Goodnight, sweet prince.

[Elmdor Rizer]

Also, I'm pretty sure Kazuya was kidding.

With him being 92 and all.

You people suck.

[maca]

Perhaps, if they chose less densely populated areas, it would have been just as effective at making the Japanese surrender but who knows. Either way it did make the Japanese surrender, they had about 3 million soldiers left.

[Huey Kruthas]

Also, I'm pretty sure Kazuya was kidding.

With him being 92 and all.

You people suck.

You mean the two people who took him seriously?

Yup.

[Kazuya Mishima]

Also, I'm pretty sure Kazuya was kidding.

With him being 92 and all.

You people suck.

You mean the two people who took him seriously?

Yup.

Your both right, since most of my jokes are lame or not funny I didn't bother adding this smiley.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps, if they chose less densely populated areas, it would have been just as effective at making the Japanese surrender but who knows. Either way it did make the Japanese surrender, they had about 3 million soldiers left.

Yes, because the best way to inflict massive damage (aside from hitting the giant enemy crab's weak spot) is to kill absolutely nobody with a billion dollar bomb.

[Jetsetlemming]

The point of the bombs weren't to inflict massive damage but to scare the japanese military, who were prepared to march the entire country to extinction and actively encouraging civilians to commit suicide rather than surrendering, into surrendering.
It's possible to say that they might've chose less populated areas, or bombed the Sea of Japan or something as a demonstration first, but it's impossible to second guess what the results of that might've been, and you can't ignore that they dropped leaflets in japanese telling the civilians to evacuate before they dropped the bombs.

[Jase]

Perhaps, if they chose less densely populated areas, it would have been just as effective at making the Japanese surrender but who knows. Either way it did make the Japanese surrender, they had about 3 million soldiers left.

Sorry, this may seem stupid, but do you even know what a war is?

Edit:
Another question:
If i shoved an gun up your asshole, and told you i was goin to shot, would you surrender?

[Mistral]

Well, I don't know. Dropping one in the middle of Tokyo Bay could have been impressive, to say the least, regardless of blast radius actually hitting the city. And it's not just because a good fuse could have doused a good-sized chunk of the shorefront in radioactive water.

But the metaphor would be closer to shoving the gun up there, pulling it twice, and then asking if he wants to surrender before you empty the magazine.

[maca]

Yes, because the best way to inflict massive damage (aside from hitting the giant enemy crab's weak spot) is to kill absolutely nobody with a billion dollar bomb.

Sorry, this may seem stupid, but do you even know what a war is?

The point of those bombs, and war is to cause as much civilian deaths as possible? Yeah, good logic.

[Anonymous]

The point of those bombs, and war is to cause as much civilian deaths as possible? Yeah, good logic.

The point of war is to win at any cost. Thinking otherwise is just being naive.

[Jetsetlemming]

But the metaphor would be closer to shoving the gun up there, pulling it twice, and then asking if he wants to surrender before you empty the magazine.

More like shooting them once in each hand. After all, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were both important cities to supply. One was an industrial location, the other a fishing port.

[Evans]

The point of war depends on said war. You don't go into it with the idea that you must win, but get what you start it for. Learn the subtle difference.
The one in question could have been won had the bombs been used in even less populated areas, or even at large. Frankly, Fat Man was far from needed.

[maca]

The point of war is to win at any cost. Thinking otherwise is just being naive.

Win at any cost necessary more like.

[Fer!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lDFLLKSkUg

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlKGfolLpmY

better