
Originally Posted by
CGM
I was gonna say, if anyone is looking for the reasons why he might be called a war criminal, then targeting hundreds of thousands of civilians might be one. But people can use whatever words they want to describe that.
We didn't want to have to drop the bombs and we certainly gave them the option of us not doing it.
But riddle me this, what would have happened had we tried to win the war without the bombs

I mean we had to drop TWO on them for them to even consider surrendering. The United States lost 354,523 (106,207 killed/248,316 wounded or MIA) men in the Pacific theater and we lost over 6,000 men just taking Iwo Jima! Over 7,000 were killed in Guadalcanal! Over 12,000 were killed in taking Okinawa! ....so how the hell do you think taking Japan proper would have gone

?
I guess the main question I am asking you is would the death toll be higher or lower than the 80,000 (45,000-75,000 immediate deaths) total speculated deaths caused by the two bombings?
Because I KNOW the death toll would have been much higher than just 80,000. The Death toll had the US invaded Japan would have been 2-4 times higher than the 80,000 that died on account of the bombs and everyone else seems to know that and aknowledge that except for you.
So tell me Mr. Butterflies and Rainbows, how else were we to end the war with Japan and have FEWER casualties?
And also were there not civilian casualties in England from the bombing? Germany? USSR? China? and even the in US from Pearl Harbor?
Must be nice being from the great Vanilla country of Canada who does nothing wrong because they do NOTHING at all 
Bookmarks