Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alex MG who wrote (257542)	8/1/2014 11:24:55 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542059

Well, let me ask this question. Would we do it today under the same circumstances.? We would not bomb those cities. IMO. We could have bombed something else military, or we could have put in a siege. A blockade. We had alternatives to invasion as they no longer were a threat to us. That is the point. They were not a threat. There was no hurry. They were contained. They had no navy or air force left; so we could have bombed with impunity but kept it to military stuff. We should have spared the women and children. They did nothing wrong. IMO, the firebombing and bombs was for revenge. And I find that crude and indefensible. Killing innocent women and children for revenge. Anyway that is how I see it. << As for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki what was the alternative?... the Japanese would not surrender... so it would have cost many more lives on both sides to invade with ground forces to force their surrender