The nuking of Japan was to break that country's resistance. Their leaders were demanding that the people defend the homeland to the last of them, so any effort to force a surrender that otherwise would not come would be at the cost of innumerable lives, both allied military and Japanese citizenry. It was a horrible choice to have to make, but one I think stands up with the test of time.

After the Hiroshima bomb, the rhetoric from leadership didn't change much, hence the rationale for the second. The stink on the second is that it was done a little too quickly without giving the Japanese time to reflect and come to their senses.

As to strikes on North Korea's military, any such detonation would have to be so close to the border with the south as to engulf Seoul and its massive population in the detonation and fallout. Failing to incinerate the North Korean army camped just north of the DMZ would mean it could just roll the 35 miles to Seoul. NK has conventional rockets based there too, that can hit Seoul with conventional and chemical ordnance within a minute's flight time.

Nuking Pyongyang might take out Kim Jong-Un, but that does not guarantee that his army lays down its weapons. The civilian collateral death toll would be horrendous too - which in a pre-emptive strike situation would be untenable for most presidents.

And the problem with Trump's immature wafflings - where he threatened to rain "fire and fury" on North Korea "like the world has never seen" might just be taken at face value by Kim Jong-Un. If he takes Trump at his word, what is the incentive not to perfect his nuclear weaponry? He's going to need a nuclear deterrent to stop the west from attacking him.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

Have you seen much evidence that the regime is defin9itely trying to build nuclear weapons? I haven't, just conjecture; as a signatory to the NPT and a member of the IAEA you'd have thought they'd have a stronger case for developing civilian nuclear capability than, say Israel.

Stands the test of time? Stands the test of brainwashing about it you mean. Why exactly was the killing of 200, 000 thousand civilians with that first bomb required exactly?....for what...unconditional surrender? Why not surround the islands and wait it out for a conditional surrender that was in the offering.

So you can justify the deliberate mass murdering of civilians here for the type of writing on a piece of paper?.....when they had no means....let me repeat that...they had no means of striking back.

And not with one bomb that destroys a city but two bombs destroying two cities.

Yet a small nuke on Pyongyang....when that country is threatening your own country with an actual nuke....Well, that's beyond the pale?

I understand an argument that yes that nuclear weapons are too indiscriminate to use to justify.....but I don't understand an argument that says....killing 400, 000 Japanese civilians was acceptable back then...when they couldn't hurt you... but killing Korea soldiers and civilians now when they soon can hurt you...that's just unacceptable.

Mmmmm...

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Oct 2017 10.41pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Congratulations on blowing by the entire point of my post. The sacrifice of two Japanese cities avoided an anticipated greater loss of life. Also, there was a declared war going on; and actual shooting war.

Meanwhile, you're they bloke who was all for nuking North Korea just so your kids could sleep better at night. As usual, you are projecting your own flawed thinking onto others and then having a hissy fit about it.

There is no military solution to North Korea that does not involve the substantial/complete annihilation of Seoul. Advisers to Trump have said this out loud and on the record.

We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football.

You just talk trivial drivel and ignore points expressly pointed out.

I repeat..please read it slowly, just in case you didn't get the point last time.....There was no need to invade Japan. Did you understand that? Ok....here again....There was no need to invade Japan. Got that now?

And again...they had no means of striking at the US....Just to answer your 'there was a declared war going on; and actual shooting war'.....again slowly..they had no means of striking at the US.

The USA dropped two nuclear bombs deliberately onto civilians.....not combatants....These were babies being burned alive, not soldiers holding guns. This was done to turn a conditional surrender into an unconditional one.

They were restricted to their islands and had already put out feelers for a conditional surrender. Truman would only accept an unconditional one.

They only had to surround the islands and negotiate a conditional surrender.

If Japan had some means of threatening the US then I could recognise the justification.....albeit a truly horrible one.

There was no such threat.

But apparently North Koreans! Well...they are issuing and proving threats......But according to you....now you have some morals about it all....Now it's beyond the pale.

Cognitive dissonance.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Oct 2017 2.38am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I have always wondered why the Yanks didn't drop a bomb say 40 miles from Tokyo so the top people there could feel it, see it, smell it and put the fear of beejesus into them by dropping another close by soon after but maybe I have just answered my own question in my previous post.

Human guinea pigs.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]