"Linda Terrell" wrote:

Also, to say Japanese would have died to the
last man in the case of
US invasion based on the evidence of the fanatical
fighting spirit
among Japanese soldiers on islands such as
Iwo Jima is also
misleading. How do we know civilians would
have resisted as doggedly
as the soldiers on those islands?

We didn't, so we didn't take any chances.


The atomic bombs would have been more justified
if US had at least
attempted to invade Japan. If US had tried
that for a month and failed
miserably, perhaps the use of atomic bombs
would have been more
justified, based on more reliable estimates
based on real experience.
But, US didn't even try to invade Japan. It
just wanted to end the war
as quickly as possible and took the most draconian
measures.

what's wrong with ending a war as quickly as
possible
and avoiding a costly invasion?

We had a weapon that could end that war in a
matter of weeks or
days. So let's invade and drag it out for weeks
and months so
we can "justify" ending it with a super weapon?

Waste soldiers' lives so we wouldn't harm "innocent"
civilians of
an enemy country?

Where did youstudy war?

Not ten Japanese civilians were worth one American
soldier.

We ended it.

LT
Good post, Linda. I concur completely. Japan started the war at Pearl Harbor.
It was ended for all intents and purposes on 6 and 9 August 45 with 15 Kt
on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki. The bombs were far preferable to invasion.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!