rick@uwmacc.UUCP (the absurdist) (10/02/84)
[] In article <455@uwvax.UUCP> myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) writes: (with regards to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) >A point that is often overlooked is that we most likely could have achieved >the same result by sending a "warning shot" to some uninhabited island >rather than bombing two cities into oblivion without warning. >Of course, the manner in which we stopped the war accomplished two tasks >that the above method would not have: (1) We got 'em back for Pearl Harbor, >(2) We got to see what an atom bomb does to cities, both air burst and >impact at ground zero. >The lab simply can't replace real life experiments... To reply (things that Jeff did not mention): (1) Japan DID NOT surrender when Hiroshima was bombed, (2) Even after the dropping of the Nagasaki bomb, the Japanese military high command did not want to surrender; (3) Emperor Hirohito had to record his surrender address to the Japanese people; the military clique attempted to prevent it from going on the air (and would have, if they had realized that it wasn't going to be a live address) (4) There were not "spare" bombs around in 1945 to use for "demonstrations." Perhaps he should consider the population loss in Russia in WWII to see what a military class is willing to suffer, in terms of civilian casualties, without surrendering. Bombing a barren island would not have caused Japan to surrender and would have lowered the shock value of the eventual bombing of humans that would have occured anyway. This was a military that had allied itself with Hitler's Germany; belief in rational and humanitarian decision-making on their part seems misplaced. I will not dispute that, in retrospect, bombing Nagasaki seems to have been unnecessary; but bombing Hiroshima saved American AND Japanese lives; you're just as dead in a conventional war as from an atomic blast. Respond to net.flame or net.politics as seems appropriate for your mood; it defeats the purpose of having a "flame" group if replies get put on both (net.politics seems particularly prone to this form of posting). ------ -- Rick Keir -- MicroComputer Information Center, MACC 1210 West Dayton St/U Wisconsin Madison/Mad WI 53706 {allegra, ihnp4, seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!rick
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (10/13/84)
============
I will not dispute that, in retrospect, bombing Nagasaki seems
to have been unnecessary; but bombing Hiroshima saved American AND
Japanese lives; you're just as dead in a conventional war as from
an atomic blast.
============
Encyclodaedia Britannica ends its article on WW II by saying
"Early Japanese surrender was inevitable. It was probably better
for both the Japenese and the Americans that the end came when it did."
Chambers says that it is a matter of dispute whether the dropping
of the bombs had a strong effect on the Japanese decision to surrender.
The case isn't cut and dried. Presumably Truman believed that using
the bomb was in the best interests of the USA, and at that time we
tended to think of the Japanese as sub-human, because of the well-publicized
atrocities against Allied prisoners of war.
I wonder whether we would not have had at least one nuclear bomb dropped
in war by now, if Hiroshima and Nagasaki hadn't happened.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsrgv!dciem!mmt