On topic: A-Bomb necessary? A different approach?

[old hoodoo]

JMO:

The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
morality question.

To me, its a question of responsibility. I personally do not feel that
cold bloodiedly killing a child to possibly save the life of an adult or
other children is justified, but that is just me.

There is also a question if a massive invasion of Japan with the was the
only option. Due to our overwhelming naval and air superiority we could
have taken over limited strategic sections for the basing of aircraft would
have had complete dominance over the Islands. Rather than taking large
areas of territory, we would have been able to force the Japanese to come to
us if they chose. However the Japanese would most probably not have had the
infrastructure to move large numbers of troops to face our bridgeheads,
especially in the face of our air and naval superiority.

If they did manage to move in a large concentration of troops, then it would
have been ok to nuke em.

I think we could have looked at different options. We had already
successfully starved the Japanese for fuel. They had lost the capacity to
produce aircraft in any numbers. All they had was a reserve of obsolescent
aircraft for suicide attacks and these would have been ineffectual once we
established air bases on Japan.

There is no question the Japanese Army would have initially attempted to
starve its own people to feed itself, but there would be ways to get around
that and the Japanese people and much of its army would have probably risen
up against this as it would have been their families that were starving. We
could have also supplied humanitarian aid to Japanese civilians....the Jap
army could not be everywhere, especially when we established bridgeheads
that would have forced their concentration.

No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment of
Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
Japanese hands.

US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have been
far more morally easy to justify.

JMO
Al

[B2431]

>From: "old hoodoo"

>
>JMO:
>
>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
>morality question.
>
<snip> more of the same.

Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and conventional
bombing.

Blockade: children were already starving to death with Japan showing no sign of
surrender. The number of children who would have died could easily exceed one
million.

Conventional bombing: children were already dying. The number of children who
would have died could easily exceed a few hundred thousand from direct
bombardment and starvation.

Invasion: children would have died in the tactical bombing, murder/suicide by
parents, children were already being trained to fight and some would have died
in "combat" etc. The number of children who would have died could easily exceed
half a million.

Nuclear bombing: children died. Exact numbers of children killed is unknown.
Assuming one third of the dead were children the number would be on the order
of 60,000.

In all of the above cases the war would still be going on in China, Korea etc
and children were dying there too.

In war people die. Unfortunately children do too.

>
>US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
>have lost people of course.

Most scholars use the number 100,000. On another thread someone said the U.S.
had ordered one million coffins. Looking at it with what was known in 1945 no
one had any accurate idea of casualties. They could only go by the actions on
Okinawa etc.

You are comparing apples to oranges in your argument: number of dead children
versus dead U.S. servicemen. It wasn't just that simple. There waas a major
land war going on in Asia that would not end until Japan had been driven out,
had won or had surrendered.

>However, the result would possibly have been far more morally easy to justify.

War itself is immoral. Would it have been any less moral if the bombs had not
been dropped and Japan suffered millions of casualties from suicide,
starvation, conventional bombing and banzai charges?

Would you be able to tell the families of the U.S. dead after the invasions "we
had a bomb that could have saved your boy's life but felt it was immoral to use
it?"

Put yourself in 1945. War had been going on for a decade. Tens of millions of
people had already died. The world was already exhausted from the war. Knowing
what you would have known then, not what you know now, I would hope you'd try
anything to bring the agony to a close.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: (B2431)
>
>
>>From: "old hoodoo"
>
>>
>>JMO:
>>
>>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
>>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
>>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
>>morality question.
>>
><snip> more of the same.
>
>Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
>conventional bombing.
>

I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone home.
This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
>Blockade: children were already starving to death with Japan showing no sign
>of
>surrender. The number of children who would have died could easily exceed one
>million.
>
>Conventional bombing: children were already dying. The number of children who
>would have died could easily exceed a few hundred thousand from direct
>bombardment and starvation.
>
>Invasion: children would have died in the tactical bombing, murder/suicide by
>parents, children were already being trained to fight and some would have
>died
>in "combat" etc. The number of children who would have died could easily
>exceed
>half a million.
>
>Nuclear bombing: children died. Exact numbers of children killed is unknown.
>Assuming one third of the dead were children the number would be on the order
>of 60,000.
>
>In all of the above cases the war would still be going on in China, Korea etc
>and children were dying there too.
>
>In war people die. Unfortunately children do too.
>
>>
>>US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
>>have lost people of course.
>
>Most scholars use the number 100,000. On another thread someone said the
>U.S.
>had ordered one million coffins. Looking at it with what was known in 1945 no
>one had any accurate idea of casualties. They could only go by the actions on
>Okinawa etc.
>
>You are comparing apples to oranges in your argument: number of dead children
>versus dead U.S. servicemen. It wasn't just that simple. There waas a major
>land war going on in Asia that would not end until Japan had been driven out,
>had won or had surrendered.
>
>>However, the result would possibly have been far more morally easy to
>justify.
>
>War itself is immoral. Would it have been any less moral if the bombs had not
>been dropped and Japan suffered millions of casualties from suicide,
>starvation, conventional bombing and banzai charges?
>
>Would you be able to tell the families of the U.S. dead after the invasions
>"we
>had a bomb that could have saved your boy's life but felt it was immoral to
>use
>it?"
>
>Put yourself in 1945. War had been going on for a decade. Tens of millions of
>people had already died. The world was already exhausted from the war.
>Knowing
>what you would have known then, not what you know now, I would hope you'd try
>anything to bring the agony to a close.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(B2431) wrote:

> >From: (B2431)
> >
> >
> >Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
> >conventional bombing.
> >
>
> I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and
> gone home. This would have reduced the number of child deaths in
> Japan to near zero.

....for the very short term.

For the longer term, the world would have had to face a resurgent
Japanese hegemony in a very few years.

One little note: the next target in line for heavy bombing was rail
yards. American bombers were going to systematically erase as many rail
switching areas as possible - many of which hadn't been hit in the
previous years. Postwar estimates *started* at one million Japanese
dead from starvation from this one strategy alone...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"old hoodoo" > wrote in message
...
> JMO:

>
> No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment of
> Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
> Japanese hands.
>

Dead is dead and it wasnt only Japanese dying.

The war was not on hold, the 14th Army was fighting in Burma
and the invasion of Malaya was planned for August 1945. The
Japanese bioweapons program alone was killing Chinese
by the thousand and a rather vicious war was going on there.

The Soviets were about to invade Manchuria and if the Japanese
there fought to the last you are looking at another 1/2 million dead
Japanese a;one

> US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
> have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have been
> far more morally easy to justify.
>

So people should have died to salve you conscience !

Please explain the morality of that ?

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (B2431)
> >
> >
> >>From: "old hoodoo"
> >
> >>
> >>JMO:
> >>
> >>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable
in
> >>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
> >>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A
basic
> >>morality question.
> >>
> ><snip> more of the same.
> >
> >Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
> >conventional bombing.
> >
>
> I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone
home.
> This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.
>

And allowed this of Chinese civilians to continue dying as the Japanese
bio-weapons program swung into top gear, not to mention the plight of the
populations of Malaya and Singapore who were starving.

Nice plan.

Keith

[B2431]

>From: "Keith Willshaw"
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: (B2431)
>> >
>> >
>> >>From: "old hoodoo"
>> >
>> >>
>> >>JMO:
>> >>
>> >>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable
>in
>> >>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
>> >>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A
>basic
>> >>morality question.
>> >>
>> ><snip> more of the same.
>> >
>> >Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
>> >conventional bombing.
>> >
>>
>> I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone
>home.
>> This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.
>>
>
>And allowed this of Chinese civilians to continue dying as the Japanese
>bio-weapons program swung into top gear, not to mention the plight of the
>populations of Malaya and Singapore who were starving.
>
>Nice plan.
>
>Keith
>
I offered that option to an individual who was only concerned with child
casualties.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Cub Driver]

>Rather than taking large
>areas of territory, we would have been able to force the Japanese to come to
>us if they chose.

Uhuh. And what about 130,000 prisoners of war being starved, worked,
and beaten to death?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>In all of the above cases the war would still be going on in China, Korea etc
>and children were dying there too.

In Downfall www.warbirdforum.com/downfall.htm Richard Frank estimates
that 350,000 Japanese died in Russian captivity after the war ended.
Many of them would have been children.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone home.
>This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.

But not the tens of thousands of Japanese children who died as a
consequence of the Russian mop-up of China and Korea. No way was
Stalin going to miss out on that.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Brian Colwell]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
> ...
> > JMO:
>
> >
> > No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment
of
> > Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
> > Japanese hands.
> >
>
> Dead is dead and it wasnt only Japanese dying.
>
> The war was not on hold, the 14th Army was fighting in Burma
> and the invasion of Malaya was planned for August 1945. The
> Japanese bioweapons program alone was killing Chinese
> by the thousand and a rather vicious war was going on there.
>
> The Soviets were about to invade Manchuria and if the Japanese
> there fought to the last you are looking at another 1/2 million dead
> Japanese a;one
>
> > US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
> > have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have
been
> > far more morally easy to justify.
> >
>
> So people should have died to salve you conscience !
>
> Please explain the morality of that ?
>
> Keith
>
I always find these discussions on morality raise a number of
questions......What figure of lives lost should should be considered
*moral* is it more immoral to kill hundreds of thousands in one or two
missions than say, the approx 40/50 thousand people that died in a ten month
period during the raids by *conventional bombs* on London ? And what about
the million who lost their lives with the use of conventional weapons in
Rwanda. That occurred without too much of an outcry from the world
*community?)
..

The present trend would seem to indicate that we are on a slippery downward
slope.

BMC

[tom c]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "Keith Willshaw"
>> >> >>
> >> >>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is
justifiable
> >in
> >> >>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved
overall
> >> >>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child.
A
> >basic
> >> >>morality question.

A false morality question (sorry this is piggybacked Dan, I know this isn't
from you). Age should not be a qualifier for moral actions . If life is
sacred, it is sacred for all, the soldier who puts life on the line is equal
to the child.



> I offered that option to an individual who was only concerned with child
> casualties.
>
> Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Is there any reason why death is morally approached due to age? Death is
death. If life is sacred for a young human so it must be for an adult. It
does not matter how many children would have died. What matters is how many
people would have died. The nuclear weapons may have killed many, but how
many people - not just children - did not die because the war was brough to
a close? The total stopping of the Japanesse war machine saved people
throughout the Pacfic region.
A second but far more nebulous idea is, did the use of the two weapons
pursuade later powers to aviod further use of nuclear capeabilty? Did the
use in 1945 prevent an exchange over Cuba? Conjecture but worth considering.

Tom C

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brian Colwell" > wrote in message
news:rAKFb.785460$6C4.447024@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JMO:
> >
> > >
> > > No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment
> of
> > > Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on
the
> > > Japanese hands.
> > >
> >
> > Dead is dead and it wasnt only Japanese dying.
> >
> > The war was not on hold, the 14th Army was fighting in Burma
> > and the invasion of Malaya was planned for August 1945. The
> > Japanese bioweapons program alone was killing Chinese
> > by the thousand and a rather vicious war was going on there.
> >
> > The Soviets were about to invade Manchuria and if the Japanese
> > there fought to the last you are looking at another 1/2 million dead
> > Japanese a;one
> >
> > > US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still
would
> > > have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have
> been
> > > far more morally easy to justify.
> > >
> >
> > So people should have died to salve you conscience !
> >
> > Please explain the morality of that ?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> I always find these discussions on morality raise a number of
> questions......What figure of lives lost should should be considered
> *moral* is it more immoral to kill hundreds of thousands in one or two
> missions than say, the approx 40/50 thousand people that died in a ten
month
> period during the raids by *conventional bombs* on London ? And what
about
> the million who lost their lives with the use of conventional weapons in
> Rwanda. That occurred without too much of an outcry from the world
> *community?)
> .

Which is why we shouldnt get too hung up on the morality issue,
it has been said that the only truly immoral act the allies could have
committed was to lose.

I tend to agree with that. The best thing to do in 1945 was to use
all means to end the war, this did IMHO minimise the number of people
who died, Japanese , Allied and civilian.

Keith

[Kevin Brooks]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >From: (B2431)
> > >
> > >
> > >>From: "old hoodoo"
> > >
> > >>
> > >>JMO:
> > >>
> > >>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is
justifiable
> in
> > >>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
> > >>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A
> basic
> > >>morality question.
> > >>
> > ><snip> more of the same.
> > >
> > >Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
> > >conventional bombing.
> > >
> >
> > I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and
gone
> home.
> > This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near
zero.
> >
>
> And allowed this of Chinese civilians to continue dying as the Japanese
> bio-weapons program swung into top gear, not to mention the plight of the
> populations of Malaya and Singapore who were starving.
>
> Nice plan.

Holy crap, Keith--is your "tongue-in-cheek detector" completely offline or
what?

Brooks

>
> Keith
>
>

[George Ruch]

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: (B2431)
>>
>>>From: "old hoodoo"
>>>
>>>JMO:
>>>
>>>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
>>>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
>>>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
>>>morality question.
>>>
>><snip> more of the same.
>>
>>Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
>>conventional bombing.
>
>I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone home.
>This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.

Yeah, right. After December 7, the invasion and rape of China, Korea, and
Southeast Asia, the fall of Bataan, the battle for Okinawa... we were
going to pack up and walk away? Not bl___y likely.

Truman was faced with what was probably one of the hardest decisions in
history. How much longer does this war have to go on, how many more men
have to die, how to keep the Russians from claiming yet more of Japan, and
what will it take to finally make the Japanese military leadership believe
that their cause is lost.

Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs was, IMO, the least of the
possible evils.

And before anyone starts arguing in favor of invasion, remember that if the
invasion succeeds, you now have to occupy and pacify that country. We did
occupy Japan for several years after, a task that was made easier by the
Emperor's order of surrender. Think in terms of the battle for Okinawa,
scale the casualties on both sides to match a mainland Japan invasion, and
_then_ try to occupy and pacify that country. No thanks.

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

[B2431]

>From: George Ruch
>Date: 12/22/2003 10:15 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: (B2431)
>>>
>>>>From: "old hoodoo"
>>>>
>>>>JMO:
>>>>
>>>>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
>>>>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
>>>>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A
>basic
>>>>morality question.
>>>>
>>><snip> more of the same.
>>>
>>>Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
>>>conventional bombing.
>>
>>I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone
>home.
>>This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.
>
>Yeah, right. After December 7, the invasion and rape of China, Korea, and
>Southeast Asia, the fall of Bataan, the battle for Okinawa... we were
>going to pack up and walk away? Not bl___y likely.
>
<snip> more of the same from someone who obviously hasn't read any of my posts.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Bernardz]

In article <rAKFb.785460$6C4.447024@pd7tw1no>, says...
>
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "old hoodoo" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > JMO:
> >
> > >
> > > No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment
> of
> > > Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
> > > Japanese hands.
> > >
> >
> > Dead is dead and it wasnt only Japanese dying.
> >
> > The war was not on hold, the 14th Army was fighting in Burma
> > and the invasion of Malaya was planned for August 1945. The
> > Japanese bioweapons program alone was killing Chinese
> > by the thousand and a rather vicious war was going on there.
> >
> > The Soviets were about to invade Manchuria and if the Japanese
> > there fought to the last you are looking at another 1/2 million dead
> > Japanese a;one
> >
> > > US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
> > > have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have
> been
> > > far more morally easy to justify.
> > >
> >
> > So people should have died to salve you conscience !
> >
> > Please explain the morality of that ?
> >
> > Keith
> >
> I always find these discussions on morality raise a number of
> questions......What figure of lives lost should should be considered
> *moral* is it more immoral to kill hundreds of thousands in one or two
> missions than say, the approx 40/50 thousand people that died in a ten month
> period during the raids by *conventional bombs* on London ? And what about
> the million who lost their lives with the use of conventional weapons in
> Rwanda. That occurred without too much of an outcry from the world
> *community?)
> .
>
> The present trend would seem to indicate that we are on a slippery downward
> slope.
>
> BMC
>
>
>

Although losses in the Pacific were less then in Europe, they were
comparable. The Pacific war was costing about 20,000 deaths a day.


--
It is really stressful to play properly blackjack when you have 16 and
the dealer has 10.

22nd saying of Bernard

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:42:23 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>And allowed this of Chinese civilians to continue dying as the Japanese
>bio-weapons program swung into top gear, not to mention the plight of the
>populations of Malaya and Singapore who were starving.
>

Or the standing order to massacre all allied POWs and internees in malaya,
thailand and indonnesia, the moment the invasion of Malaya kicked off on
the 1st sept 45.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Chris Mark]

Keep in mind that those who condemn the atomic bombing are not interested in
the Japanese, except as stage props--innocent victims useful for swaying
opinion; the more maimed (and in more horrific ways) and the more killed, the
better. Thus the relentless exagerating of deaths. They really do want more
to have been killed than really were, because that makes the "crime" even more
heinous.
What is really "on trial" for these people is the US, which they see as the
greatest force for evil in the world. The US is not "bad" ...("bad" being a
catch-all for all sorts of perjoratives: evil, racist, sexist, speciest,
fascist, imperialist, capitalist, money-worshipping, rich, oppressive, selfish,
polluting, loud-mouthed, arrogant, over-tipping, global-warming-increasing
meanies)... the US is not "bad" _because_ it dropped the bomb; the US dropping
the bomb is Exhibit A in the pile of evidence adduced to demonstrate the
wickedness of the US.
Thus, arguments about casualties in a projected invasion are pooh-poohed, and
even the need for an invasion is questioned: we could have negotiated an end to
the war.
(The question of the morality of leaving militarists in power in Japan is
brushed aside, of course; it's all about Amerikkka.)
The mindset is not, of course, confined to Hiroshima. You can see it in
discussions of the US attack on Iraq today. What the Sadam regime did to
deserve or provoke the attack are irrelevant, the suffering of the Iraqi people
under him is a red herring dragged across the path to divert attention from the
true, malignant motives of the US. You can also see the same mindset in
discussions of the Vietnam War, the Cold War and.... It is _only_ US motives
and actions that are to be criticized. The alleged and doubtless wildly
exaggerated crimes of those the US has opposed are never an issue to be taken
seriously.
So debaters talk past each other. One side says, "What the US did was bad. It
did what it did because itis a bad country." The other side says, "The US felt
compelled to do what it did by circumstance, to end a much greater evil."
The response to that is: "Did not!" Which gets the retort: "Did too!"
repeated endlessly.
Of course, had Truman held back the bomb and invaded, making of Japan a super
Okinawa, today's anti-bomb crowd would be excoriating the US for having had the
means to quickly "end the killing" and not doing so--because it wanted the
opportunity to conduct a genocidal extermination campaign against the Japanese
people and firmly eliminate the possibility that Japan could ever become an
economic rival in the future.
Damned if you do and ....


Chris Mark

[[email protected]]

(B2431) wrote:

>>From: George Ruch
>>Date: 12/22/2003 10:15 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
(B2431) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: (B2431)
>>>>
>>>>>From: "old hoodoo"
>>>>>
>>>>>JMO:
>>>>>
>>>>>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
>>>>>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
>>>>>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A
>>basic
>>>>>morality question.
>>>>>
>>>><snip> more of the same.
>>>>
>>>>Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
>>>>conventional bombing.
>>>
>>>I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone
>>home.
>>>This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.
>>
>>Yeah, right. After December 7, the invasion and rape of China, Korea, and
>>Southeast Asia, the fall of Bataan, the battle for Okinawa... we were
>>going to pack up and walk away? Not bl___y likely.
>>
><snip> more of the same from someone who obviously hasn't read any of my posts.
>
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

C'mon George...you didn't see any of Dan's prior posts?, he was
being sarcastic here...
--

-Gord.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:54:11 -0600, "old hoodoo"
> wrote:

>JMO:
>
>The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
>war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
>and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
>morality question.
>
>To me, its a question of responsibility. I personally do not feel that
>cold bloodiedly killing a child to possibly save the life of an adult or
>other children is justified, but that is just me.
>

Second-guessing fifty eight years after a war that was remarkable for
its scope, destruction and brutality is a futile exercise.

But, let me point out one observation that I regularly make to my
political science classes. When someone brings up "save the children"
as a rationale for any decision it usually means that logic and reason
will be abandoned in favor of emotionalism.

It is virtually impossible to guarantee that no child will be killed
in any military operation. To set the moral bar at that level will
guarantee defeat and will most assuredly result in much higher
casualties than to recognize the violence of war and then conduct it
as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Maybe the question you should ask yourself while posturing about
saving the children is whether you would be willing to sacrifice
yourself, your spouse, your siblings, your parents and your adult
children in defense of your country while making your strategic
decisions based on protection of the enemy's children.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Cub Driver]

On 23 Dec 2003 16:09:20 GMT, (Chris Mark) wrote:

>Thus the relentless exagerating of deaths.

For my summary of what I was able to find out about the Hiroshima
death toll, see www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:20:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus >
wrote:

>Maybe the question you should ask yourself while posturing about
>saving the children is whether you would be willing to sacrifice
>yourself, your spouse, your siblings, your parents and your adult
>children in defense of your country while making your strategic
>decisions based on protection of the enemy's children.

Well said.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Matt Wiser]

(Chris Mark) wrote:
>Keep in mind that those who condemn the atomic
>bombing are not interested in
>the Japanese, except as stage props--innocent
>victims useful for swaying
>opinion; the more maimed (and in more horrific
>ways) and the more killed, the
>better. Thus the relentless exagerating of
>deaths. They really do want more
>to have been killed than really were, because
>that makes the "crime" even more
>heinous.
>What is really "on trial" for these people is
>the US, which they see as the
>greatest force for evil in the world. The US
>is not "bad" ...("bad" being a
>catch-all for all sorts of perjoratives: evil,
>racist, sexist, speciest,
>fascist, imperialist, capitalist, money-worshipping,
>rich, oppressive, selfish,
>polluting, loud-mouthed, arrogant, over-tipping,
>global-warming-increasing
>meanies)... the US is not "bad" _because_ it
>dropped the bomb; the US dropping
>the bomb is Exhibit A in the pile of evidence
>adduced to demonstrate the
>wickedness of the US.
>Thus, arguments about casualties in a projected
>invasion are pooh-poohed, and
>even the need for an invasion is questioned:
>we could have negotiated an end to
>the war.
>(The question of the morality of leaving militarists
>in power in Japan is
>brushed aside, of course; it's all about Amerikkka.)
>The mindset is not, of course, confined to Hiroshima.
> You can see it in
>discussions of the US attack on Iraq today.
>What the Sadam regime did to
>deserve or provoke the attack are irrelevant,
>the suffering of the Iraqi people
>under him is a red herring dragged across the
>path to divert attention from the
>true, malignant motives of the US. You can
>also see the same mindset in
>discussions of the Vietnam War, the Cold War
>and.... It is _only_ US motives
>and actions that are to be criticized. The
>alleged and doubtless wildly
>exaggerated crimes of those the US has opposed
>are never an issue to be taken
>seriously.
>So debaters talk past each other. One side
>says, "What the US did was bad. It
>did what it did because itis a bad country."
> The other side says, "The US felt
>compelled to do what it did by circumstance,
>to end a much greater evil."
>The response to that is: "Did not!" Which gets
>the retort: "Did too!"
>repeated endlessly.
>Of course, had Truman held back the bomb and
>invaded, making of Japan a super
>Okinawa, today's anti-bomb crowd would be excoriating
>the US for having had the
>means to quickly "end the killing" and not doing
>so--because it wanted the
>opportunity to conduct a genocidal extermination
>campaign against the Japanese
>people and firmly eliminate the possibility
>that Japan could ever become an
>economic rival in the future.
>Damned if you do and ....
>
>
>Chris Mark
I'll agree with that. Anyone else notice that nearly everyone who signed
that letter to the Smithsonian on the Enola Gay exhibit seem to be poster
childs of the far left? Especially Chomsky, who was an apologist for such
distinguished people as Pol Pot, Slobodoan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and
Fidel Castro, to name a few. How anybody could read or listen to this guy
is beyond me. A suitable punishment would be staking him out in the desert
and leave a trail of honey for the ants....

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Merlin Dorfman]

old hoodoo ) wrote:
: JMO:

: The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
: war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
: and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
: morality question.

: To me, its a question of responsibility. I personally do not feel that
: cold bloodiedly killing a child to possibly save the life of an adult or
: other children is justified, but that is just me.

: There is also a question if a massive invasion of Japan with the was the
: only option.

Of course not. But the best estimates at the time were, and in
my opinion remain, that all the other options would lead to more
deaths (American, Japanese, and other; adults and children).

: Due to our overwhelming naval and air superiority we could
: have taken over limited strategic sections for the basing of aircraft would
: have had complete dominance over the Islands.

We already had complete dominance. Not an issue. We had
enough aircraft carriers that we could put hundreds of planes in
the air over Japan at any time.

: Rather than taking large
: areas of territory, we would have been able to force the Japanese to come to
: us if they chose. However the Japanese would most probably not have had the
: infrastructure to move large numbers of troops to face our bridgeheads,
: especially in the face of our air and naval superiority.

Support of bridgheads other than in very Southern Japan--
Kyusho or Shikoku--would have been a logistical nightmare. And
Japan was very prepared to resist establishment of bridgheads
in those locations. After the war, we found out that they were
even better prepared than we thought.

: If they did manage to move in a large concentration of troops, then it would
: have been ok to nuke em.

: I think we could have looked at different options. We had already
: successfully starved the Japanese for fuel. They had lost the capacity to
: produce aircraft in any numbers. All they had was a reserve of obsolescent
: aircraft for suicide attacks and these would have been ineffectual once we
: established air bases on Japan.

Not true. They would have been even more effectual than at
Okinawa due to the shorter distances.

: There is no question the Japanese Army would have initially attempted to
: starve its own people to feed itself, but there would be ways to get around
: that and the Japanese people and much of its army would have probably risen
: up against this as it would have been their families that were starving. We
: could have also supplied humanitarian aid to Japanese civilians....the Jap
: army could not be everywhere, especially when we established bridgeheads
: that would have forced their concentration.

Blatant speculation, based on nothing. And certainly not worth
risking tens of thousands of lives on the validity of this
speculation.

: No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment of
: Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
: Japanese hands.

So that makes it OK?

: US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
: have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have been
: far more morally easy to justify.

Pure speculation. And don't forget that thousands of Chinese,
Indonesians, and Filipinos were dying every week in continuing
warfare in those countries, which would have continued all during
the months of low-level warfare in Japan that you are proposing.
Is that OK also?