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.