Should have done that time itself, sadly instead of developing our military,we were busy in stuffing gold inside temples , giving special privileges to the priest etc etc. Japan got its taste of their atrocities the very next years itself. Thats how you should take revenge, not centuries after the incident.
No, civilians too died. I am not telling that Japnese had killed non civilians, so japanese civilians also deserve to die. But thats the unwritten rule of war, you get what u have done.
When a superpower attacks a small country, it is expected that the small country will suffer many losses, so this is not surprising news worth reporting. However, the fact that the superpower loses so badly that the small country is expected to win is newsworthy.
Welcome to the fog of war.
And there's the fact that the superpower is drafting people whilst still claiming that its losses are small, which is comical.
What I'm saying is that if a reliable source were to show that Russia was gearing up for a nuclear strike on NATO with serious intent of conducting it, then they would not wait for Russia to launch.
The points actually invalid if you look at the numbers from WWII. 200-300k dead is a whole lot less than would have happened otherwise, on both sides, and is certainly a lot less than 50 million killed via conventional weapons.
Everyone is hypocritical from time to time, but false equivalences are disingenuous all the time. In fact false equivalence is just hypocrisy in a fancy dress.
You are both correct really, but 50m civilians were killed by conventional bombing in WWII. 1,600 bomber conventional raid vs a nuke is about the same, in fact the former probably comes out on top in equivalent circumstances. The Japanese weren't as well equipped as Germany as regarded air raid shelters. Move Hiroshima to Dresden and it would probably have come off even worse. 1,600 x 10 tons of torpex spread over a wider area.
I doubt that. German and Japanese war crimes during WWII were the first times mass-murder and torture had been industrialised like a business in a modern way. Nobody even had the industrial capability to commit atrocities on such a scale prior. It was why many new international human rights laws came into place thereafter. People had never seen it before and they never wanted to see it again.
It was japanese military that committed atrocities. Only they deserved justice/punishment.
Again japanese civilians didn't commit Nanjiang massacre, it was Japanese military.
ah, watson finally realizes the truth .
Does the same argument apply when the west lost in vietnam or afghanistan?
every party in the war commits atrocities, its the victor who gets to write the history making them look good. To say one was better or worse is just our biased mindset. Military at the end of the day represents the country which in turn is the common civilians. I dont think ppl can simply wish away with argument that they are not responsible and they can walk away guilt free.
Whatever Clouseau.
Insurgency/asymmetric wars are not the same as direct warfare, which is what Russia is losing right now. Especially not when, in Vietnam they took 90% of the targets off board before beginning, i.e. not bombing above a certain parallel. Russia never held back in that manner. Vietnam still suffered 20x the casualty rate. Russia can't claim that either. Both Russia and China were supporting Vietnam too. And in Afghanistan they took the country in weeks, has Russia achieved that Ukraine? Again, 20x casualty rate was inflicted in the enemy. The only thing lost was interest. Now the Taliban are dealing with an insurgency, which has never really ended since 1973. So really, nothing was lost, they inflicted a 20x casualty rate on the Taliban and Al-Quaeda and the country is in the same crappy state it's been in for 50 years, there's no magic trick to fix that.
In a certain respect WWII was a battle between the bad and the extremely bad, but there is no question which side was worse.
