Why Did America Use Nuclear Weapons To End World War 2?

Heh.

Misconception on my part then, thanks for the info.

It was a war where civilians were considered fair game from ALL players. I'm not sure why you think 1 country was supposed to suddenly change viewpoints at the last minute.

I will definitely take this judgement of yours into consideration the next time I write a post. Thank you.

Whether or not this nation or that nation considered civilians to be "fair game" (Interesting how you use a hunting term to define humans) is besides the point. The fact remains that in both WW2 and in 2001, one side acted on another side in a manner that completely disregards civilian life. Russia could have nuked the UK and I'd tell you that the same thing if you compared Russia's nuking to 2001. I'm merely stating the similarity between both events.

Well johnuthan has a point. The twin towers and the two nukes dropped on japan are two totally different events that are nothing a like. One was conventional warfare and the other an act of terrorism. And nowhere have I heard about world war two being a terrorist war.

I don't think it's use can really be justified.

You can say in retrospect that it ended up saving more lives than a drawn out war but most of the reasons why we find the idea of using it today abhorrent are still applicable to back then.

If a large world war broke out tomorrow then I don't think it's use would be desired or sought after by the public, and not just out of fear of nuclear reprisal which was absent at the time.

That's most certainly not what you did.

You said



You aren't comparing how they are similar with this statement, you're saying that it's probable that the reason behind them both was the same, which is patently ridiculous.

Racism.

How is that racist.

I was making funnies.


And I personally wouldn't have used nukes....or soldiers to slow down civilization development as they're doing right now....

...Instead I'd use bombers filled with human feces over and over again.

Yeah, they might cry and plead 'martyr' and they might start wearing their screaming infants like hats in hopes to discourage it...

...but I'd still continue to drop the plop anyway.

And that's why people like you will never hold a position of power. Everything is a joke. Maybe you should tell your "funnies" on remember day or maybe tell sum troops in afghan.

That reason was to send a message and make an impact in the context by doing as much damage as possible. Both incidents had the same reasons therefore they are similar.

No I still disagree. World war 2 was survival plain and simple. The other was terror tactics. They both resulted in collateral deaths of civilian population. But America nuked Japan to save its own country from the Japanese. Muslim extremism is there hatred for the west due to lack to the fact we ain't as spiritual. They see non Muslims as an enemy so they sim to destroy us and turn the planet into a Muslim state which they are succeeding. We are not attacking them first.

Japan, as a nation, had started and waged total war against the United States for almost 4 years, having killed roughly 200,000 Americans. The US was looking at the prospect of having to invade Japan to stop its war effort - something that would have likely resulted in at least twice that many American deaths.

America had not declared war on bin Laden's nation. bin Laden didn't even have a nation. America had not killed hundreds of thousands of bin Laden's troops or civilians.

Both attacks were done for reasons, but the fact that they were reasons doesn't mean they were equally valid or defensible reasons.

Interestingly, the atomic bombs probably prevented around half a million American deaths and brought an end to war while he 9/11 attacks ultimately caused tens of thousands of deaths by starting and escalating armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Complete s***. America is responsible for 1.2 million deaths in Iraq alone and another couple hundred thousand deaths in Afghanistan. They were not Bin Laden's "troops," and that just makes America that much more pathetic.

If there's any difference you want to pick out between these two events and really try and make some half-assed point with it, why not take the fact that the nuking of Japan was not a few times worse, but hundreds if not thousands of times worse, yet Japan does not use the incident as a pretext to invade countries around the world and justify the killings of people and the destruction of governments, organizations, and progressive procedures all in the name of something as f***ing pathetic as the imperialistic tools that are "liberty" and "freedom?"