On 26 Dec 2003 23:05:38 -0800, wrote:

Charles Gray wrote in message . ..

There is no bias in my argument.

Ah, the old "That which I cannot see does not exist" myopia. Your
assumption (that anyone who opposes atomic weaponry doesn't know what
s/he is talking about) pretty much stamps "MilitaryIndustrial Bias"
across your forehead.

Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
my post.

Not "failed" - Dismissed. Your loaded questions attempted to enforce
an antipacifist playing field. The point of my post was to explain
why such questions are irrelevant.


Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
weapons and without a drastically increased body count?

You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Here's that pesky bias
again. Concerns aren't "real" unless they braid into *your* world
view? The only "real concern" regarding atomic/nuclear weapons is
that they never be used (or glorified or patriotized).

Oh? I wasn't aware any of the posters were glorifying them, or
suggesting they be used for crowd control, just pointing out in
arguements that you apparently have no counter to, that in 1945, there
was no realistic alternative, given teh demonstrated willingness of
the Japanese to continue resisting.
If they were so glorified, why did we not use them in Korea? The
Russians were still very far behind in the race, and a few dozen
warhead exploded over NK and China would have ended the war very much
on our terms.
Instead, we accepted a draw that was a tacit defeat to many, and
were willing to sti with a status quo that has lasted for the last 50
years. Why not nuke Iran? A little nation that ****ed off both the
russians and us, well, tailor made for a little glorifying nuke use.
You're "glorification" of nukes doesn't survive the sniff test--
if they were so glorious, I'm certain we would have found a use for
them somewhere or other.
They are, in fact, simply a weapon, no better or worse than most
others, that have certain characteristics. The main characteristics
of nuclear weapons are the following:
1. Great destructive force.
2 The dispersal of greater or lesser amounts of radioactive
fallout.
3. The ability to project that force in one plane. (we are
staying with 1940-50 technology here, as we are discussing Hiroshima).
In comparison with the dresden raid or the Battle of Berlin,
they were not the most distructive weapons of WWII, although they were
the most *quickly( destructive weapons, in that their force was
exerted quickly. This speed can be seen as one reason why the
Japanese cabinet agreed upon a surrender.



When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
"military industrial bias" comments

Nothing "more effective" is necessary. I'll continue to refer to the
bias as often as you continue to demonstrate it.

Oh? How does a Military industrial bias operate on the decision of
the A bombing of Japan? the Manhatten project *Wasn't* a military
industrial operation, it was government from the word go. Civilian
contracters were not used except to provide certain materials, and few
knew what it was for.
For that matter, why would a "military industrial" complex
WANT a nuclear bomb. Lots more money to be made in supplying a vast
invasion fleet with everything they need. By that logic, the MI
should have been sabotaging the project.
In fact, the military industrial complex didn't even exist
until, arguably, the 1950's. In 1945 most companies were shifting
over to civilian production as fast as they could...odd if their goal
was to maintain a military industrial complex.



I'm sorry, you flunk logic 101. Please return for next semesters
course. In order to prepare you for your second course, answer the
following questions.

Assume a total death toll of 100,000 people from atomic weapons,
100,000 people from firebombming raids, 100,000 from general ground
combat, and 100,000 from counter-insurgency operations in China.
How do you define the deaths caused by atomic weapons as somehow
"less moral" than those from other causes. If an atomic weapon *is*
less moral, why? What innate quality of being blown up through the
mass energy conversion of fissionable material makes it worse than
being fried by napalm, shot by bullets or gassed by Chlorine.
There. A very simple answer should be possible, given your vast
knowledge.