4 ms·
>Without question, atomic weapons summarily ended the bloodiest war in all of human history. There are many questions about that, many people hold the opinion
by JauntyHatAngle 9y ago
>Without question, atomic weapons summarily ended the bloodiest war in all of human history.
There are many questions about that, many people hold the opinion that the nuclear weapons did not in fact end the war.
Whether or not that is true, I do not pretend to have the expertise to say, however saying there is no question is flat out wrong and ignoring the debate.
- frandroid 9y agohttp://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/ http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japa...
- paulddraper 9y agoThis stretches the imagination. Surrender came mere days after the A-bomb was used, but this timing was purely coincidental? The Empire of Japan was willing to die fighting a dominant superpower for every blade of grass, but a second superpower (one hurt far worse in the European theatre) suddenly tipped the imaginary balance? There's an argument for the A-bomb being effective but unnecessary to the end the war; but this article's view that it had nothing to do with it is seriously by no honest historian.
- fyi1183 9y agoWhat's also pretty clear is that nuclear weapons had nothing to do with ending WW2 in Europe.
- paulddraper 9y agoNor WWI, the Hundreds Days War, etc. Because the atomic bomb had not yet been invented.