Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!rick From: rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Bombing Japan (Re: History Corrected - WWII) Message-ID: <360@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Oct-84 23:40:43 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.360 Posted: Mon Oct 1 23:40:43 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 04:50:33 EDT References: <479@tty3b.UUCP> <1731@sdcc6.UUCP> <5971@mcvax.UUCP> <1380@qubix.UUCP> <246@digi-g.UUCP> <1171@drutx.UUCP> <455@uwvax.UUCP> Reply-To: rick@maccunix.UUCP (Rick Keir) Followup-To: net.politics Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center Lines: 44 Summary: Should we have dropped the Hiroshima bomb? [] In article <455@uwvax.UUCP> myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) writes: (with regards to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) >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... To reply (things that Jeff did not mention): (1) Japan DID NOT surrender when Hiroshima was bombed, (2) Even after the dropping of the Nagasaki bomb, the Japanese military high command did not want to surrender; (3) Emperor Hirohito had to record his surrender address to the Japanese people; the military clique attempted to prevent it from going on the air (and would have, if they had realized that it wasn't going to be a live address) (4) There were not "spare" bombs around in 1945 to use for "demonstrations." Perhaps he should consider the population loss in Russia in WWII to see what a military class is willing to suffer, in terms of civilian casualties, without surrendering. Bombing a barren island would not have caused Japan to surrender and would have lowered the shock value of the eventual bombing of humans that would have occured anyway. This was a military that had allied itself with Hitler's Germany; belief in rational and humanitarian decision-making on their part seems misplaced. I will not dispute that, in retrospect, bombing Nagasaki seems to have been unnecessary; but bombing Hiroshima saved American AND Japanese lives; you're just as dead in a conventional war as from an atomic blast. Respond to net.flame or net.politics as seems appropriate for your mood; it defeats the purpose of having a "flame" group if replies get put on both (net.politics seems particularly prone to this form of posting). ------ -- Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick