Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site persci.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!cholula!persci!bill From: bill@persci.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Bombs as political weaponry Message-ID: <325@persci.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 14:20:22 EDT Article-I.D.: persci.325 Posted: Tue Aug 6 14:20:22 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 01:43:41 EDT References: <13700006@orstcs.UUCP> Reply-To: bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan) Organization: Personal Scientific, Woodinville WA Lines: 23 In article <13700006@orstcs.UUCP> richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) writes: >Within the past few weeks there have been a number of postings about the >Atomic bomb. Several of these have been debating the morality of the first >atomic bombs dropped on Japan. One basic flaw runs through them all, and >many other bomb related articles on the net. Most people are not aware of the >following simple fact: > >*** A bomb is not a military weapon. Rather, it is a political weapon. *** > >A bomb is not designed to take territory (the basic goal of all wars), but is >intended to demoralize the population while *maybe* destroying installations >useful to the enemy. [...] "richardt" is right, generally, but I would like to point out that the bomb is really just a tool, usable in many ways. I do not believe that Pearl Harbor was just an attempt to demoralize a population, but rather an attempt to gain a significant military advantage by destroying much of the opposing weaponry. (Remember: Pearl Harbor was *not* intended to be a "sneak attack".) Or, to put it another way, guns, tanks, airplanes, missiles, etc, all do not take territory... -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill