On Thu, 10 May 2007 18:24:42 +0200 Joe Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Johannes Wiedersich wrote: > > Celejar wrote: > >> On Wed, 09 May 2007 16:14:44 -0400 > >> Amy Templeton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> Johannes Wiedersich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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_Nagasaki > > My 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. I appreciate the defense of my country (our country? do you still consider it yours?), but I would disagree about the number of American lives being the only thing the US considered worthwhile; they probably saved (in the long run) Japanese lives too, and I daresay at least some US politicians and military personnel considered that. > Joe Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
