[SU27]

(05-04-2013 12:29 AM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 11:46 PM)SU27 Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 11:44 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(05-03-2013 06:39 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

I don't even know where to start... Troll?

Our very first "Ivy League"

haha this is without doubt as close as the two of you will ever get to the ivy league

hey vicious, how about you start with trying to mount an intelligent counterpoint instead of just giving up?

Naw bro we have Athlone Freakin McGinnis!

Quote:

(05-03-2013 05:45 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

They were the only country armed with nuclear weapons at the end of the war, and even at that only had a handful.

You can't use that reasoning/statement to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.

The US tested dozens of nuclear weapons around 1945
Dozens? They only tested one "Trinity"
, and easily could have dropped these weapons on their enemies instead of in the Nevada desert.
You're forgetting the fact that the bombers have limited flight range, and what would have happened had they rushed Trinity to use?

With only two atomic bombs, the US laid waste to two Japanese cities and forced that country to surrender unconditionally.
The effects of the Abombs on Japan's surrender is arguable, prior to the Abombs the whole freaking country was already laid to waste via firebombings. Not to mention the Soviet entry into the theatre was what most likely pushed Japan to surrender.
Yes that's right, WITH ONLY TWO BOMBS. With a few dozen more weapons, they easily could have laid waste to literally dozens of other countries.
Except for the fact I pointed out earlier, the US during World War II only had three Abombs. And the bombers had limited range so that eliminates some targets.
You claim I can't use nuclear weapons to explain any battles pre-Hiroshima.. but I don't need to! The US was protected from its enemies by the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, all they had to do was sit back, let their economy roll out tanks, planes, and rifles, and wait for their scientists to produce the atomic weaponry they need to bring all the other countries of the world down to their knees. In fact, the US could have lost every fucking battle and campaign of the war and it still wouldn't have mattered, they still would have been protected by thousands of miles of ocean and they would have been the first to produce nuclear weapons that could wipe out their enemies.

This isn't some fucking COD or civilization game where the US can run around nuking everyone willy nilly ala Ghandi. There are consequences, why do you think that nukes weren't used during Korean War even when Douglas MacArthur wanted to? I was pointing out your previous statement where you claimed "The US easily would have easily won any WWII battle against every other country in the world stacked together, if only because they were the only country armed with nuclear weapons.". This idea is flawed due to the fact that you claim the US could have won any battle in WWII due to their possession of Abombs, yet you forget that except for the last year of the war the US didnot have any Abombs to use in "any WWII battle".

Your weak arguments, lack of reading comprehension and Ivy League boasting seems to suggest that you are either
A) Stupid and use "Ivy League" to project yourself in a superior manner
B) Just a plain ole troll

The entire point of this thread is to examine which country could have won WWII. Not the battles fought during World War II, but the entire war itself. And the answer is, the US because they were the only country that possessed nuclear weapons. It's a very simple answer: the US could have lost every battle during the war yet still won the war because they were the only country that possessed nuclear arms. When I said the US would have won any battle of WWII, what i meant was they would have won WWII as a whole, because in the end they were the only ones with a nuclear stockpile. I could care less who could win this battle, or that battle. What matters in the end is who wins the war. And like I already said, the US could have lost every single battle and conventional military campaign of the war, but in the end they won the race to building the atomic bomb, and this is what ultimately gives them the upper hand over every other enemy.

If the US had to, and were threatened by a conventional total war by Germany and the Soviet Union they most certainly would have produced tens of thousands of nuclear weapons (as they did in the 1950s when they had to) and most definitely would have used at least some if not all of them in a fight to the death world wide total war. In fact, the willingness of the US to use the bombs is proven because they did in fact use them against Japan. Nobody else in the world, at that time, possessed nuclear weapons so the US - if threatened with conventional annihilation by the Nazis and Soviets - most definitely would have used their nuclear capability because no one could fight back with similar weapons.

The only reason the US did not use nuclear weapons in Korea is because (1) by that time the Soviets had them too, and nuking korea might have led to the soviets nuking america right back, and (2) the US almost used nukes in Korea, and probably would have if the North Koreans had won. However, the US preferred to try to keep the Korean Conflict as a local matter and wanted to see how things would turn out on the battle field. Also, the Korean War was not a worldwide fight-to-the-death like WWII was, so you comparing a local conventional war in Korea is absurd when placing it next to the life or death, worldwide total war represented by WWII.

I never brought up that I was Ivy League in this thread, only you did as anyone reading this thread can easily see. I did mention in another thread this fact, but it had nothing to do with being superior me mentioning it served as context as to why certain women reacted to me in certain ways. I never ever used it to disparage you or express superiority to you, this inferiority complex is something that you invented in your own head so I dont know why you're reacting so negatively. I did react with a zing but only after you attacked me first, for no apparent reason. Anyways, I'm not the one who brought up "ivy league" in this thread, you did. Perhaps it is you who suffers from a marked lack of reading comprehension skills?

Anyways that's besides the point. Let's get back to the issue of the thread: for you to claim that the US would not have used atomic weapons during WWII is totally contradicted by what actually happened according to the historical record: AND THAT IS THAT THE US WAS MORE THAN WILLING TO USE NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO END WWII AGAINST JAPAN OR ANYONE ELSE IN ORDER TO SAVE AMERICAN/ALLIED LIVES.

Your argument, Emancipator, is contradicted by actual fact.