Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender — especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.
Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law.
37 comments
War isn't some kind of game, like football. The objective of being in a war isn't to "win" - it's to accomplish something. If it isn't accomplishing anything, you leave. Only an idiot wants to stay in a war just to score ego points.
"Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II." Yeah, the Battle of Midway, the loss of the Solomon Islands, the complete and utter destruction of Tokyo via incendiary bombs -- none of that had anything to do with why the Japanese surrendered.
Yeah, if our country was battered into pieces with the vast majority of us starving two wonder weapons would shatter our resolve too.
21st century America =/= nearly-defeated Japan
Okay Thomas Sowell, sit down and let me try to explain things to you as best as your simpleton brain can handle.
The use of nuclear bombs, as well as chemical and biological wepons, are strictly PROHITBITED for use in accordance to the Geneva Conventions as well as other international laws we agreed to abide by. If we used them, we would be punished heavily by these organizations through various harsh means.
If you are so concerned about the Islamic extremists overseas comming here, then I hope you are currently in the military. Because if not, shut it. If you are, stay in your lane and follow orders.
You should also know that the type of warfare that was fought in WWII is not the same we are fighting now. In WWII we were fighting in linear warfare, that is, we're all here in a trench, the enemy is over there in a trench and there is no man's land in between. The type of warfare we are fighting now is a 360 degree insurgent guerilla warfare with an enemy that blends in with the civilian population.
"Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II" - er, WTF? Apart from the fact that Japan had essentially been beaten militarily prior to the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the archives of the Japanese war council at the time show that they were far more concerned about Operation August Storm than the US nukes.
"Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II."
History fail.
"It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender"
Military tactics fail
"especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago."
Politics fail, it is braver to admit wrong than fight on for pride to unnecessary death.
"Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law."
Fail.
1. How do they plan to do that?
The RR-ites are bussy trying to implement sharia laws in the US already. The Christian version of "sharia", that is.
Japan is a much smaller country than the US, area-wise. Two bombs wiping out two large cities did criple them badly. If a bomb was released on Los Angeles, one on Washington DC, one on NY, and one on Huston, that would hurt the US badly, I guess. But as most of the nuclear power in the world is in the US, and you will probably know when a bomb is coming and will retaliate, only a country on a sucide mission will attack. Or rely on your propensity to attack Country B for what Country A did to you.
Plus, didn't the movie Wargames in the 80-ies already establish the fact that the only way to win is not to play? Oh, you weren't born then, perhaps?
Re: This thread
"It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender"
But easy for you neocons to absolutely shit bricks at the thought of a black man running your country, eh?
"Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law."
I've given it much thought, and I've come to the conclusion you're talking complete bollocks (but what else is new?!). You're like the headline writers & editor of the Daily Fail here in the UK. They spew right-wing cowcack about 'The British Islamist Terror' and 'Sharia Law EXISTS in the UK. THE SKY IS FALLING!!!111one1'.
Thomas, you're an insult to what Barack Obama represents.
MK: I'm pretty sure Sowell is a minarchist libertarian. Doubtful you'll find him saying that anytime soon.
Nonetheless, that he calls abjuring the war in Iraq surrenderwhen they were the ones invadedis more than a little odd. Did he think the 9/11 berserkers were some kind of advance strike force for al-Qaeda crusader armies?
(Although, just to be sure...I'm trying to remember whether Sowell has said that our nation can only work with a Christian underline. Can anyone corroborate this either way?)
@Nyssa of Aachen, Soviet Lieutenant-General Kuzma Nikolaevich Derevyanko was aboard USS Missouri for the signing of the Japanese capitulation. So no, there is not a continuing war.
The Soviets got Sakhalin and the Kurils for free.
Anon-e-Moose:
Since Thomas Sowell actually *is* a black man, I'm afraid that in this case, he is simply shitting bricks over a "liberal" running the country (though goodness knows, Obama is seeming less liberal all the time).
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
