I didn’t understand Indiana either. I’d love to hear him confirm your perspective.
I’m questioning GSC’s stance here. The bombs were devastating. Not sure how you can argue otherwise.
Clearly. So much so that we all pray we don’t have to use them again.
I am surprised Putin invaded the heartland of Ukraine. I thought he’d just annex Donetsk which is already largely Russian and should be part of Russia not Ukraine… I disagree with Putin invasion and laying siege to the capital, but I more disagree with Ukraine resisting. The Ukraine president should sue for peace. Otherwise, there will be tremendous destruction of the country, hundreds of thousands of deaths, the possibility of the war spreading. There is no way Ukraine can stop the Red Army.
A no fly zone lmightl cause Putin to begin using missiles and nuclear bombs in Ukraine. Putin might even target American military bases or warships. Putin cannot turn back in Ukraine now without tremendous domestic political loss. The more stinger missiles that take down Russian aircraft, the greater the probability Putin uses more lethal weapons. Putin will also shut off energy to Europe which will cause economic chaos in many countries. Neither Europeans nor Americans are going to fight in Ukraine so Ukrainians sacrificing themselves is purposeless. The Ukrainian government needs to make peace not exhort bloodshed.
The entire war is Biden’s fault. His energy policy resulted in Russia taking command of European energy distribution. Biden should immediately call for ratcheting up domestic energy production to lower the price of energy. This war would not have happened but for a rigged election allowing a moron to assume the presidency.
I never changed any argument.
The argument is “did Japan surrender because of nuclear weapons or a Russian invasion on their 6?.”
You HAVE TO mention the invasion. Lmfao. It’s impossible for you not to. Because that’s what forced the surrender.
So not just the bomb. You cede the point. Thanks for making this easy.
You think being carpet bombed into oblivion to much more death and devastation isn’t devastating Indiana?
You’ve been conditioned to believe that nukes are worse than they are.
Why? That’s the question right? Why would anyone have to make them seem worse?
World domination? Scare the shit out of your adversaries so they don’t even think about acting…. Pretty good reasons if you ask me.
Fuck that. I completely disagree. First off, Zelensky IS asking for peace. He’s demanded a ceasefire. Ukraine did nothing to deserve this.
And you’re saying they should just roll over? Like it’s their fault?
You continue to outdo yourself.
Odd to me you would say this, and not say, you know, that Russia needs to stop.
I’m beginning to think you’ve become as unhinged as Putin. Past that, this isn’t worth a response.
And by this logic, you’re admitting the bombs DID play a factor in surrender?
You’re proving our point that nukes ARE in fact devastating and something better left unknown.
Not at all. I’ve already stated that if the bomb was that overwhelming they would have made the decision after the first bomb. Why wait for the second?
How? I’m saying use the PERCEPTION that they are that devastating to instill this fear.
But the reality is that nuclear bombs are unbelievably counter productive. And that limits their use in almost any theatre of war.
But keep on thinking you made a point here.
Regardless of the sheer numbers of deaths at a single point in time, they literally liquify people on the spot. Horrifying consequences for those within a pretty wide circle from the center of the explosion. Generations of folks are struck with cancer and maladies years later. I think you are minimizing the destruction these cause.
Again. The delay in information and the fog of war was a likely cause. Then another one came. They knew they were fucked if they continued.
That you view these bombs as mere firecrackers is mind boggling.
Explain to me how a detonated nuclear weapon over a city ISNT devastating. I’m waiting.
Do you know why they’re counter productive? Because when used, they destroy EVERYTHING. They instill fear because they should. And that fear (hopefully) keeps people from using them.
1+1=0.
Don’t look now, but you’re proving my point.
Thank you Indiana for being objective here.
I’m not minimizing the destruction they cause. That’s a red herring you’ve created.
I’m saying that they are not, and have not been, decisive in war decisions.
51 brought up the death count and destruction - I simply posted verifiable evidence that, they were not the most destructive bombings. The bombing of Tokyo was.
Super Powers need bogey men. Nuclear arsenals present that luxury. They are used as deterrents. But the reality is, they are wildly in effective when actually considered in combat.
Otherwise, show me a time, since WWII, where they were actively used to decide a conflict.
Again, You’re proving my point. They’re so awful that no one wants to use them. The world would be destroyed. Mutually assured destruction.
You’re acknowledging all this but then say their use didn’t conclude the war? I don’t understand it.
-
It was 1945, not 1612. We had radios and televisions. You’re making it seem like they needed to get info via carrier pigeon.
-
Stop pretending to know their mind state. They resisted the first bomb. They didn’t resist the Red Army invading.
I know it’s convenient to pretend to know the minds of the leaders making decisions but you don’t.
More red herrings. I never said nuclear bombs weren’t destructive. Lmao. You’re trying to change the debate to serve your interests.
You did.
First it was, why did japan wait WEEKS to surrender after the bombing?
Then it was, why didn’t they surrender the day of or after the bombing?
Then, when the answer was THEY DID, you changed to, why not after the FIRST bomb?
This is called moving the goalposts. Every time you are proven wrong, you change your attack and pretend like the previous attacks never existed.
Cede what point? Did anyone in this thread ever say the bombs were the ONLY factor in the surrender?
In fact, this point was made 14 hours ago AND YOU REFUTED IT.
So yesterday you said NO IT WASN’T BOTH FACTORS and today you’re backing off your assertion. Why? Because you were wrong once again.
And on top of that, instead of admitting it, you keep trying to talk past it.
And let’s not ignore you saying japan kept fighting for weeks after both bombs. I mean, what the ever living fuck are you talking about? I suspect you don’t even know anymore.
This my “knot” argument about GSClown. He’s like the Bernie Madoff of thought, ponzi scheming himself into a corner at every sentence. Then doubling down, only to quadruple down 5m later. Every new thought is a dead end to previous logic, but he will surely sell you on its truth anyway. He’s right, no matter what so just buy it for $5 bucks.
I don’t understand how someone like this functions in society. Freaking emabarsssing.
You should be telling yourself the same thing. Pretty sure you weren’t there either.
Happens all the time. Japan knew it was over after the bombs. They were the only country left and the world was coming down on them.
Again, this is another instance where GSC is too proud to admit he is wrong.