Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site digi-g.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!digi-g!amir From: amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir Vafaei) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.politics Subject: Re: History Corrected - WWII (Amir read this) Message-ID: <281@digi-g.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 12:39:32 EDT Article-I.D.: digi-g.281 Posted: Fri Oct 5 12:39:32 1984 Date-Received: Sun, 7-Oct-84 02:35:06 EDT References: <479@tty3b.UUCP> <1731@sdcc6.UUCP> <5971@mcvax.UUCP> <1380@qubix.UUCP> <246@digi-g.UUCP> <1171@drutx.UUCP> <> Reply-To: amir@digi-g.UUCP (amir) Organization: DigiGraphic Systems Corp., Mpls. MN Lines: 45 Summary: In article <> myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) writes: >> The United States used the atomic bomb twice in World War II, both times on >> Japanese cities. We did not bomb Japan into submission. We forced them >> to surrender. >> >> Japan was an enemy, and wars end when one side or the other can negotiate >> peace at terms favorable to them. The estimates of potential loss of >> life in an invasion of Japan were more than 1,000,000 allied soldiers, >> with probably greater losses by the Japanese. All in all, the speedy >> conclusion of the war via the bomb probably seemd like an equitable >> trade to the people that had to make the decision. >> > >A point that is often overlooked is that we most likely could have achieved >the same result by sending a "warning shot" to some uninhabited island >rather than bombing two cities into oblivion without warning. > >Of course, the manner in which we stopped the war accomplished two tasks >that the above method would not have: (1) We got 'em back for Pearl Harbor, >(2) We got to see what an atom bomb does to cities, both air burst and >impact at ground zero. > >The lab simply can't replace real life experiments... > >Anyone for testing the accuracy of our CPE projections by lobbing a few >missles over the North Pole? :-( > >Jeff M. Jeff you said most of what I would have responded to the above answer to whomever wrote the ">>" article. One thing that every one seems to miss in my statement is that my statement was in response to a person claiming that U.S never used the bomb to bring another country into submission. You can word it differently and call it surrender. They are all the same. Naming it differently reminds me of an editorial by Bill Moray(Spelling?), an editor for ABC T.V., who was pretty upset at the state department wanting to replace the words "killed", "murdered" by "The unlawful taking of life". This was to be used in reports about El Salvador's murders of civilians by the Death Squads and National Guards. What he said was killing is killing no matter what you use to describe it. Amir