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!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!tikal!cholula!persci!bill From: bill@persci.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: America-bashing (use of atomic bomb) Message-ID: <323@persci.UUCP> Date: Mon, 5-Aug-85 23:45:37 EDT Article-I.D.: persci.323 Posted: Mon Aug 5 23:45:37 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 7-Aug-85 08:58:46 EDT References: <3268@drutx.UUCP> <10615@rochester.UUCP> <444@mit-vax.UUCP> <10686@rochester.UUCP> <301@persci.UUCP> <283@ubvax.UUCP> Reply-To: bill@persci.UUCP (William Swan) Distribution: na Organization: Personal Scientific, Woodinville WA Lines: 96 Xref: tektronix net.politics:10613 Summary: In article <283@ubvax.UUCP> tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) writes: >(The 'bomb' on Japan brought ...) >>the instigators of that war to an early surrender, [...] > >The "instigators"? Do I detect a hint of revenge here? I am sorry if this sounded like my sentiment. It is not. It was, however, the general sentiment in the US at the close of the war from what I have gathered from those who were around at the time, and it was that sentiment that I was attempting to express. >The historical account of the war shows the same lust for revenge as >Mr. White had in his article forty years later. > >But revenge is not a sufficient excuse for the cold-blooded murder of >civilians. I agree. We can add Dresden to our list, also. >The US knew it was on the verge of victory. It could >have considered the tradeoffs in lives from one strategy or another, >especially civilian lives. The historical record shows no such niceties >in the decision(s) to drop the bombs. This is partially true. We were on the verge of victory. We were facing a massive invasion planned, as I recall, for November. Some time shortly before that, Russia was due to declare war on Japan, which, it was hoped, would cause the Japanese defense to immediately collapse. On this basis, it appears that the decision to drop the bomb WAS at least partially due to a desire to "impress" the Soviets. (I learned this part of it just this past weekend..) Yet, the war cabinet of Japan had scorned our demand for surrender, even though the result was inevitable. It was unthinkable for them to surrender. Dropping the two bombs finally forced the Emperor to override his cabinet and declare that they must surrender, to save his people. >>It's often been said that we should have dropped the bomb on Fuji instead of >>a populace. Consider that the bomb was not considered reliable, that there was >>a fair chance that it might not explode if dropped (like so many conventional >>bombs). A failure in that attempt would have only strengthened their resolve, >>forcing us into even more drastic actions, resulting in the deaths of even >>more human beings than if it had never been dropped. (The attempt, failed, >>would have made us look *very* weak and without resolve in Japanese eyes. It >>would have actually encouraged them: 1. We have a most unreliable superweapon. >>2. We don't have the resolve to actually use it.) > >If it worked, more than 100,000 lives would be saved. If it failed, then >maybe a bomb would end up being dropped anyhow, thereby not saving 100,000 >lives. That's better than just dropping the bomb. In fact, the Hiroshima bomb did malfunction. Studies have shown that only about one kilo of the 10 to 30 in the bomb actually fissioned. Remember, too, that we had no assembly-line for the bombs, and in fact could have made *very* few, not enough to really conduct a war with. Remember too that the American leaders at the time were faced with expending a number of "enemy" lives (albeit civilians, though that meant very little in that war) in the hope first of saving a (greater, although I am sure that didn't really matter) number of American lives, and only secondarily of saving enemy lives. >I read somewhere that the second bomb was dropped to see if it would work, >since it was more experimental (used plutonium instead of uranium) than >the first bomb. Dropping it on a civilian population served two purposes >at once, I guess. It was dropped on Nagasaki. The second bomb was not >dropped because the Japanese had decided to continue fighting. Yet, if they had surrendered the second bomb would not have been dropped. Remember that we had already agreed to the one main condition they demanded in surrender "negotiations", which was the preservation of the office of the Emperor. >Most arguments about the morality of the "bomb" focus only on the first >one. >>It was most unfortunate that it was used, but consider ALL the circumstances >>before you start getting judgemental. This particular circumstance will never >>arise again. >War is war, and it's hell, and so are atrocities. The dropping of the >atomic bomb was just more effective than the concentration camps, since >we still have it around today. > >It's amusing how the US tries to show a crazed skull's face to its enemies and >a caring, fatherly "we are the world -- I did it for the best of reasons" face >to the rest of us. All governments do this to some degree, but I think the >US believes it can persuade people that it acts as a moral actor and >conquers the contradictions of "circumstances" with a lot more sureness >and certainty than do most other governments. > >If state religion is what states believe about themselves and their >relation to the deity, then the US is probably the most religious and >pious state in the whole world. >Tony Wuersch -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill