WAR! What is it good for?

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
FosseFilberto said:
The US were bombing Japan with impunity before the A bomb - Japan had all but abandoned combating in the air with their few thousand aircraft being held back for 'kamikaze' missions in the event of a ground invasion ...

The Soviets had successfully repelled Hitler - a victorious army is a lot different to a demoralised one ... yes a ground invasion would have cost lives ... but I'm not sure where the 'millions' come from - especially when you consider the air support would have been overwhelming ...
Click to expand...
That was the predictions at the time. Although I’ll concede it’s war and that may have been grossly exaggerated as a reason to drop the bombs. Maybe it was right, though.

The Japanese were loyal to the cause. They preferred death to the dishonour of surrendering. Considering the number of Japanese that would have been fighting to the bitter end, it may well have ended up in the millions and drawn the war out for at least another year or 2.
 
  • Like
Reactions: duggie2000 and brb
Solid Air said:
so you agree that the nukes saved lives -glad we got that sorted
Click to expand...

Nope ... not one bit ... strange take on the question... countries surrender when they surrender - and anybody arguing that nukes save lives needs to give their head a serious wobble - obviously you think civilian lives are more acceptably expendable than those of soldiers ...but thanks for your contribution...
 
Saf said:
That was the predictions at the time. Although I’ll concede it’s war and that may have been grossly exaggerated as a reason to drop the bombs. Maybe it was right, though.

The Japanese were loyal to the cause. They preferred death to the dishonour of surrendering. Considering the number of Japanese that would have been fighting to the bitter end, it may well have ended up in the millions and drawn the war out for at least another year or 2.
Click to expand...
And they still refused an unconditional surrender after being nuked twice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD, Saf and duggie2000
If memory serves me correctly from some video I watched one time, Nagasaki was never the intended target of the second bomb, it had been taken off the list, can't remember why. But on the day the actual intended target may have been given up on due to weather or cloud cover? Trouble was the crew were not returning with their payload, so it got dumped on the place that is now engraved in history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saf and Diego
Just run that through AI...

AI Overview



Nagasaki was not the primary target for the second atomic bomb, but it
was an official target of the mission on August 9, 1945.
National Geographic
While Nagasaki is correct in that it was not in the original top target list, the history is nuanced:
  • Primary Target was Kokura: The city of Kokura was the intended target for the "Fat Man" bomb on August 9, 1945.
  • Why Nagasaki was Chosen: The B-29 bomber carrying the bomb found Kokura obscured by clouds and smoke, making a visual drop impossible. Due to this, the plane was diverted to the secondary target, Nagasaki.
  • Target Selection List: While not in the top two choices (Hiroshima and Kokura), Nagasaki was added to the target list in late July 1945, replacing Kyoto because of its industrial significance, including the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works.
  • Final Choice: The decision to drop the bomb on Nagasaki was made on the day of the mission because of the weather conditions at the primary target.
    The National WWII Museum | New Orleans +4
So, while Nagasaki was not the original primary target, it was still a designated target of the US atomic bombing campaign in August 1945.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saf
Citizen Kane. said:
The Spanish invented it.

But the British version weaponised the concept through passive deaths from disease and starvation.
Click to expand...
Ha!

We give them football and they took it to another level. Looks like we done the same when they introduced us to concentration camps.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: brb
It’s all over the news Trump is looking for a way out and this could be over by the weekend.

Can’t see it myself. Looks like he’s buying time for the Yanks to invade and get boots on the ground in Iran.
 
  • Like
Reactions: brb
Saf said:
It’s all over the news Trump is looking for a way out and this could be over by the weekend.

Can’t see it myself. Looks like he’s buying time for the Yanks to invade and get boots on the ground in Iran.
Click to expand...
I was thinking that, I originally heard he'd indicated for 5,000 troops to go to the Middle East a while back, then I thought it's a bit ridiculous keep giving Iran deadlines, because all you are doing is allowing them to pre-empt you - but he suddenly changes from 48 hours to 5 days, then another order for 3,000 troops to go to the ME, so did the original 5k not go or is the more recent figure on top of that, then later today I heard 1,000 airbourne troops have been ordered there. It makes me think he's going to do a land invasion on that energy island that got tapped by Israel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Saf
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back