Is North Korea really a problem?

[The Silver Thong]

6 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Seriously?  You missed that whole Afghanistan thing?  How about all the terrorists killed in terror friendly countries?  You aren't a very well informed guy are you.

We did supply ISIS when Libya fell but not sure how Putin getting 20% of the US uranium (you get plutonium FROM uranium)  helps supply terrorists?    I do agree that was a bad deal and very suspicious of the entire transaction, hopefully tey FBI is investigating.

.

Did you not say this

Libya did not fall, it was over thrown by the state department.

 

Edited May 4, 2017 by The Silver Thong

[DarkHunter]

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

Sorry but I don't think any serious historian who's written about the subject is under your strange delusion that the Japanese navy wasn't destroyed before the atomic bombings.  They had essentially no battleships, no aircraft carriers, no pilots, no fuel, and no capability to project any offensive action ever again.   In the Pacific war, imperial offensive actions were over and done with by 1942.   They had no hope of fighting a war of attrition with the US and it was a war of mounting loss within months after the war began that would never reverse and only accelerate.

10,000 kamikaze planes is ridiculous, that you even believe that is hilarious.   An imaginative and conjectural estimate, what must also be presumptuous that Japan would use all remaining aircraft in the suicide role, which hypothetically would be a sad tactical reality by that point even under such conjecture.   They were out of every resource imaginable including pilots.   If they ever had 10,000 serviceable aircraft even at their high water mark, even when they had fuel to fly them, that would be a dubious guess at best.

Their army saw defeat every time it was up against a meaningful force.  Japan was a defeated military power in 1945 by more than a consensus of historians on the subject including top US military command in the theater.  The only distance between the war and the war's end in Japan was the bureaucratic decision to make terms.

It's remaining destroyers would have been destroyed quickly and easily at the first sign of exposing themselves.  Ditto their submarines.  And near the end of the war they were being destroyed at record rates.  To use these remnants as your argument that the nukes had to be dropped is ridiculous.  

Acknowledging that the atomic bombs pushed Japan to surrender and believing the A-bomb religion that they were necessary for Japan to surrender are two very different things.   A supposition we agree on doesn't make your belief realistic when tactically, they had no ability to project their power.

I never said the Japanese navy was mauled heavily but I also don't pretend that is was completely and utterly destroyed like it was in your twisted world view.  The no fuel I showed in a previous post, and while I normally don't do this, I'm going to post it again so you can't pretend that you never saw it,

Japanese oil inventories in thousands of barrels

Fiscal Year	Crude Petroleum			Refined Products			Starting Inventories			Consumption
	Imports	Production	Total	Imports	Production	Total	Crude	Refined	Total
1941	3,130	1,941	5,071	5,242	15,997	21,239	20,857	28,036	48,893	36,974
1942	8,146	1,690	9,836	2.378	16,674	19,052	12,346	25,883	38,229	41,790
1943	9,848	1,814	11,662	4,652	16,167	20,819	6,839	18,488	25,327	43,992
1944	1,641	1,585	3,226	3,334	9,615	12,949	2,354	11,462	13,816	25,045
1945 (first half)	0	809	809	0	1,933	1,933	195	4,751	4,946	~6,576

From http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm

Like I said in my last post Japan was still producing oil up until the end of world war 2 and while it was significantly less oil then they previously produced they still had enough to mount an effective, if desperate, defense of the Japanese home islands.  Clearly your no fuel is either a complete lie you continue trying to advance or you are so delusional you actually believe it at fact.

While its true the Japanese had no hopes of winning no matter how much you wish to deny it they did plan on fighting a war of attrition.  They knew they couldn't win by attrition but they hoped that they could cause enough casualties to get the Allies to negotiate for peace and accept some terms that were favorable to the Japanese instead of demanding unconditional surrender.  The fact that you either refuse to accept or understand that shows either your lack of comprehension or just how entangled into your own delusions that you are.

You clearly have no knowledge of the second world war, let alone production, which isn't surprising.

Since the focus is on aircraft production, actual numbers would prove helpful.

Country	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total
U.S.	2,141	6,068	18,466	46,907	84,853	96,270	45,852	300,557
Germany	8,295	10,862	12,401	15,409	24,807	40,593	7,540	119,907
USSR	10,382	10,565	15,737	25,436	34,900	40,300	20,900	158,220
UK	7,940	15,049	20,094	23,672	26,263	26,461	12,070	131,549
Japan	4,467	4,768	5,088	8,861	16,693	28,180	8,263	76,320
Total	33,225	47,312	71,786	120,285	187,516	231,804	94,625	786,553

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

While the formatting squished together the numbers of some countries productions the Japanese production numbers are clear and easy to read.  As can also be clearly seen the Japanese were able to produce 8,262 aircraft in 1945 and 28,180 in 1944 with a total production of 76,320 aircraft for the entire war.  First off your completely unfounded and disproved claim that Japan had no means of production is blatantly false.  Secondly your claim that at its high water mark Japan only fielded at most 10,000 planes is also been completely disproved.  It seems from those two charts Japan had the aircraft, had the fuel, and its not that difficult or time consuming to train kamikaze pilots.  

As for your comment on the use of kamikaze planes being a sad tactical reality, that is first off nothing but a complete and utter personal opinion of your delusional mind that completely and utterly ignores reality.  The reality is that as the war continued on Japan increased its use of kamikaze pilots and created special kamikaze planes in 1945.  While not the most effective method of combating American forces it did prove somewhat effective as according to the US air force that 2,800 kamikaze planes sunk 34 navy ships and damaged a further 368.  In the defense of the Japanese home islands the Japanese weren't planning on attack heavily armed combat ships but instead aiming for the far more vulnerable transport ships.  Using a mass assault, which is why they intended to use 10,000 kamikaze planes, they aimed to sink 40% of the transport ships before the troops could be offloaded.  Considering in past attacks that for 9 kamikaze that 1 would hit using 10,000 kamikaze would of resulted in mass causalities before the troops even would of had the chance to get to the beach even if they wouldn't of managed to sink the desired 40% of transport ships.

Your statement on Japan being defeated every time they met a meaningful force is complete and utter nonsense.  First off you never accurately define what a meaningful military force even is and completely discount the successes of the Japanese forces at the start of the war.  Secondly you completely and utterly discount the difficulty in taking territory from the Japanese who in the later stages of the war were normally out numbered.  While the Japanese were slowly removed from islands during the island hopping campaign they did so at extensive cost to America.  At the battle of Okinawa for example 130,000 Japanese troops resisted 287,000 American troops for 3 months and caused 65,000 casualties or the battle of Iwo Jima were about 21,000 Japanese troops resisted about 110,000 American troops for about a month and caused around 22,000 casualties.  While the Japanese were losing at the end they made every fight exceedingly bloody.  

The atomic bombs were needed to push Japan to acceptable surrender terms quickly, we could of starved them out and continued the carpet bombing of Japan to get the same effect but it would of resulted in far more deaths then what the atomic bombs caused.  You still continue to focus on this flawed idea of projecting power when that was of no concern of the Japanese at this time.  You just flat out to refuse to accept that the goal of Japan at this time was to prolong the war and make it as bloody as possible so that they could get some favorable terms during peace negotiations and how the atomic bombs played a large part in ending that.

10 hours ago, Yamato said:

That site is accurate and what it shows is how devastated the Japanese navy was.  You've done your best to spin your way out of it but you can't do that.

It's apparent you didn't know that these ships were destroyed and you're still fantasizing that they weren't for some reason.  If that's the kind of argument it takes for you to believe the atomic bombs were necessary you've convinced yourself.  

I could peel apart all these little fake factoids you're asserting that you think make the case for your atomic belief but it's so petty already it feels like trying to reason with someone that unicorns don't exist.

A functional ship!  -->  Dysfunctional history.

Instead of threatening to peel apart everything that is fake why don't you do it instead of just talking about it, or is doing actual research too much of a challenge for you and too dangerous to ruining your twisted and demented world view.  I know how research challenged you are and the lengths you will go to to defend your world view from having to face reality, so I don't actually expect you to follow through on your threat. 

While the Japanese navy was mauled it wasn't completely destroyed as you want to so desperately believe.  It is interesting to note how you continue to ignore the entirety of why the atomic bombs were dropped and instead try to focus everything on one small portion.  Was the Japanese fleet a mere fraction of its former strength, yes it was, and the part you so desperately want to deny that it was also still a threat against any invading force especially if used in a suicidal manner that targeted transport ships at no concern for their own safety or survival. 

[The Silver Thong]

Why no nuke on Berlin, a general question.

[The Silver Thong]

1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

Why do you think?  

 

because you can`t

[Merc14]

7 hours ago, The Silver Thong said:

Im putting you in the nutball catagory. I asked very kindly what was your question because I think you forgot what it was, I know I did. 

This is the fourth time I have asked, maybe the fifth, but judging by your responses to date I don't doubt you forgot what it was so here ya go:  Explain your rationale for the morality of your choice of killing 200K Japanese with a nuclear weapon or 10M Japanese and 1M Americans via an invasion.  I have numbers for a total blockade and they are worse for the Japanese and only slightly better for the Americans if you want?  Same question for both scenarios and I am not going to stop asking this question, especially since you brought it up, until you ate least acknowledge it .

*Snip*

Quote

Does this meen no hug.....

   Don't worry internet tough guy, they'll probably close the thread now because you are threatening people thereby saving you

[The Silver Thong]

5 hours ago, Merc14 said:

This is the fourth time I have asked, maybe the fifth, but judging by your responses to date I don't doubt you forgot what it was so here ya go:  Explain your rationale for the morality of your choice of killing 200K Japanese with a nuclear weapon or 10M Japanese and 1M Americans via an invasion.  I have numbers for a total blockade and they are worse for the Japanese and only slightly better for the Americans if you want?  Same question for both scenarios and I am not going to stop asking this question, especially since you brought it up, until you ate least acknowledge it .

Internet tough guy who doesn't even have the guts to answer my question threatening me with a beating over the internet.   LMAO

 I do believe I have answered this, One bomb errr and putting war ships around Japan would have forced them to surrender. To think everyone would have commited sucide is a joke. How many people have died under U.S. sanctions in the last 50 years hmmmm Now I pose a question and ask you to answer it.  Again I will ask you for the fourth time, do you approve of WMD`s

 Calling me a internet toughguy is pretty child like, Your the one who called me a coward,  Again it show`s your lack of understading. Tell me how a war with NK would go down.

*Snip*

Edited May 5, 2017 by kmt_sesh
Threats

[The Silver Thong]

1 hour ago, The Silver Thong said:

Did you not say this

Libya did not fall, it was over thrown by the state department.

 

Did you not read this

[The Silver Thong]

Opps

 from Merc

We did supply ISIS when Libya fell but not sure how Putin getting 20% of the US uranium (you get plutonium FROM uranium)  helps supply terrorists?    I do agree that was a bad deal and very suspicious of the entire transaction, hopefully tey FBI is investigating.

.

what say you

wait................. no answer

Edited May 4, 2017 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

take resposibilty man

[Merc14]

5 hours ago, The Silver Thong said:

 I do believe I have answered this, One bomb errr and putting war ships around Japan would have forced them to surrender.   To think everyone would have commited sucide is a joke.

LMAO.  Who the F said anything about suicide?  I am truly dealing  with something epic here.  Let's see what you know before we continue"

1.  Do  you know what a naval blockade is?

2.  Do you know what happens  to a population during a naval blockade?

I am expecting you will get one of the above wrong

Quote

How many people have died under U.S. sanctions in the last 50 years hmmmm

Do you know why countries are put on sanctions bright boy?

Quote

Now I pose a question and ask you to answer it.  Again I will ask you for the fourth time, do you approve of WMD`s

No. 

*Snip*

[Yamato]

10 hours ago, Bama13 said:

I have read about WWII since I was around 8 years old. Know plenty, thanks. In fact it is apparent to anyone with knowledge of the end of WWII that I know more than you or Thong. 

As to why exactly the Japanese surrendered I suggest you read the surrendered statement issued by the Emperor.

You should take your own advice as you need it more than I.

What do you think you know more than me?  The Emperor's speech?   What else?    If I can press you to think about something else you'll realize "oh ****, there's more to this than I thought."

The atomic bombings provided an easy out for the Emperor.  OF COURSE he would include it in his speech.  Jeezus Christ Bama how insensitive and ignorant would it be not to?   I can't even imagine that this detail would have been left out.   If you actually believe that this is "exactly why" then no, you are not well read on this.   What book and what author taught you exactly what, exactly?

[Yamato]

4 hours ago, Merc14 said:

It is far easier to judge from 50 years in the future than it was in 1945 with millions of Americans exhausted from endless war and contemplating invading the home islands of an enemy that had regularly chosen mass suicide over surrender.  

"Endless war"???  Gawd Merc, get a watch.

[F3SS]

2 hours ago, Thanato said:

I call the United States of America, the United States or simply the US. I call Citizens of the United States, Yanks or Americans.

Right but do you ever say that you're from America? 

[.ZZ.]

I have never heard any Canadian call himself "American" in my life.

[Yamato]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

I never said the Japanese navy was mauled heavily but I also don't pretend that is was completely and utterly destroyed like it was in your twisted world view.  The no fuel I showed in a previous post, and while I normally don't do this, I'm going to post it again so you can't pretend that you never saw it,

Japanese oil inventories in thousands of barrels

Fiscal Year	Crude Petroleum			Refined Products			Starting Inventories			Consumption
	Imports	Production	Total	Imports	Production	Total	Crude	Refined	Total
1941	3,130	1,941	5,071	5,242	15,997	21,239	20,857	28,036	48,893	36,974
1942	8,146	1,690	9,836	2.378	16,674	19,052	12,346	25,883	38,229	41,790
1943	9,848	1,814	11,662	4,652	16,167	20,819	6,839	18,488	25,327	43,992
1944	1,641	1,585	3,226	3,334	9,615	12,949	2,354	11,462	13,816	25,045
1945 (first half)	0	809	809	0	1,933	1,933	195	4,751	4,946	~6,576

From http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/O/i/Oil.htm

Like I said in my last post Japan was still producing oil up until the end of world war 2 and while it was significantly less oil then they previously produced they still had enough to mount an effective, if desperate, defense of the Japanese home islands.  Clearly your no fuel is either a complete lie you continue trying to advance or you are so delusional you actually believe it at fact.

While its true the Japanese had no hopes of winning no matter how much you wish to deny it they did plan on fighting a war of attrition.  They knew they couldn't win by attrition but they hoped that they could cause enough casualties to get the Allies to negotiate for peace and accept some terms that were favorable to the Japanese instead of demanding unconditional surrender.  The fact that you either refuse to accept or understand that shows either your lack of comprehension or just how entangled into your own delusions that you are.

You clearly have no knowledge of the second world war, let alone production, which isn't surprising.

Since the focus is on aircraft production, actual numbers would prove helpful.

Country	1939	1940	1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	Total
U.S.	2,141	6,068	18,466	46,907	84,853	96,270	45,852	300,557
Germany	8,295	10,862	12,401	15,409	24,807	40,593	7,540	119,907
USSR	10,382	10,565	15,737	25,436	34,900	40,300	20,900	158,220
UK	7,940	15,049	20,094	23,672	26,263	26,461	12,070	131,549
Japan	4,467	4,768	5,088	8,861	16,693	28,180	8,263	76,320
Total	33,225	47,312	71,786	120,285	187,516	231,804	94,625	786,553

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

While the formatting squished together the numbers of some countries productions the Japanese production numbers are clear and easy to read.  As can also be clearly seen the Japanese were able to produce 8,262 aircraft in 1945 and 28,180 in 1944 with a total production of 76,320 aircraft for the entire war.  First off your completely unfounded and disproved claim that Japan had no means of production is blatantly false.  Secondly your claim that at its high water mark Japan only fielded at most 10,000 planes is also been completely disproved.  It seems from those two charts Japan had the aircraft, had the fuel, and its not that difficult or time consuming to train kamikaze pilots.  

As for your comment on the use of kamikaze planes being a sad tactical reality, that is first off nothing but a complete and utter personal opinion of your delusional mind that completely and utterly ignores reality.  The reality is that as the war continued on Japan increased its use of kamikaze pilots and created special kamikaze planes in 1945.  While not the most effective method of combating American forces it did prove somewhat effective as according to the US air force that 2,800 kamikaze planes sunk 34 navy ships and damaged a further 368.  In the defense of the Japanese home islands the Japanese weren't planning on attack heavily armed combat ships but instead aiming for the far more vulnerable transport ships.  Using a mass assault, which is why they intended to use 10,000 kamikaze planes, they aimed to sink 40% of the transport ships before the troops could be offloaded.  Considering in past attacks that for 9 kamikaze that 1 would hit using 10,000 kamikaze would of resulted in mass causalities before the troops even would of had the chance to get to the beach even if they wouldn't of managed to sink the desired 40% of transport ships.

Your statement on Japan being defeated every time they met a meaningful force is complete and utter nonsense.  First off you never accurately define what a meaningful military force even is and completely discount the successes of the Japanese forces at the start of the war.  Secondly you completely and utterly discount the difficulty in taking territory from the Japanese who in the later stages of the war were normally out numbered.  While the Japanese were slowly removed from islands during the island hopping campaign they did so at extensive cost to America.  At the battle of Okinawa for example 130,000 Japanese troops resisted 287,000 American troops for 3 months and caused 65,000 casualties or the battle of Iwo Jima were about 21,000 Japanese troops resisted about 110,000 American troops for about a month and caused around 22,000 casualties.  While the Japanese were losing at the end they made every fight exceedingly bloody.  

The atomic bombs were needed to push Japan to acceptable surrender terms quickly, we could of starved them out and continued the carpet bombing of Japan to get the same effect but it would of resulted in far more deaths then what the atomic bombs caused.  You still continue to focus on this flawed idea of projecting power when that was of no concern of the Japanese at this time.  You just flat out to refuse to accept that the goal of Japan at this time was to prolong the war and make it as bloody as possible so that they could get some favorable terms during peace negotiations and how the atomic bombs played a large part in ending that.

Instead of threatening to peel apart everything that is fake why don't you do it instead of just talking about it, or is doing actual research too much of a challenge for you and too dangerous to ruining your twisted and demented world view.  I know how research challenged you are and the lengths you will go to to defend your world view from having to face reality, so I don't actually expect you to follow through on your threat. 

While the Japanese navy was mauled it wasn't completely destroyed as you want to so desperately believe.  It is interesting to note how you continue to ignore the entirety of why the atomic bombs were dropped and instead try to focus everything on one small portion.  Was the Japanese fleet a mere fraction of its former strength, yes it was, and the part you so desperately want to deny that it was also still a threat against any invading force especially if used in a suicidal manner that targeted transport ships at no concern for their own safety or survival. 

The atomic bombs probably were needed to push Japan to surrender quickly.   So the "need" is one of bureaucratic timetable.  The surrender is wholly a matter of bureaucratic will like I said.  And now we'll add timing for that record.  So your argument isn't a military argument it's a political argument.   Why did we want Japan to surrender quickly?   Not because we were tired of "endless war" but the Soviet entry into the war.  The last thing America wanted in the postwar was the Soviets gaining power and influence, resources, bases, territory et al.

They didn't have 10,000 suicide planes hiding underground pr waiting in the wings, they didn't have 10,000 suicide pilots, and they didn't have 10,000 tankfuls of fuel to use them in any meaningful capacity or any industrial base left to maintain them much less keep those numbers intact with replacements.  That's just feel-good excuse making for your atomic religion.   The number of aircraft produced in 1946 would have been reduced to a few thousand at best.   The precipitous dropoff from '44 to '45 had a reason and it's amazing to see people so obstinate they can't acknowledge that.   Even limiting your understanding of the situation to a numbers game of manufacturing, building an aircraft doesn't make it available for use.   By 1945 it was more like fodder to be destroyed.

Japan was finished militarily and pretty much every serious historian on this topic is in agreement with that.  

It's you and the emperor vs. all historical accounting and me.  You've lost your case and repeating yourself with longer paragraphs isn't going to make up for it.

Your religious belief that Japan had any semblance of an air force left is ludicrous.   American B-29s were flying over Japan at altitude with impunity by summer '45.   It had reached the point that Japan couldn't even mount the slightest resistance in the air.   If they did they'd be destroyed immediately by American escorts.   Their submarines were on borrowed time and being destroyed en mass.   If they sailed destroyers out of the harbor and didn't have a helluva cloud cover to hide in they'd be destroyed immediately.   They had no offensive capability left.   You've proven you have no grasp of, or intellectual capability of grasping, the scope of the defeat of Japan. 

[Merc14]

1 minute ago, .ZZ. said:

I have never heard any Canadian call himself "American" in my life.

Except here ya mean.    

[Thanato]

12 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Right but do you ever say that you're from America? 

hell no, aint no yank. I'm a Canuck through and through. God Save the Queen!

ha

[Yamato]

10 hours ago, internetperson said:

I know this wasn't directed at me but it's interesting and haven't thought of it before, anyway:

To the first question, no. No clue whatsoever. Regarding the second, because even though firebombings were more devastating in Tokyo that took 279 planes and Hiroshima only took 1.

Politically since we were in such a damn hurry to get a surrender, we wouldn't have waited around for a third, fourth, fifth and sixth bomb to only have to use 1 plane each time, so that doesn't expand upon the differences in the arguments, does it?  

The remainder of my participation in this will only be dealing with the historian-free typically American-only arguments from people on message boards like this one that reduce the devastation Japan suffered to Zero while inflating the psychological effect of the Bomb to the sole factor involved in the surrender.  Or more recently the argument that "Because of the Kamikaze attacks, the US needed to drop the Bombs."

 

4 hours ago, The Silver Thong said:

At least you admit to funding and creating Isis

Notice how he didn't call on anyone to get locked up for it though.  Private email servers are so much more important than creating the neocon patsy "ISIS".

[Yamato]

15 minutes ago, .ZZ. said:

I have never heard any Canadian call himself "American" in my life.

When it comes to nationality, me neither.   Since we're the only country in the world with the word "America" in our country's name, we're referred to "Americans" for short.  What's the big deal?    Some snowflake-azz **** going on north (and south) of the border I guess.

[DarkHunter]

18 minutes ago, Yamato said:

The atomic bombs probably were needed to push Japan to surrender quickly.   So the "need" is one of bureaucratic timetable.  The surrender is wholly a matter of bureaucratic will like I said.  And now we'll add timing for that record.  So your argument isn't a military argument it's a political argument.   Why did we want Japan to surrender quickly?   Not because we were tired of "endless war" but the Soviet entry into the war.  The last thing America wanted in the postwar was the Soviets gaining power and influence, resources, bases, territory et al.

They didn't have 10,000 suicide planes hiding underground pr waiting in the wings, they didn't have 10,000 suicide pilots, and they didn't have 10,000 tankfuls of fuel to use them in any meaningful capacity or any industrial base left to maintain them much less keep those numbers intact with replacements.  That's just feel-good excuse making for your atomic religion.   The number of aircraft produced in 1946 would have been reduced to a few thousand at best.   The precipitous dropoff from '44 to '45 had a reason and it's amazing to see people so obstinate they can't acknowledge that.   Even limiting your understanding of the situation to a numbers game of manufacturing, building an aircraft doesn't make it available for use.   By 1945 it was more like fodder to be destroyed.

Japan was finished militarily and pretty much every serious historian on this topic is in agreement with that.  

It's you and the emperor vs. all historical accounting and me.  You've lost your case and repeating yourself with longer paragraphs isn't going to make up for it.

Your religious belief that Japan had any semblance of an air force left is ludicrous.   American B-29s were flying over Japan at altitude with impunity by summer '45.   It had reached the point that Japan couldn't even mount the slightest resistance in the air.   If they did they'd be destroyed immediately by American escorts.   Their submarines were on borrowed time and being destroyed en mass.   If they sailed destroyers out of the harbor and didn't have a helluva cloud cover to hide in they'd be destroyed immediately.   They had no offensive capability left.   You've proven you have no grasp of, or intellectual capability of grasping, the scope of the defeat of Japan. 

It wasn't a matter of just bureaucratic will no matter how badly you want it to be to justify your own distorted world view that maximizes any evil, done or perceived, by America.  As for why we wanted Japan to surrender quickly that is a compounded reason.  It is true we didn't want the Soviets in Japan, but you completely discount war weariness, and the cost in men and resources of prolonging the war.  We could of avoided dropping the atomic bombs and instead continued the blockade of Japan along with carpet bombing them for another year or so to get the same result as dropping the atomic bombs but it would of cost far more and resulted in far more dead.  Given the state of the Soviet navy at the end of the second World War, there was no threat of them being able to invade the Japanese mainland for years.

You are the only purpose on this site I believe who can be shown tables of data on production and completely discount it and argue that it doesn't actually mean what it clearly shows.  It honestly shows just how delusional you really are.  Do you honestly believe that the Japanese lost over 95% of the planes that they had produced during the course of the war, if you look up Japanese equipment loses during the course of the war you would of found out that Japan lost between 35,000 and 50,000 aircraft over the course of the war.  Using simply math its easy to figure out that if Japan produced 76,320 aircraft over the course of the war, and they lost about 50,000 aircraft then they must of had about 26,320 aircraft left by the time they surrendered.  I never denied that there was a drop off in production, the chart shows the drop off, the mere fact that you can't accept what the chart clearly says shows hos disconnected from reality that you really are.

If everyone major historian on this topic agrees with you then produce a few with links to what they said that backs up your case, once again since that would require actual research I doubt you will bother since you clearly never do any research on any subject from what I have read of you.

You never proved historical accounting is on your side, and its not by the way, but besides from that while my post tend to be on the longer side, especially in regards to your delusional rantings they actually contain information gathered from research since I like to be thorough so people like you can't try to weasel out by some small gap.  Honestly it just sounds like you either don't like or have trouble reading anything longer then a few sentences. 

Having offensives capability or not means nothing when you are planning on making a final defensive stand as bloody as possible.  I know I said this already, but your twisted and distorted world view where you try to maximize any or all evil done by America is not only childish but boring.  You bring no facts or new information to any debate and instead try to resort to some condescending tone where you try to pretend that you are an expert in some field you clearly know nothing on.

[The Silver Thong]

2 hours ago, .ZZ. said:

I have never heard any Canadian call himself "American" in my life.

We don`t for a reason

[Merc14]

29 minutes ago, The Silver Thong said:

We don`t for a reason

Except when you are trying to avoid answering a question which you still haven't done.  Listen, son, I am going to report your post, something I never do, because you are stupid enough to post your address on a public forum in order to indulge in a physical fight with me after sendning me money for a ticket.  Yikes you are a troubled guy.  Was the movie Goon based on you boy?  Putting you on ignore but thanks for never answering the question beyond a simpleton  blockade possibility

Edited May 5, 2017 by Merc14

[The Silver Thong]

54 minutes ago, Merc14 said:

Except when you are trying to avoid answering a question which you still haven't done.  Listen, son, I am going to report your post, something I never do, because you are stupid enough to post your address on a public forum in order to indulge in a physical fight with me after sendning me money for a ticket.  Yikes you are a troubled guy.  Was the movie Goon based on you boy?  Putting you on ignore but thanks for never answering the question beyond a simpleton  blockade possibility

You think I really posted my real address lol

Your a bit slow as you take the bait everytime but I still love you

I have another question. Do you eat your soup with a fork or a spoon.

Edited May 5, 2017 by The Silver Thong

[kmt_sesh]

Thread cleaned.

Posters, things are getting heated in here. Please dial it back and remain civil, or depart the discussion.

Especially avoid threatening physical violence. Really? Are we all not adults here?

[The Silver Thong]

On 2017-04-15 at 11:07 AM, Kurzweil said:

But he's making me look good.

Thats what I thought to, oh wait wrong post lol

Patriotism makes some blind. Like justifying WMD`s

Edited May 5, 2017 by The Silver Thong