Booster4324

I bet that woman was on weed...

True, he had it coming probably. Kinda like this guy.

Your math is a bit off for a two month blockade tops. I said drop one, not a dozen, in a remote location as a demonstration. At no point have I advocated an invasion. I said we should be better than that, not that we were. Make no mistake, I understand the fact of how you kill them is largely irrelevant. We will leave aside the ramifications of the radiation from an atomic bomb for the purposes of this point, or you can simply fold them into casualties, whichever. The point I am making is how it was perceived. This perception of outrage over a new technological terror is nothing new. I can point back to at least the crossbow. So tell me, since this has been going on for hundreds of years at least, why didn't we realize how this would be perceived? Bit more dangerous than a crossbow. If we come up with an uber weapon that can destroy anything within a thousand mile radius and selectively, would we be technological cave men and not understand how the use of the weapon would be perceived? As to whether it would have worked? Maybe not, but again, we would have tried. Hirohito was already indecisive at best about the war by this point. He was hoping for something to use at the negotiation tables. Since the idea of a demonstration pushes back everything a couple of months (being generous with that figure since you said my source was incorrect) the Russians would have already attacked in all likelihood. This sustained attack would have brought even more pressure for an unconditional surrender. Which is all we should have accepted btw. As to the firebombings, when the war was going full force and we hadn't won all but completely, I can understand it. I do think intentionally targeting civilian populations is wrong, but war is war.

Congrats

Pretty sure it is the shipping address.

So only 3 were produced in 1945? So the idea of dropping atomic weapons one after another on defenseless people serves what purpose? The fact you bring it up supports my side of the argument. I am saying that one demonstration would have at the very least given us moral ground to stand on. Instead, we nuked Hiroshima off the bat. We should have been better than that. Remote location, ask Russia and Japan to observe, drop the bomb. Worst case scenario, it takes another two months or so to conquer Japan as your production catches up and you start dropping nukes. No more US causalities, (at least not in significant numbers) and we hold at least a bit of the moral high ground. Do you genuinely believe Japan was a threat at this point?

Agreed The Dean with the http://lmgtfy.com/ win.

What do you mean by teams? Everyone here is DC Tom, except for you and me. Frankly, I have my doubts about you.

Knew this was coming when I posted it. I will try to put up a decent fight starting tomorrow, but for a start tonight let's consider your post you referenced vs mine... From what I remembered and read online, they were cranking them out with another 2 by September and 2-3 a month after that. Is that incorrect?

Just those two types huh? Well, that is twice the amount some say and I guess that is progress of sorts...

Blockade Japan (already effectively accomplished) and then instruct them to watch some remote location and drop one of the bombs there. Let them think on that for a few days and see how they react. Yes, I realize we only had two at the time, but we started cranking them out shortly thereafter IIRC. Edit - Hell, drop one on Hiroshima with the second one if you have to do so to get their attention. At least we would have tried to end it humanely. I have less of an issue with the fire bombings when the war was going full force. We had won for all intents and purposes by the time we dropped the two. Oh and I looked it up, they were estimating one bomb every 10 days starting in September. So the "only two bombs argument" holds little water.

In that case, I will chip in on the paver. Hell, I will even chip in on your defense fund later.

I hope you are right, if so, helluva a post. Talk about being the hero.

Do me a favor, explain semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Then we can get into specific weapons from 1919. After we get all that sorted out, we can talk about reasonable restrictions.

It is always easier for younger people to get drugs. For that matter, it is easier for restaurant/bar people. Pity, I am neither now.

.,.,.,;., Let's not go overboard.

If we are talking that bull **** series from the last couple of years, right there with you.

That is just too easy. Wow. Apologies if you are somehow physically disabled.

Get a room

Yes, they have really done a bang up job at helping. Right?

Somehow I have the feeling I am your side this time, link?

You still haven't specified which one you want to be...

He is starting to grow on me. He is the only thing the vast majority of us agree on.