Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
So does that mean we would have used Nukes in Germany, to subdue the German citizens who were otherwise going to fight the Americans tooth and nail in response to the invasion?

Or were nukes perhaps an off-the-table consideration for an area populated by allies as well as enemies?

You realize, of course, that claiming the Japanese citizens were - in essence - enemy combatants (to use the modern term for non-military fighting force) is tantamount to a rationalization of terrorism itself - - i.e, seeing civilians as legitimate military/political-objective targets.

And nuking two of their cities in order to save more than would be killed by multiple nuclear weapons strikes .... hmmm, very interesting perspective there!

You are an idiot, pure and simple. You completely ignored everything I wrote and posed some absurd hypothetical situation. Before my post you didn't even realize we weren't able to use nukes in Europe (seeing as they didn't exist in a usable form yet.) If you're asking if we would be less willing to use nukes in an area heavily populated by American soldiers..... is that even a serious question? Doesn't that fall under the umbrella of common sense? As I said before, your notion of how wars should be fought is so fucking high-school.

Speaking about hypothetical situations, how about the little plane scenario?

My perspective isn't so much interesting as it is accepted by scholars as so overwhelmingly probable it's almost silly to debate. Familiarize yourself with history before you argue about the past - there’s a protip, Jack. I didn't say that "nuking two of their cities in order to save more than would be killed by multiple nuclear weapons strikes," I said that nuking two of their cities saved more than would have been lost taking Japan using CONVENTIONAL, non-atomic warfare.

I'm going to call you Yoda Fucknut. “Yoda” because you seriously asked “WWYD?” in a debate about dropping nukes and because you're a fucknut.