clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (07/22/85)
In article <1278@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) writes: >In article <307@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Nuking cities is something that was done once, strictly for dramatic effect, >>to end the second world war. I don't think it's on people's minds today >>as a direct end. > > ... The numbers killed, using >any reasonable estimate, were far less than the casualties that would have >resulted from fighting the war to its bitter end in a conventional manner. >"Mopping up" the inventors of the kamikaze airplane, including the final >defence of their homeland, would have involved more Japanese CIVILIAN casualties >than two small (by current standards) nuclear bombs. So it can be argued, >quite reasonably, that the first use of atomic bombs SAVED lives.) It's been suggested, in my opinion reasonably, that dropping those bombs on a less heavily inhabited area, such as a smaller island, would have been enough to convince the Japanese to surrender. In fact, this is just where the generals and the scientists began to disagree, if I remember my history. On the other hand, would we have avoided WW III for forty years if we hadn't seen what a small nuclear bomb does to a city? Maybe we owe a *very* big debt to those Japanese dead. Let's hope we go on owing it. -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/23/85)
> It's been suggested, in my opinion reasonably, that dropping those bombs on > a less heavily inhabited area, such as a smaller island, would have been > enough to convince the Japanese to surrender. This issue came up quite a while ago in fa.arms-d, and I wrote a lengthy rebuttal to this viewpoint. If enough people send me mail requesting it (note, MAIL, not followups), I'll post it. Two-sentence summary: The political situation in Japan was more complicated than Westerners would think, and surrender was very difficult. It is most unlikely that a demonstration would have been enough; two atom-bombed cities just barely sufficed. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
brown@utflis.UUCP (Susan Brown) (07/24/85)
In article <5816@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> It's been suggested, in my opinion reasonably, that dropping those bombs on >> a less heavily inhabited area, such as a smaller island, would have been >> enough to convince the Japanese to surrender. > > The political situation in Japan was more complicated than > Westerners would think, and surrender was very difficult. > It is most unlikely that a demonstration would have been > enough; two atom-bombed cities just barely sufficed. > Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology But there wasn't much time between the two to assess the affects in the Japanese government. Communications were out etc. Maybe the first one would have been enough. A number of "revisionists" take the view that the second one was to show Stalin that business was meant. Does your lengthy article discuss these aspects? If so, I would be interested.