Originally posted by: Obi JeewhyenFirst of all, the word "allies" does not refer to American soldiers. Check Websters.
Apparently you missed the part where I mentioned the "Impending Soviet invasion," dumbass. Had the war in the Pacific not been brought to a grinding halt the Soviets were readying an invasion of Japan along with our forces, hence the "ALLIES," as in the Allied Forces. Allied Powers..... Axis Powers..... fuck, do you know fucking anything about WWII? Of course American soldiers were part of the Allied movement. In August 1945 the Soviets declared that they were at war with Japan.
Originally posted by: Obi Jeewhyen
But let me ask again ... in a more See Dick Run sort of way: 1) Were German citizens somehow less willing to fight invading troops than Japanese citizens? 2) Are nuclear weapons less of an option where radioactive fallout might hit the French and British (our allies) as well as the Germans and Italians (not to mention purportedly neutral Swiss, et al.). I'm perfectly aware from the dates in your post (thanks for the info, btw), that nuclear weapons were simply not available for the invasion of Europe. Mine was a hypothetical question designed to find out your opinion on when nuclear weapons are feasible in lieu of invasion.
1: How is this relevant?
2: Yes, using weapons in a way that causes massive allied casualties is not favorable. Are you this fucking dense, do you know how war works? Do you know how wars are won? You are so detached from reality it's embarrassing.
3: Assuming we had entered the war far earlier than we did
and we had nuclear weapons before the heaviest fighting in portions of Europe we would've (and should've) used them, and less would have died in total as a result. This was the case in Japan, they were used before the "real" fighting began. The danger with nukes today is atomic retaliation, back then there was no such threat - we were the only power in possesion of nuclear technology. If we had used them against Germany they would have had no choice other than immediate and unconditional surrender in the face of such a devastating display of power (see also: The Japanese reaction to getting force-fed two nukes.) Less lives would have been lost as a result. 37 million civilians died during WWII, 2 million belonged to Germany. Not only would have much of those civilians been spared, we would have saved soldiers, hundreds of thousands of innocent, soon-to-be-murdered Jews, etc.
Originally posted by: Obi JeewhyenI took note of your airplane analogy and I find it without merit. Your claim that more Japanese civilians would have died in an invasion than perished in two nuclear bomb attacks and the radioactive fallout result is unfounded. On what do you base such an estimate? Perhaps it might be useful to consider how many German and Italian civilians died in the European invasion as a baseline for comparison.
In any event, it is precisely your conclusions about nuclear weapons casualties vs. conventional weapons casualties that I called into question. I did not ignore it ... I just commented on it in a way you failed to comprehend.
). Don't get all bitchy at me just because I think your girlfriend's blog thread is some of the most inane drivel currently on this little thing we call the internet. At least I'm not bitching about how evil the mods here are or any of that.