Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements)

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:14:42 UTC, Col. RJ wrote:

On 20 Dec 2003 23:32:03 -0800, (cave fish)


First off, **** Japan, they started it, we finished it.
Second, Arm chair quarter backing the leaders back then is as stupid
today as saying some running back should have done a run different
last sunday.
I believe that the Japs were well served by dropping nukes. They were
given the chance to surrender and refused. Wanting instead to force
us to invade, where I will bet hundreds of thousands if not a million
or more would have died. (People like you would today be whining about
why we didn't use nukes to save that carnage). After the first nuke
we again asked the Japs to surrender and they refused. If not for the
Emperor, they also didn't want to surrender after the second Tojo was
prepared to obliterate the whole country before giving up.
AS for the civilian cassualties, the Japs themselves didn't care about
civilians in other countries. Nor obviously did they care about their
own since the militerists were prepared to sacrifice them all for
their pride. Yet now 60 years later you expect us to feel bad and
all. Not gonna happen from anyone with a smidgen of sanity and an IQ
over 65.


Indeed, imagine we invaded instead of nuked. Incredible causalties
all round,
guerilla warfare, street by street fighting. Then the American
populace finds out
we had a weapon that could have ended it all in days.

Boom!

LT