"Dick Locke" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:47:06 +1030, "The CO"
wrote:


"Glenn Jacobs" wrote in message
.. .

Kyoto was the ancient capaital of Japan and was, I believe,
generally
off
limits for bombing along with the Royal Palace.

Smart move. Consider that it was the Emperor himself decided that
Japan
must 'endure the unendurable'
in the face of the nuclear attack.
This was at a time when others in high places were insisting on a
fight
to the death.
This was *despite* first Hiroshima (when they refused on the basis
that
the US 'had only one bomb')
I don't remember reading this in "Japan's Longest Day" but it is true
that there was a faction that wanted to fight to the death.

IIRC, there was an almost coup to 'rescue the Emperor' from those that
were influencing
him to surrender. The person of the Emperor was sacred, that they even
contemplated this
shows the depth of the fanaticism of some of them. Fortunately it never
got off the ground
and most of those involved committed seppuku when the speech was
broadcast.

The Emporer had to hide the tape of his surrender speech and himself
the
night before the broadcast.

Yes. Small point, I believe it was a disk not a tape.

I think it's realm of speculation though
as to what would have happened had the Allies killed him say in mid
1945.

Seems certain it would have inspired resistance, at least initially.
Ultimately it would have
depended somewhat on who became regent (Shogun?) as I think the Prince
was too young to rule
in his own right.

and was still being pushed by some even after Nagasaki (on the basis
that the US didn't have any more)
Oddly enough this was correct, but an invasion would have doubtless
cost
many times the loss of life
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
Killing the Emperor would probably have inspired the general populace
to
fight to the death considering his
semi divine status. Instead he overruled the government and made
that
speech, effectively preventing
any attempt to change his mind or circumvent the surrender.

The atomic bombing probably saved my father's life. He landed in
Yokosuka the day after the surrender and occupied a brewery, instead
of landing in Kyushu and probably occupying a grave.

Good chance you are correct. Remember that schoolchildren were being
trained
with pikes to make suicide charges at landing troops.

OTOH, it took a
big chunk out of my second-generation American wife's family tree, as
the old-country relatives lived in the outskirts of Hiroshima.

It's always sad for the individuals involved. On any side of a
conflict.
However it's probably safe to say that many less died (on both sides)
through using the A-Bomb than through continued conventional bombing
(IIRC, more died in the firebombing of Tokyo than Hiroshima or Nagasaki)
and a conventional seaborne invasion afterwards. The casualty list from
that
continuation of the war would likely have been in the millions.

I think both sides of the debate should avoid being too sanctimonious.
It was a difficult decision in a war. No one alternative seems
perfect, and none seems totally wrong even with the benefits of nearly
60 years of hindsight.

Quite so. It's important to recall that at the time, this was, in the
minds of
those involved, just a really big bomb, the other effects, fallout,
genetic damage,
long term cancers etc were either unknown or at best speculative. We
have had
the cold war and 50 years of study on the effects of nuclear weapons on
which to
base our distaste.

People should also respect each other's opinions here. I haven't heard
terms like "subversive" and "socialist" thrown about (not by you)
since the last movies I've seen about the 1950s and HUAC.

My personal feeling is that WW2 is long over, and the Japanese are our
friends,
despite their excesses in that war. I should point out that I am
Australian, not
American, and we have as good, though somewhat different, reasons for
any
anti-Japanese prejudice, though it's largely in the previous
generation - Changi, The Burma Railway
(at least as bad as the Bataan death march), the excesses in Singapore,
machine gunning of nurses
from a torpedoed hospital ship, the fact that we were bombed (Darwin and
a few minor raids)
Heck, a Jap sub actually shelled suburban Sydney, and 2 minisubs
torpedoed a depot ship in Sydney Harbour.
And don't forget this was a prelude to an invasion that only got nipped
in the bud in New Guinea.
Suffice it to say that nobody was upset when Hiroshima and Nagasaki got
nuked. Just desserts in the
opinion of the people of the day. Would it happen that way again? With
what we now know about the
effects of nukes. No, I don't think it would. The only way I can see a
nuke being used again by the US
or any major power would be in response to a WMD (nuke, bio, possibly
chem) attack against them.
The only ones loopy enough to do that are probably OBL and and
Islamonuts and possibly North Korea.
I personally doubt that NK will do more than rattle it's sabre, and I
also doubt OBL will ever get his greasy
mitts on anything that nasty, he's been trying for years and he probably
had more chance ten years ago than right
now. Any loser nation that sold him the technology or the Pu would be
deeply concerned about the consequences
if a small nuke went off in, say, Washington and the components were
traced back to them. Instant oblivion.

Good Archie Bunker imitations going on here.

Well, he was of that generation, so there are some deep seated reasons
there. Some people never got
over it. Some of our ex POW's from Changi and the Burma Railway still
won't have anything to do
with things Japanese. I can't say I blame them, that was their
experience and it changed their lives,
but that should die with them, no reason to carry it across to the
future. The war is over. Fortunately,
the Japanese did not win. That would have been very bad. But it's
over. Move on.

The CO