would've used atomic bombs, and why we would've or would've not used them. Every death is a tradegy - but death that happens when it could have been avoided - is a crime. Death of thousands in one strike - a massive crime.

 

And you can't face facts that the greatest military minds of the day said we did not need the bomb. FACT.

 

That's just nonsensical. If that made sense, then all your "experts" resigned. Did they?

 

Death was occurring, reality existed then and now - no matter how much you or anyone wants to pretend otherwise. The Japanese were slaughtering Chinese civilians every day - but hey, they were just Chinese civilians, right? Those two strikes ended ALL killing. How many more weeks, months or years of killing would you have allowed because ONLY Japanese lives matter?

 

Wait did Marshall approve of what those generals did or not? Don't back peddle

 

Don't know, don't care. YOU are who are calling your own experts mass murdering war criminals, not me.

How many more Americans, Chinese, Russian, and Japanese would you have been willing to be killed, mostly civilians, for the "weeks" until you say the Japanese were going to surrender in your it-never-happened theory would be acceptable to you? 100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000?

How many more people do you say needed to die before ending the war? Be specific. "Don't back peddle."

 

You don't know? You don't know what the Joint Chief of Staff approves? NOW THAT IS ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!!!!

 

China Lost 14 Million People in World War II. Why Is This Forgotten?
https://psmag.com/china-lost-14-million-people-in-world-war-ii-why-is-this-forgotten-367ca7f219d8

Why do you hate the Chinese so much that you wanted to let the Japanese Army continue to slaughter Chinese civilians?

 

I don't know man. What do you mean? I mean....I don't know. LOL