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

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

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

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

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.

"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

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

"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" 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

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.

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