Joe Hart wrote:
That was publicly. The estimates of US casualties, IIRC, were 500.000 at a minimum. There were people who were concerned with the number of Japanese casualties, although it wasn't widely publicized, it was believed that the pacification and conquest of Japan would result in the effective annihilation of the Japanese race. Not something-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Johannes Wiedersich wrote:Celejar wrote:On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:14:44 -0400 Amy Templeton <amy.g.templeton@gmail.com> wrote:Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:Johannes Wiedersich <johannes@physik.blm.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:The whole mission is a textbook example of how it probably is impossible to bring about democracy, peace and freedom by application of force.Impossible? Where were Germany and Japan before and after WWII?Before: A lot more populous. After: In ruins. Seriously, though...are you advocating dropping nuclear bombs on people in order to force them to be "free"? 'Cause if I recall that's how we got Japan to lay down arms...First, I was simply providing a counter example to Johannes' aforementioned assertion, but not necessarily advocating anything. Second, what about Germany? Third, WRT Japan I suppose we had three choices: a) the Bomb b) continued conventional war c) negotiated peace / truce / ceasefire. It's easy to argue for a over b (minimization of the total loss of life, including total loss of enemy life), although I know that one can argue the contrary also. WRT option c, do you think that was a historically realistic possibility? [It's not a rhetorical question; my knowledge of the period isn't that strong.]You forget about the second bomb. It was dropped before the Japanese government had a chance to figure out what had happened in Hiroshima and before they had a chance to surrender in face of the first bomb. (The second bomb was dropped 3 days after the first. In the confusion and destruction caused by the first bombing it took days for the Japanese government to figure out what had happened in Hiroshima. No internet, no telephone, etc.) No matter what justification one might have for dropping the first bomb, I guess at least the second bomb was both military and morally 'useless'. Johannes Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_NagasakiMy understanding of the period leads me to believe that the second bomb was dropped as to prove to the Japanese that the first bomb was not a fluke and the same type of bomb could be repeatedly dropped until they surrendered. While I agree that it came a bit too soon after the first bomb, and some diplomatic efforts should have been attempted after the first, lines of communication were poor then, and how many more Allied lives would have been lost if the fighting continued? The number of American lives were the only things that the US considered worthwhile at the time. Joe
that anybody wanted to be remembered for!