Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!fred From: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: America-bashing (use of atomic bomb) Message-ID: <1733@mnetor.UUCP> Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 08:53:44 EDT Article-I.D.: mnetor.1733 Posted: Wed Aug 7 08:53:44 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 10:11:11 EDT References: <3268@drutx.UUCP> <10615@rochester.UUCP> Reply-To: fred@mnetor.UUCP (Fred Williams) Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada Lines: 30 Summary: In article <1679@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) writes: > > Tony ignores three facts. > 1. Pearl Harbor was not a Japanese port bombed by Americans. > 2. World War was a TOTAL war, which means (for sure in Japanese case) > that the ENTIRE countries were at war, not just an easy to isolate > groups of soldiers. Bombing cities was a method to diminish the > supply of enemy's war material. The noncombat population was > predominantly working for the war machine. > 3. Japanese leaders were promising to figth to the bitter (possibly > very bitter) end. The suicidal tactics of Japanese made this > promise credible. Now, change scale of the human destruction > from Iwo Jima and Okinawa to main islands of Japan. I think it might have been worth while to try a demonstration on an uninhabited area first. Sure, the chances may have been small of getting a surrender on that basis, but the other option would have still been open. The atom bomb was a whole new way to wage war. It would have been better to show the Japanese what they would be up against. Then, if they still wanted to continue, OK, what could you do? It is true that the numbers of people killed were probably fewer than if the war had dragged on, but it is possible that even these people need not have been killed. Now do people think that without the examples of that war, would we have had nuclear war after WW2? Cheers, Fred Williams