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