Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!peora!joel From: joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Hiroshima, Beiruit, Atomic Bombs and Politics Message-ID: <1479@peora.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 15:23:41 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1479 Posted: Mon Aug 12 15:23:41 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 13:06:50 EDT References: <13700006@orstcs.UUCP> <287@SCIRTP.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 20 >I believe the argument that the bombs took less lives than the >continuation of the war without nukes. However, I feel it would have >been every bit as impressive to detonate a nuke offshore, but clearly >within eyeshot of millions of Japanese. Many can argue that Japan >would be undeterred unless faced with horrendous civilian casualties, >but a nuclear fireworks exhibition would not have ruled out more >drastic uses of nukes. > >C [ O-O ] Todd Jones I think the fact that it took TWO bombs to get a surrender from the Japanese, and even then it took the direct intervention of the Emperor, argues strongly that a demonstration would not have been effective. One should also keep in mind that at the time those two bombs were our entire nuclear arsenal. If those bombs didn't produce a surrender it might have been quite a while before more could have produced. One should keep in mind that the Japanese military mindset, at the time, considered surrender a disgrace far worse than mere death.