Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watcgl!jchapman
From: jchapman@watcgl.UUCP (john chapman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: America-bashing (use of atomic bomb)
Message-ID: <2326@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 10:32:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2326
Posted: Fri Aug  9 10:32:14 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Aug-85 02:45:30 EDT
References: <3268@drutx.UUCP> <10615@rochester.UUCP> <1733@mnetor.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 51

> 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.

     But they had effectively already been beaten when the first bomb
     was dropped and had been beaten for sure afterwards so why Nagasaki?

> >  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.
>
 I too think a demonstration would have been worth trying.  I watched
 a documentary the other night where I learned two (at least) new bits
 of information.
 1. apparently the US joint chiefs estimated US deaths at 50,000 if
    the war was fought to a close with conventional weapons.  Depending
    on who you are saving 50,000 american lives in return for killing
    200,000 japanese lives might seem like a good trade but it is not
    true that more lives would have been lost without the bomb.
 2. targeting strategy for the bomb was begun two years before it was
    actually dropped.  Originally they weren't sure the bomb would work
    and so wanted to drop it on a japanese naval harbour so that if
    it failed the japanese would have a much harder time recovering it.
    It was only after they were confident the bomb would work that 
    the target was switched to a civilian city.
 
-- 

	John Chapman
	...!watmath!watcgl!jchapman

	Disclaimer : These are not the opinions of anyone but me
		     and they may not even be mine.