Was the Nuke really necessary? - Page 3




 
--
 
June 8th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
I agree with Italianguy, in some things we should thank the Nukes, and in the other way... It's like fire, it can keep You warm, and it can burn You!
The same is with water, it keeps You alive, but if there is a terrible flood people droun!
June 8th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
In My opinion...absolutely.

Could the japanese have been persuaded differently? I dont know. A lot of people have asked " why couldnt they have just showed them what would have happened by blowing an island to bits, and showing them the results"? I dont think that would have worked either. You see, it took two weapons, spaced 3 days a part, not just one, for them to understand, come to terms with it, and surrender. If they had been real easy to convince, one should have been enough.

No matter what has been said about the humanity of it all...I believe it would have been more humane than the alternative. That round the clock fire bombing of their citys, followed by a large amount of their population dying in hand to hand combat, with no one left to raise the crops...yes i think it was way more humane.

Its just my opinion..
June 8th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
I agree with Mark. Don't get me wrong, but I think the A-bomb saved much more lives to the Allies and to the Japan, than it has taken. And it's humaine than the non-stop bombings (like in Germany), it took much more lives of civilians, and the pressure and probably they were scared from bombs all the time, thinking it may kill them. This was in a blitz they didn't have much fear.
Do you know about that girl, that was 5meters from the epicentre and survived, but later died from a radiation poisoning.
--
June 8th, 2004  
Doppleganger
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
I agree with Darkmb, if there weren't Nukes the humanity would probably destroy itself by now. We can just hope it will never be used again.

1217 22mil were mobilised 11mil were army casualties, and the rest were civilian, anyway it is 11.4% of the population then in Soviet Union. But Army that attacked finland was really out of shape! What's unclear to You
What's CLEAR to me is that you stated that the Soviets had lost 20 million casualties and implied that they were military casualties, only to later retract that and say that only 11 million were actually military casualties. Then you say that the (Red) Army that attacked Finland was really out of shape.

It was, but you seem to have completely ignored everyone's points without offering any kind of counter-arguments of your own.

As far as Nukes go, they held the peace in Europe for nearly 50 years, not bad for such devasting weapons. And don't you think nowdays that the biggest danger from nukes is not from any country or army but from terrorists?
June 8th, 2004  
1217
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
1217 22mil were mobilised 11mil were army casualties, and the rest were civilian, anyway it is 11.4% of the population then in Soviet Union. But Army that attacked finland was really out of shape! What's unclear to You
Why are you adressing this to me? I didn't comment on the amount of casualties, did I? If you mean my this reply:[quote]Nice statement, but arguments are nowhere to be found.[/quote="I"] it's still valid, I'm afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle_Sam
Do you know about that girl, that was 5meters from the epicentre and survived, but later died from a radiation poisoning.
I'd like to see a source for that story, it sounds like fiction to me.
June 9th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
The WWIII started already, but it's not official!
Thw terrorist thing is a global danger! The Nuke-war won't start from the nations, the terrorists will use it (I hope not!). Against this kind of threat everyone must work TOGETHER!
June 9th, 2004  
Tessa
 
 
So the impression I get is like this:

We can't live without nukes?

or

We wouldn't live without nukes?

I ain't not going deep on this, just speculations I have and I want to share.

So why would the human kind wipe out eachother if we didn't have the nukes?

Or have I misunderstood something? (as usual )
June 10th, 2004  
Gunner13
 
 
Just speaking for myself - we can live without nukes, but it's too late to get that particular genie back into its bottle. What we need to do, as Uncle_Sam stated, is work together to stop proliferation and prevent madmen from killing us all.
June 10th, 2004  
Marksman
 
 
Quote:
prevent madmen from killing us all.
_________________
its gonna be tricky
June 10th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Quote:
If catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults.