Quote:
Originally Posted by Fear-And-Loathing
We didn't have to do anything.
We could've just blockaded the island (except for food) and they would not have been able to do anything because they have no oil, iron, coal and rubber and would've surrendered. Face it, we are the onyl country to use a nuke in anger and was it really right considering we could've beaten them like I have said?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Peabody
How long do you think it would have taken for them to surrender? 10, 15, 20, 25 years? They would starve to death before surrendering. On most islands we fought them on, when it was apparent that their fight was lost, the last of the men gathered for one last suicide bonsai charge. I doubt the United States could have maintained a blockade half a world away for that long.
|
here is something from a very interesting website:
Quote:
TOKYO RAID
The most destructive air raid of the war was against Japan's capital city, Tokyo. During the night of March 9/10, 1945, 1,665 tons of napalm-filled bombs was dropped on the city from 279 US B-29 bombers. The death toll was greater than that at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the official count being 83,793 Japanese killed in the 30 minute raid. Another 41,000 were severely injured or burned. The Allied air attacks on Tokyo destroyed 15.8 square miles of the city. As of July 1, 1945, only about 200,000 residents of Tokyo remained in the city, all others had been evacuated to safer areas.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan...ser_known_1945
|
i agree with the professor.
plus if we had tried to blockade instead on nuke or even invade,
then it still would've meant more Americans dead from kamikaze attacks,
and more civilians dead from the above type of attack.
so yeah, the photos are definitely horrible,
but im convinced it saved lives on both sides.
and they would've nuked us in a heart-beat.