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.