thanks obama

thank you for not starting a nuclear war

well shit, that's a pretty low standard to set don't you think? who tf thinks a nuclear war is a good thing? lmao

LOL

The new one? [:sick:]

Haha

Number of nukes launched by Obama, 0.

Greatest prez eva!!

This is the sort of thing which should never be joked about.
If it starts large parts of the world will be a scorched ruin and the radioactivity will be a danger many generations later.

Which president has launched a nuke? You must be using other criteria then, as they are all the same in that particular category?

President Truman launched 2 nukes at Japan.
Don't forget that!

Those were dropped out of B-17s, there were no missiles in that day capable of crossing the Pacific Ocean.

Missiles and bombers are just two ways of deploying nukes. If anything bombers are worse since the drop needs to be planned much further in advance. That's malice.

I'd disagree, Harry Truman was a decorated officer who fought in the first World War and knew the risks and realities of war, which is more than you can say about most politicians these days.

He said later that it was one of the hardest decisions he had ever had to make, but that in the end killing 200,000 was better than killing millions during an invasion of the Japanese homeland.

While we're at it, let's thank Kim Jung Un for not starting a nuclear war as well. And hey! Bush didn't start one either.

Why would he start one it would affect his golf.

People dont seem to understand that dropping those nukes on japan was a necessary evil... I know oh god thousands died but if the US and Russia had invaded Japan which was going to be happening in the next few months estimates were at least 250k dead americans and those are the lowest numbers most believed at the time it would be a few million Japanese dead aswell....

Its a strange thing to say but at that time and in that war the nuke was the lesser of two evils.



Heres a little about it from forbes.

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff estimated that an invasion of Japans home islands would result in approximately 1.2 million American casualties, with 267,000 deaths. A study performed by physicist William Shockley for the staff of Secretary of War Henry Stimson estimated that the invasion of Japan would cost 1.7-4 million American casualties, including 400,000-800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese deaths. These fatality estimates were of course, in addition to those who had already perished during four long years of war; American deaths were already about 292,000. In other words, the invasion of Japan could have resulted in the death of twice as many Americans as had already been killed in the European, North African and Pacific theaters!

Japan was on the brink of surrendering.
The dropping of the 2 atomic bombs was not necessary and was mainly intended to scare the Soviet Union.

The United States didn't even have to launch a ground operation on Japan.
The Russians were attacking Japan and could have done the job themselves.
US policy makers however, did not want to see Japan surrender to the USSR.

Which is why the nukes were launched. Not because America feared losing more of its men.

the US was going to force japan to surrender to them. didnt matter if they had to send men or bombs it was going to happen... and regardless lets say that the us just backed off and russia invaded japan how man dead Russians and Japanese would there have been???? dropping those bombs was still the lesser evil.

Microwaved popcorn is bad for you.

It wasn't the lesser of two evils. Because like I said, Japan was on the brink of surrendering.

Over 200,000 civilians died because of the nukes. If the war continued, we would have seen mainly military casualties. Not civilian.
Therefore it wasn't necessary.

US version of events is misleading, and is intentionally so in order to justify a massacre.

....the president being a democrat has nothing to do with such a strong stance on the nuking of Japan.