I'm starting to feel radical myself, and I have no connection at all to events, other than being able to spot a bully obviously about to carry out systematic barbarism in retribution.
.. a rush job to test two different designs for a new weapon, snuck in before the very same cities were destroyed much more cheaply with conventional heavy explosives and incideriaries, just as 72 Japanese cities had already been destroyed.
That answer because you asked about the nuclear bombs rather than the total destruction of complete cities in the European and Japanese theatres.
You can compare the death toll from the Tokyo firebombings to that in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki, you can look up the names of the other 71 cities destroyed and you can find the full list of planned targets (now long forgotten save for H & N) in the archives.
That doesn't mean dropping those bombs was the right thing to do, neither militarily or morally. But at the end of the day, that's what war is, and people thinking differnetly is why Germany was able to conquery several countries in WW2 and trigger a war that caused 50million deaths.
How many Chinese victims and American servicemen (mostly conscripts) were you willing to sacrifice on this altar of stupidity/hindsight?
Not to even mention the fact MORE JAPANESE themselves would have died without the bombs being dropped and I really begin to question not just the morals of the OP but your intelligence as well. Get off YouTube and read some David Glantz if you want to learn what WW2 was really like.
More to the point, the bomb(s) could have been dropped on military targets away from civilians and still fully display their destructive power to the same effect of forcing a surrender. Did they absolutely need to be dropped on top of cities and murder so many civilians? This IS a display of barbarism and revenge, no matter how conducive to the goal of ending the war.
Pearl Harbor was not then a desperate attempt to upturn the rotten-apple cart, but a simple imperial power grab.
Things were looking optimistic during the Oslo talks, I don't see a reason why we can't get back to that state of affairs with enough steady work over a 30-year timeframe.
The alternative, an invasion, is also a multi-decade investment, by the way. You can't just remove Hamas and not occupy for decades if you don't want another Hamas to emerge.
I want the US to force their hand to stop the invasion. Then Netanyahu's reckoning will come with the Israeli population. Likud needs this invasion to happen to distract the population from accountability. But if the US forces them to not invade, that reckoning can come sooner.
> What happens if Israel does what you say but are still suffering attacks?
That's where the DMZ and continued investment in missile defense comes in. Heck, get some security assurances from the US as part of a ceasefire agreement with Hamas. There should be creative solutions.
You know what I mean. I am obviously not claiming that a DMZ can be perfectly impenetrable. I'm talking about one that's actually manned, and one that is significantly better than what is currently in place, to the point that a repeat attack is sufficiently unrealistic.
> The US can't force anything either.
Yes they can. Israel relies on them for their security umbrella and trade relationships. US has an extreme amount of leverage, if only it would use it.
That didn't work for Ukraine.
Even ignoring cost, a few percent of rockets get through, and the technological gap is narrowing thanks to Iran. I think the damage could drastically increase as Hamas starts using faster rockets and guidance systems.
Whatever the solution, or at least, path forward, is, it is never 'more aggression', especially from a position of power.
Hamas has basically won because (IMO) the Gaza strip is nigh untakable without turning it into a smoldering crater with civilian blood.