qwerty@drutx.UUCP (09/26/84)
The United States used the atomic bomb twice in World War II, both times on Japanese cities. We did not bomb Japan into submission. We forced them to surrender. The reason Japan was attacked was a spot in Hawaii called Pearl Harbor. The Japanese, without formal declaration of war, pretty well wiped it out in a surprise attack. This brought about the United States' entry into WWII. Japan was an enemy, and wars end when one side or the other can negotiate peace at terms favorable to them. The estimates of potential loss of life in an invasion of Japan were more than 1,000,000 allied soldiers, with probably greater losses by the Japanese. All in all, the speedy conclusion of the war via the bomb probably seemd like an equitable trade to the people that had to make the decision. Japan surrendered. Notice that Japan is not a part of the United States, nor is it a puppet government reporting to the United States. Nor are countries such as France, Spain, West Germany, etc. etc. Notice that the countries liberated by the USSR in WWII, such as Poland, East Germany, etc also enjoy the same freedom of self-determination :-).
myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) (10/01/84)
> The United States used the atomic bomb twice in World War II, both times on > Japanese cities. We did not bomb Japan into submission. We forced them > to surrender. > > Japan was an enemy, and wars end when one side or the other can negotiate > peace at terms favorable to them. The estimates of potential loss of > life in an invasion of Japan were more than 1,000,000 allied soldiers, > with probably greater losses by the Japanese. All in all, the speedy > conclusion of the war via the bomb probably seemd like an equitable > trade to the people that had to make the decision. > 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... Anyone for testing the accuracy of our CPE projections by lobbing a few missles over the North Pole? :-( Jeff M.
mdn@foxvax1.UUCP (M.X. Dos Neves ) (10/02/84)
...true that anything to do with nuclear war is rather distasteful, but I beg to correct you on one little point. When the A-bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, the US demanded the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government to which they refused. I believe there was a difference of several days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki; which gave Tojo enough time to abdicate. You have to be realistic, the way the Kamikazes sacrificed themselves, that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been much more costly to the US and even more so to Japan. The war would have probably lasted another two years. ...and if there was any redeeming lessons from the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we learned that nuclear war is something to be avoided at all costs. Admittedly a lesson which today's leaders are not well versed in...... mdn@foxvax1
amir@digi-g.UUCP (Amir Vafaei) (10/05/84)
In article <> myers@uwvax.UUCP (Jeff Myers) writes: >> The United States used the atomic bomb twice in World War II, both times on >> Japanese cities. We did not bomb Japan into submission. We forced them >> to surrender. >> >> Japan was an enemy, and wars end when one side or the other can negotiate >> peace at terms favorable to them. The estimates of potential loss of >> life in an invasion of Japan were more than 1,000,000 allied soldiers, >> with probably greater losses by the Japanese. All in all, the speedy >> conclusion of the war via the bomb probably seemd like an equitable >> trade to the people that had to make the decision. >> > >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... > >Anyone for testing the accuracy of our CPE projections by lobbing a few >missles over the North Pole? :-( > >Jeff M. Jeff you said most of what I would have responded to the above answer to whomever wrote the ">>" article. One thing that every one seems to miss in my statement is that my statement was in response to a person claiming that U.S never used the bomb to bring another country into submission. You can word it differently and call it surrender. They are all the same. Naming it differently reminds me of an editorial by Bill Moray(Spelling?), an editor for ABC T.V., who was pretty upset at the state department wanting to replace the words "killed", "murdered" by "The unlawful taking of life". This was to be used in reports about El Salvador's murders of civilians by the Death Squads and National Guards. What he said was killing is killing no matter what you use to describe it. Amir