New Cold War - Page 5

XabbaRus · 05-13-06, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.

That's something that is hotly disputed.

August · 05-13-06, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.

That's something that is hotly disputed.

I'm not talking about the choices as they are debated (incessantly) today but the choices as they were seen in 1945.

scandium · 05-13-06, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.

That's something that is hotly disputed.

I'm not talking about the choices as they are debated (incessantly) today but the choices as they were seen in 1945.

That is hotly debated.

August · 05-13-06, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scandium

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

Quote:

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Quote:

Originally Posted by August

You're right but suffering 2 million casualties taking the Japanese home islands by conventional means, versus nuking them into submission is not much of a choice.

That's something that is hotly disputed.

I'm not talking about the choices as they are debated (incessantly) today but the choices as they were seen in 1945.

That is hotly debated.

Yeah, debated without the need to make a decision quickly on the potential fate of two million of ones countrymen. Debated without the enormous pressure of thousands of ones countrymen dying every day in a massive world wide stuggle for survival against the forces of evil.

Like i said in Abes Invasion '43 thread, no modern debate of historical events is valid without taking into account the concerns of the times. Something 99% of todays debates arrogantly ignore.

Abraham · 05-15-06, 02:07 AM

I have always been a fierce opponent of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, till last year, when a discussion in the - now lost - thread "august 6, 1945" on this forum made me change my mind. The historic facts presented in that discussion were totally convincing for me.

Yes, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan is still hotly debated, but only by people who have not studied the complete historic picture. Japan would have never peacefully surrendered without an invasion of the main islands. That woulkd have costs probably more than a hundred thousand Allied lives and many more Japanese lives, in fact many more than two A-bombs caused...

But we're of topic.

We were talking about Cheney's remarks about perceived trends in the Russian policy. Is he right to speak out about that?
Of course!
The best way to deal with Russia is to tell it what you expect from it. Does that cause a new "Cold War"?
Of course not!
It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about.

joea · 05-15-06, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham

It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about.

Enigma · 05-15-06, 01:04 PM

Quote:

It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about.

CCIP · 05-15-06, 01:20 PM

Quote:

It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about.

I hope you're not referring to me, otherwise I take offense

August · 05-15-06, 02:04 PM

A US vice president (arguably the most useless job on the planet) makes a couple of offhand comments regarding the Russian government, comments that are more or less correct, and people accuse him of singlehandedly attempting to restart the cold war, yet those same people think nothing about it when some tinpot dictator calls the US government far worse.

Hypocrites each and every one.

05-15-06, 02:07 AM	#5
Abraham Eternal Patrol Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,572 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	New Cold War I have always been a fierce opponent of the use of nuclear weapons against Japan, till last year, when a discussion in the - now lost - thread "august 6, 1945" on this forum made me change my mind. The historic facts presented in that discussion were totally convincing for me. Yes, the use of nuclear weapons against Japan is still hotly debated, but only by people who have not studied the complete historic picture. Japan would have never peacefully surrendered without an invasion of the main islands. That woulkd have costs probably more than a hundred thousand Allied lives and many more Japanese lives, in fact many more than two A-bombs caused... But we're of topic. We were talking about Cheney's remarks about perceived trends in the Russian policy. Is he right to speak out about that? Of course! The best way to deal with Russia is to tell it what you expect from it. Does that cause a new "Cold War"? Of course not! It seems that some on this thread have hardly any knowledge of what the (real) Cold War was all about. __________________ RIP Abraham

05-15-06, 02:04 PM	#9
August Wayfaring Stranger Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 23,260 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	A US vice president (arguably the most useless job on the planet) makes a couple of offhand comments regarding the Russian government, comments that are more or less correct, and people accuse him of singlehandedly attempting to restart the cold war, yet those same people think nothing about it when some tinpot dictator calls the US government far worse. Hypocrites each and every one. __________________ Flanked by life and the funeral pyre. Putting on a show for you to see.