


Nice find; I've never seen details of that before.
But I've met more than one WWII Pacific Theater vet who was damned thankful that those weapons were used... they knew all too well what they would have been sent into.

And no one thinks of the other side, huh?
Soldiers exist to die, civilians don't.
You guys are disgusting.


Killing thousands of civilians with two nukes is simply wrong, even if it was meant to spare the lives of the invading and defending soldiers.
War is a thing that should be fought out in the battlezones and not by eraicationg cities.

[color=#003300]In this case, BjKilling thousands of civilians with two nukes is simply wrong, even if it was meant to spare the lives of the invading and defending soldiers.
War is a thing that should be fought out in the battlezones and not by eradicating cities.



So you're justifying killing civillians with the assumption that they *may* be future enemys?

It is what it is. As long as there are evil people doing evil things, like the Nazi's starting wars, exterminating Jews, brutalizing Slavic people (recall the sad tale of the Czech villiage of Lidice), we have the unfortunate consequences, such as the bombing of Dresden or Hamburg.
I'm willing to hear your realistic solutions to solve this.
Well with respect to WWII, the bombings did serve to help end those wars. And it had nothing to do with "breaking morale" it had to do with destroying the enemy's ability to supply it's war-making ability.
After having studied this over the years, I am sure you are definately, 100% wrong!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 123 guests