the New Jeresy Photo was taken in subic bay during the Vietnam war. if it was so "obsolete" then why was it there????? and why did Reagan take them out of mothballs and spend millions to upgrade them??? can you explain this obsolesces????

I think it was more to show Russia our raw power (especially the second one). The Russian invasion of Manchuria was much more a source of concern for the emperor than us dropping bombs on civilians en masse, which wasn't a genuine problem for him, per se. Japan was counting on Stalin to negotiate a treaty between the US and Japan where Japan got to retain some of its war-time expanded territories. So, when Stalin gave them the finger and invaded, it was much more of a gut-check moment than the US's taking out civilians. It's also a curious historical note that the surrender terms accepted were the same ones the Japanese agreed to prior to the dropping of the bombs. The emperor wanted to retain his title but we said no. Then, we nuked them twice and agreed to let him keep his title...

This seems to run counter to the standard line that "the nukes prevented a ground war in Japan and saved countless American lives". Japan was already willing to surrender to the terms we eventually gave them and the Russians were already busily claiming territory and would have done our dirty work for us. I think what was unacceptable was not prospective US casualties, but rather Soviet control over all of Asia and Japan.

I think the more interesting question is whether or not flexing our muscle for the Russians might have, in the longer view, saved more lives around the world than it cost. Without witness to the destructive power, who knows if the Soviets and US might have started lobbing nukes at one another, in earnest or by proxy.

Edit: I also think the argument could be made that the dropping of those bombs unambiguously started the run of "US: The Global Superpower"

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

As I said, their only real value after WW2 was as an image weapon. We certainly had ships that could deliever the same or greater amount of firepower, and at equal ranges. Reagan bringing them back was pretty stupid and a waste.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

an image weapon??? a millions bucks a day to support them. that's kinda of expensive for an "image weapon"
can you name any warship that could equal this fire power??? I sure would like to know. maybe you should run thru your search engine and see for yourself.
there were four Iowa class. the Iowa, Missouri, wisconsin and the new Jersey.

You're right, that is an expensive image weapon. Hence it being a stupid idea to keep them around when we didn't need them.

In modern terms, aircraft carriers can deliever the same (if not more) firepower on target and at greater distances. Also, modern crusiers are in the same boat.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

we're not taking about modern day. we're talking about ww2 and beyond. in Nam of all the weapons we used this was the one the north feared the most. wonder why???? oh it had an image alright. an image for leveling entire city blocks. it virtually destroyed the northern port of Hai Phong. they demanded we send it home before signing the papers in Paris. getting the picture now??? and why did thet use this for the surrender in tokyo bay and not an aircraft carrier???? and why did it show up at every island battle in the pacific??? as a marine. he'll tell you.

I am a Marine, and I think after WW2 they were obsolete. Afterall, in Nam, we had weapon systems that could deliever the same amount of firepower.

We used it because, once again, it was an image.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

you still need to ask a marine. a real marine.

Nice petty swipe there namvet. I don't agree with you about battleships, so I must not be a real Marine. Class man, total class.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

they still kept them around. your a Marine and don't have a clue. incrediable. BTY it was Marines who fired these guns. hint..........

And they were wrong to keep them around.

Ummm, the big guns on the Iowa class battleships were manned by the Navy. Marines help man the secondary armament. To be specific, one of the 5 inch guns.

It appears that, as a Marine, I have a better idea of how these ships opperated (in both manpower and tactics) than you. So, please, keep your condecending bullshit to yourself.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

fair enough. with yours eyes and ears and brain closed whats the point ???? you a total wates of time.

Do you 'take your ball and go home' whenever you encounter someone who disagrees with you? Bravo.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.

I have the proof. all you got is bull shit. stop wasting my time.

What proof do you have? The only thing you have proven is that they were used long after they became obsolete. you have yet to provide any benefits for keeping them around, or where they gave us a insurmountable advantage.

__________________
I am a liberal, a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is liberalism, but the current collectivists have captured that designation in the United States. In Europe they are glad enough to call themselves socialists. But no one in America wants to be called socialist and admit what they are.