roman@sigma.UUCP (Bill Roman) (05/26/86)
In article <2784@pixar.pixar> good@pixar.UUCP writes: > >Truman saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese, by dropping those >bombs. > >-- > --Craig > ...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good I recommend an article "A postwar myth: 500,000 U.S. lives saved" in the June/July 1986 issue of _Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists_ to anyone who believes this. Briefly summarized, it states that the "half a million boys on our side" that Truman is quoted as believing he saved with the atomic bombs was an after-the-fact rationalization. The military plans for the invasion estimated casualties on our side at roughly an order of magnitude less. The couple of hundred thousand who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians; I don't think the bombings were particularly significant militarily. They served more as a frightful demonstration. I personally find the morality of such action totally abhorrent. -- Bill Roman {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!roman Summation, Inc. (206) 486-0991
ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola) (05/29/86)
In article <735@sigma.UUCP> roman@sigma.UUCP (Bill Roman) writes: about the "Myth" of millions of lives saved by the Hiro/Nag A-bombs. >I recommend an article "A postwar myth: 500,000 U.S. lives saved" in >the June/July 1986 issue of _Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists_ >to anyone who believes this. Briefly summarized, it states that the >"half a million boys on our side" that Truman is quoted as believing >he saved with the atomic bombs was an after-the-fact rationalization. >The military plans for the invasion estimated casualties on our side >at roughly an order of magnitude less. > >The couple of hundred thousand who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki >were civilians; I don't think the bombings were particularly significant >militarily. They served more as a frightful demonstration. I >personally find the morality of such action totally abhorrent. >-- >Bill Roman All right, so you only saved 50,000 US lives. How many Japanese lives were saved as well? The defense of the Japanese islands was/would have been the defense equivalent of a jihad, a holy war. The Japanese were training themselves with bamboo spears since they couldn't get enough rifles. Remember bushido, the "way of the samurai"? "There is no failure, only death or success." I can visualize a force of thousands of Japanese farmers charging an infantry platoon with their spears and getting MOWED DOWN by machinegun fire. The loss of a hundred man platoon is peanuts compared to the four thousand Japanese it took to kill them. (Or 40,000, or 400,000, depending on how good you think the Marines were.) Pat Juola Hopkins Maths
hijab@cad.BERKELEY.EDU (Raif Hijab) (06/02/86)
In article <2928@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola) writes: > The defense of the Japanese islands was/would have been the > defense equivalent of a jihad, a holy war. Why was it so imperative to conquer the Japanese islands?
jlh@loral.UUCP (06/04/86)
In article <735@sigma.UUCP> roman@sigma.UUCP (Bill Roman) writes: > about the "Myth" of millions of lives saved by the Hiro/Nag A-bombs. > I recommend an article "A postwar myth: 500,000 U.S. lives saved" in > the June/July 1986 issue of _Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists_ > to anyone who believes this. Briefly summarized, it states that the > "half a million boys on our side" that Truman is quoted as believing > he saved with the atomic bombs was an after-the-fact rationalization. > The military plans for the invasion estimated casualties on our side > at roughly an order of magnitude less. > > The couple of hundred thousand who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki > were civilians; I don't think the bombings were particularly significant > militarily. They served more as a frightful demonstration. I > personally find the morality of such action totally abhorrent. > -- > Bill Roman Considering it was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor, and they were the ones out to conquer the world, and at the time they were pretty cruel people (remember hari-kari and samari warriors?), I don't give a crap how many of our boys we saved by nuking them. Which is more important to you, 500 would be world conquerers or your only son? Granted, it's not nice to drop nuclear bombs on people, but I don't see how it is any more abhorrent to kill someone with a nuke than it is a knife. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating nuking Russia, Nicaraugua (sp?), or New Jersy. I'm saying dead is dead, and war is war, and they are both pretty abhorrent. If they come up with something like the nuetron bomb that kills people by radiation but doesn't leave a radioactive mess everywhere is that any worse than a machine gun? Before you bring up the people who don't get enough radiation to die, but get cancer or something instead, think of all the soldiers who where shot in the leg, arm, or spine by a machine gun and didn't die. So why aren't the peace marchers chanting 'no more machine guns'? I heard a rumour that ever since net.flame and net.bizzare died there have been a lot of bizzare and flaming articles in net.rumour. Is this true?
goudreau@dg_rtp.UUCP (Bob Goudreau) (06/05/86)
In article <478@cad.BERKELEY.EDU> hijab@cad.BERKELEY.EDU (Raif Hijab) writes: >In article <2928@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola) writes: >> The defense of the Japanese islands was/would have been the >> defense equivalent of a jihad, a holy war. > >Why was it so imperative to conquer the Japanese islands? Remember what happened the last time we let the enemy help set the conditions of surrender? (Germany in WWI) Remember "stabbed in the back," etc. used as an excuse for Germany's rearmament? It was clearly worthwhile to conquer Japan completely, if only to rid it of the militaristic stranglehold on government. Bob Goudreau
arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) (06/06/86)
> In article <2928@jhunix.UUCP>, ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola) writes: > > The defense of the Japanese islands was/would have been the > > defense equivalent of a jihad, a holy war. > > Why was it so imperative to conquer the Japanese islands? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** It might be of some interest in this continuing session, to point out that the Japanese were working on their own nuclear weapons during WWII, and that unlike the Germans, could have produced a working device. This information, of course, comes from the right-wing extremist newspaper, the New York Times, and will be immediately suspect by Severner and the rest... In response to Raif's incredible question: "Are you joking, or what?" --arlan
roman@sigma.UUCP (Bill Roman) (06/07/86)
In response to my article questioning the morality of our use of nuclear weapons against Japan, in article <1161@loral.UUCP> jlh@loral.UUCP (Squashed Sardine) writes: >[...] >Considering it was the Japanese who bombed Pearl Harbor, and they were the >ones out to conquer the world, and at the time they were pretty cruel >people (remember hari-kari and samari warriors?), I don't give a crap >how many of our boys we saved by nuking them. > >[...] If they come up with something like the nuetron >bomb that kills people by radiation but doesn't leave a radioactive mess >everywhere is that any worse than a machine gun? Before you bring up >the people who don't get enough radiation to die, but get cancer or something >instead, think of all the soldiers who where shot in the leg, arm, or >spine by a machine gun and didn't die. Yes, Japan in WWII was a cruel foe - don't forget Bataan.... The point I was trying to make was that the nuclear bombings of Japan killed civilians, not military personnel engaged in fighting us or government officials directing that fight. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there is a moral distinction here, one which is codified in the Geneva Convention. As for the neutron bomb - there was a good article some years back in Scientific American discussing its effects, the strategy for its use in Europe in case of Soviet attack, and the implications of that strategy. The radius within which significant incidence of leukemia and other cancers can be expected is approximately equal to the distance between the small towns in the European countryside. In other words, our strategy for "saving" Europe dooms many of the people we are "defending" to a lingering death. -- Bill Roman {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!sigma!roman Summation, Inc. (206) 823-7950
jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) (06/09/86)
In article <764@sigma.UUCP>, roman@sigma.UUCP (Bill Roman) writes: ....omissions..... > Yes, Japan in WWII was a cruel foe - don't forget Bataan.... > The point I was trying to make was that the nuclear bombings of > Japan killed civilians, not military personnel engaged in fighting What planet are these people from ??? The point was to kill people! Their people, not ours. (Remember Patton: The point of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other poor b****rd die for his country). Flame extinguisher: Of course it was immoral - war is, among other things, immoral, illogical ... Stop trying to assign such a logical approach to a manifestly illogical thing like war. -- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer. ...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma San Diego
hofbauer@utcsri.UUCP (John Hofbauer) (06/11/86)
> Yes, Japan in WWII was a cruel foe - don't forget Bataan.... > The point I was trying to make was that the nuclear bombings of > Japan killed civilians, not military personnel engaged in fighting > us or government officials directing that fight. Correct me if I'm > wrong, but I believe there is a moral distinction here, one which is > codified in the Geneva Convention. > I don't know about the Geneva Convention, but a lot of the conventional bombing during WWII was directed a civilian targets. Don't forget Dresden, and many other such cities. Indeed, Tokyo had been leveled just as completely with conventional bombs as had Hiroshima and Nagasaki with an A-bomb. The later is just a lot more efficient. Of course, it was argued that the bombing of cities was necessary because of war industries nearby but the strategic bombing survey conducted after the war showed that it was nearly useless and if anything stiffened the resolve of the people.
litow@uwmeecs.UUCP (Dr. B. Litow) (06/12/86)
> I don't know about the Geneva Convention, but a lot of the conventional > bombing during WWII was directed a civilian targets. Don't forget Dresden, > and many other such cities. Indeed, Tokyo had been leveled just as > completely with conventional bombs as had Hiroshima and Nagasaki with > an A-bomb. The later is just a lot more efficient. Of course, it was > argued that the bombing of cities was necessary because of war industries > nearby but the strategic bombing survey conducted after the war showed > that it was nearly useless and if anything stiffened the resolve of the > people. Civilian bombing was of the greatest mistakes of WWII but it was committed on both sides. Why is the V2 bombing of London never mentioned in connection with Dresden? The allies had no monopoly on atrocities by airwar. The 'Vernichter Zwei' also points well beyond the 'Geneva Convention' to such things as the US B52 raids in Vietnam and Cambodia and the use of attack planes and helicopters by the USSR in Afghanistan. The expansion of the theater of war operations to the entire planet makes it clear independently of nuclear devices that war must be made obsolete. :*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
davidra@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Penguin ) (06/13/86)
I've heard a rumor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as bad as they were, made everyone forget about Dresden, where more people died equally awful deaths. Is this true? The moral is that war was at least as bad before Trinity as after.
dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) (06/13/86)
All these civilians, men women and children,, who were killed by US
nuclear weapons had been instructed by their government, before our
nuclear attack, to fight to the death to defend their homeland. And
mostly being loyal subjects of an absolute government would no doubt
have done so.
Our bombing was so terrible that, the Emperor, normally a pure
figurehead, intervened and a surrender was accomplished.
--
+1 617-492-8860 Donald E. Eastlake, III
ARPA: dee@CCA-UNIX usenet: {decvax,linus}!cca!deerb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/02/86)
In article <457@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> davidra@batcomputer.UUCP (Penguin (Rabson)) writes: >I've heard a rumor that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as bad as they were, made >everyone forget about Dresden, where more people died equally awful deaths. > >Is this true? > >The moral is that war was at least as bad before Trinity as after. It is true that "conventional weapons" killed greater numbers of people. In fact, Tokyo was being very heavily firebombed at the time. But to get those fatalities, hundreds of planes had to come within range of anti-aircraft fire, and fighter defenses. Large squadrons were easy to detect. People could be warned, and could make it to shelters. What made "The Bomb" so effective is that it was just one bomb. In fact, there wasn't even an air raid siren running when the bomb dropped. According to those who were nearby and saw the plane (they appeared to notice only one), they couldn't even be sure they saw a bomb being dropped. With only one bomb capable of that much destruction, every plane passing over would have to be shot down as soon as possible. On miss meant thousands of instant deaths. This is even more true today, and the targets (missles) are harder to intercept. Japan was wise enough to realize that they could not muster that kind of defence. Unfortunately, there are those who believe that it can be done now.
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/02/86)
In article <8399@cca.UUCP> dee@cca.UUCP (Donald Eastlake) writes: > >All these civilians, men women and children,, who were killed by US >nuclear weapons had been instructed by their government, before our >nuclear attack, to fight to the death to defend their homeland. And >mostly being loyal subjects of an absolute government would no doubt >have done so. > >Our bombing was so terrible that, the Emperor, normally a pure >figurehead, intervened and a surrender was accomplished. As I understand it, the Emperor had never liked the idea of a war with the U.S., or even war in general. According to one TV documentary, he was practically a prisoner in his own palace. Still, the psychological effects of the bomb made the warlords more willing to listen.