"If you consider mass-murder of civilian populations "good use" of an atomic weapon, then I would think you need a psychiatrist. "
I checked your previous posts and can't imagine how you have come to be so predictably leftist with this one.
Now that you have finished your name calling, let me remind you of the terrible losses WE suffered taking Iwo Jima when the Jap "was starving, had very little fuel, and it's industries were deprived of raw materials."
Your attempt to shrug off the far greater losses WE would have suffered taking the mainland is beneath contempt.
The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was not "terrorism" - it was righteousness.
Unlike the leftist marxists who spawned your silly arguments, the US has not made a habit of colonizing its vanquished. We conquered Germany and Japan, killed their leaders, and converted their followers to Good Democracies.
We could have done the same to Russia - and prevented the GENOCIDE OF 50 MILLION- had we listened to Patton.
Sorry, you're still wrong.
Nuclear weapons are not military weapons, they are political ones; this means they have far more value when used as a threat than when actually deployed.
Despite your assertion that had Patton been given the green light to try and steamroll Russia that 50 MILLION lives would have been saved, I counter with the fact that 100 MILLION lives were lost in aftermath of the Second World War and the Cold War WITHOUT the use of nuclear weapons.
Russia alone suffered 20 million casualties in the conventional war that took place between 1941-45 and still had the wherewithal to continue fighting (and winning) had Germany not surrendered and ended the thing.
Your argument, if I get this right, is that a country that was capable of losing 20 million people and still mustering the strength to fend off Germany and subjugate half of Europe would have been stopped, and then defeated, by an American army less than half it's size, with no allies capable of providing support, and with the Russians enjoying superior tanks, a comparable air force and interior lines of supply?
Nonsense.
You further surmise that the same country with 20 million casualties suffered in conventional fighting would have blanched at the thought of losing another 10 million or so due to atomic warfare. I never realized Uncle Joe was such a warm and fuzzy dictator underneath the gruff, brutal exterior.
As for "predictably leftist"; I didn't realize intellectual honesty, based upon historical fact, was a leftist quality. I was always under the impression that leftists were born liars who believed honesty was something the proletariat needed to be protected from. Realistically, despite atomic bombs and despite your confident insistance to the contrary, Patton would have lost so badly as to leave the security of THIS country (never mind the nations of Europe) an open question.
Had your assertions been correct, there would have been no need for NATO. If your vision of the aftermath of the Second World War, and it's realities, bore any relation to real life, we wouldn't be arguing it now: it would have been done.
Yes, the atmoic bomb was the most powerful weapon of it's day but, you cannot win anything with a nuclear weapon. It's not a weapon of "morality" nor does it leave anything worth holding when all is said and done. It does not advance a political agenda, take hold or ground, or advance a particular point of view, system of government or lifestyle. It destroys things, utterly and completely, and when used is a signal of frustration and a tacit admission that the enemy cannot be overcome by more "civilized" means. At least not at a price that anyone is willing to pay.
And to use your own argument against you again; even with atomic weapons 50 million people still died. So, what did your wonder weapon actually accomplish in terms of morality or making a potential adversary think twice about going to war in the first place? If your argument is that the bomb "saved lives" (either in it's use or threat)I'm not sure you would want to argue that point with the ghosts of those that died regardless of it's existance.
Your argument is simplistic (all you have to do is kill enough of the enemy and you win) and does not take into account the realities facing Allied commanders in 1945 and beyond. If I didn't know any better, I'd also bet you're one of the "Mitchell was right" crowd who believes that "strategic" air power also helped win the war, or that the combination of the "strategic" bomber and nuclear arms was an unbeatable one.
History has proved you wrong on all counts; Patton could not have taken on the Russians, the Bomb would not have that task any easier, strategic bombing was nothing of the sort, and that somehow, a country that could already reduce cities like Dresden, Schweinfurt and Tokyo to ashes (killing more people than both atom bombs combined) with man-made firestorms was somehow still "righteous" when it came to atomic weapons.
Like I said, the Presidency of Iran awaits you with that kind of mindset.