It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Secondly Germany and Japan had research as well for nuclear weapons and had they got them first they would have used them.
I love how you guys intentionally ignore that part and skip to the end. Japan slaughtered over 80k civilians in the Philippines alone. I guess you find it acceptable because you cant blame the US for it?
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: JeanPaul
What nation actually used nukes, on civilian populations, twice?
Maybe Japan should not have started a war. I love how you guys intentionally ignore that part and skip to the end. Japan slaughtered over 80k civilians in the Philippines alone. I guess you find it acceptable because you cant blame the US for it?
Secondly Germany and Japan had research as well for nuclear weapons and had they got them first they would have used them.
originally posted by: Nikola014
Well, by the time you guys nuked the innocent people, the war was pretty much over, so there's was no danger from Germany to use nuclear weapon because they had none. And the only one left was Japan and there was on the verge of defeat, but i guess you guys just wanted revenge for Pearl Harbor. I'm sorry but i don't understand your logic behind this: if they had finished nuclear weapon before us, they would have used it! So instead, we will use it first and we will slaughter thousands of innocent civilians.
originally posted by: Nikola014
And so, to make things even, you decided to kill thousands and thousands of innocent people, instead of bringing to justice those who had committed war crimes! I like your logic.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JeanPaul
Russia wouldn't allow it? So now Russia has the right to tell countries like Poland what they can and can't do on their own territory? Wow, good to know.
Claim: NATO's operation over Kosovo was illegitimate
Fact: The NATO operation for Kosovo followed over a year of intense efforts by the UN and the Contact Group, of which Russia was a member, to bring about a peaceful solution. The UN Security Council on several occasions branded the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and the mounting number of refugees driven from their homes as a threat to international peace and security. NATO's Operation Allied Force was launched to prevent the large-scale and sustained violations of human rights and the killing of civilians.
Following the air campaign, the subsequent NATO-led peacekeeping operation, KFOR, which initially included Russia, has been under UN mandate (UNSCR 1244), with the aim of providing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo.
Back to top
Claim: The cases of Kosovo and Crimea are identical
Fact: The Kosovo operation was conducted following exhaustive discussion involving the whole international community dealing with a long-running crisis that was recognized by the UN Security Council as a threat to international peace and security.
Following the operation, the international community engaged in nearly ten years of diplomacy, under UN authority, to find a political solution and to settle Kosovo's final status, as prescribed by UNSCR 1244.
In Crimea, there was no pre-existing crisis, no attempt to discuss the situation with the Ukrainian government, no involvement of the United Nations, and no attempt at a negotiated solution.
In Kosovo, international attempts to find a solution took over 3,000 days. In Crimea, Russia annexed part of Ukraine's territory in less than 30 days. It has sought to justify its illegal and illegitimate annexation, in part, by pointing to a "referendum" that was inconsistent with Ukrainian law, held under conditions of illegal armed occupation with no freedom of expression or media access for the opposition, and without any credible international monitoring.
Back to top
Claim: Russia's annexation of Crimea was justified by the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the independence of Kosovo (online here).
Fact: The court stated that their opinion was not a precedent. The court said they had been given a "narrow and specific" question about Kosovo's independence which would not cover the broader legal consequences of that decision.
You don't bother to do any research do you?
Invading mainland Japan would have cost around 250k allied casualties. Secondly Japan pressed their entire population into war service and had already established a 5 million man civil defense with another 30 million to be processed. The 2 cities hit were industrial cities responsible for Japans military industrial base, making them legitimate targets.
Do some research before making false claims. See my comments above to your other misinformed comment.
qqqqqq+
originally posted by: maddy21
How quickly where they spotted and detained ? IF this was an actual attack by a small group of armed personal its entirely possible they could have done a lot of damage. Example Mehran base attack(Pakistan). Now plz don't give me stupid replies saying "how can you compare Pakistan to NATO". Pakistan is 3rd world Nation blah blah blah...
But if you can scale across the base with a ladder and not get caught within 5 minutes then we have a serious problem with security. But so far we don't know how long it took for security personal to react.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: JeanPaul
Japan was not defeated. Since you seem lost on history as well the 2 bombs dropped weren't dropped on the same day. The Japanese refused to surrender after we dropped the first nuke and after Russia declared war on Japan.
It was not until a few days later when we dropped the second nuke that Japan finally surrendered.
originally posted by: Nikola014
I always thought it was the Germans who started the WW2, guess you learn something new everyday.
originally posted by: Nikola014
I would like to know how did you get that number of how just how many casualties would allies have if they indeed invaded Japan. I can't recall seeing it in ANY historical book, so I would like to get multiple sources behind your statement. But i guess you're right. The whole world couldn't have dealt with Japan, so using nukes was the only option.
originally posted by: Nikola014
You use words such as "research" and "false" quite easily, so they had lost all of their meaning when you're using them.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JeanPaul
So the moves that Russia has been making are just in response to the US, right?
originally posted by: Xcathdra
originally posted by: Nikola014
I always thought it was the Germans who started the WW2, guess you learn something new everyday.
The United States didn't enter WWII until Japan attacked the US. That is when WWII started for the US and it was started by Japan. A few days later Nazi Germany then declared war on the US because they were allied with Japan.
So yes, you did learn something new today.
originally posted by: Nikola014
I would like to know how did you get that number of how just how many casualties would allies have if they indeed invaded Japan. I can't recall seeing it in ANY historical book, so I would like to get multiple sources behind your statement. But i guess you're right. The whole world couldn't have dealt with Japan, so using nukes was the only option.
The planned invasion of the Japanese mainland was called Operation downfall and included US and UK forces under a joint Command. The Japanese warrior ethos required all civilians to defend the homeland. When they ran out of weapons to give the civilians they started handing out swords, knives, gardening tools etc.
The Japanese had Operation Ketsugō, which dealt with the total defense of the Japanese Islands. Japans strategy was to make the cost of invading so high that the allies would instead push for an armistice rather than a total Japanese surrender. Like the Nazis, the option was unconditional surrender.
Casualty estimates were submitted by multiple military commands with Pacific responsibility in addition to President Truman's own staff.
The estimates are based on a population (civilians included) that would die for the Emperor.
originally posted by: Nikola014
You use words such as "research" and "false" quite easily, so they had lost all of their meaning when you're using them.
Which doesn't negate the fact that you didn't know US history in terms of WWII nor how WWII started for the US, let alone operations to invade Japan and japans operation to defend Japan.