Lyle wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:14 +0100, "Emmanuel
Gustin"
wrote:

"Polybus" wrote
in message
.com...

70,000 deaths. And as many scientists warned
in advance would happen,
and as President Truman clearly understood,
the incineration of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki initiated a nuclear
arms race that threatened
to bring about the annihilation of the human
species, a danger that
persists today.

This is, to put it mildly, a non-sequitur.
The use of the nuclear
bomb did not trigger the nuclear arms race.
That would have
happened regardless of the use of the bomb,
in fact it had
already started.

Dailey's remarks are particularly shocking
in light of the criticism
of the bombing by General Dwight Eisenhower
and the questions raised
by so many other WWII military leaders, sentiments
best reflected in
the haunting comments of Admiral William
Leahy, Truman's wartime chief
of staff who chaired the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, who poignantly
observed, "the use of this barbarous weapon
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was of no material assistance in our war
against Japan. The Japanese
were already defeated and ready to surrender....in
being the first to
use it, we adopted an ethical standard common
to the barbarians of the
Dark Ages."

With all respect for the late admiral Leahy,
his claims are
incompatible with the historical facts, and
the learned
signatories of this declaration ought to know
that. The Japanese
were certainly not ready to surrender. They
were ready to
seek favourable peace terms, which is not the
same.

Surely the A-bomb was a barbaric weapon, but
I fail to see
what the moral difference is between killing
people with a
nuclear weapon and killing the same people
with conventional
incendiary bombs. Which would have been the
fate of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, if these cities had not been
'reserved' as nuclear
targets. Large-scale, indiscriminate killing
of civilians was
already a feature of WWII well before Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.
If the these nuclear bombings had not happened,
and the war
would ave continued for more weeks or months,
the USAAF
would have continued its systematic fire-bombing
of Japanese
cities, and probably more Japanese civilians
would have been
killed.

I think it is fair enough to point out that
Leahy was an admiral
and Eisenhower an army general, and that because
of interservice
politics, they had a motive to claim that the
war would have been
concluded without this -- air force -- action.

We are not, however, opposed to exhibiting
the Enola Gay. Much to the
contrary, we welcome any exhibition that
will spur an honest and
balanced discussion of the atomic bombings
of 1945 and of current U.S.
nuclear policy.

The problem is, above statements are neither
honest nor
balanced. Of course everybody has the right
to form a
pressure group to advocate his of her views,
but if the
signatories seek to enhance to reputation of
the USA,
they should begin by being less selective in
the facts they
choose to consider and more rigorous in their
logic.
Professors they may be, but they are barely
up to the
standard expected of high school students.

planned exhibit and that President Truman's
use of atomic weapons will
legitimize the Bush administration's current
effort to lower the
threshold for future use of nuclear weapons.

This is rather far-fetched. While I think Bush'
current nuclear
plans are immoral, stupid, and counter-productive,
I am not
in the least afraid that the opinion of the
American public
will be swayed by the Enola Gay exhibition.
We are not
talking about the latest Coca-Cola commercial,
this is an
aeroplane on display in (yuck) a museum.

We intend to use this exhibit, the presidential
elections, and the
upcoming 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings
to stimulate a
national discussion of U.S. nuclear history
and current policy and to
work with like-minded groups in other nations.

In other words, the noble science of history
will be pimped
again to acquire a public stage for a political
goal. In the
end, of course, truth will be neither here
nor there, and the
Smithonsian will come to regret once more the
day that it
decided to put Enola Gay on display.

Given the seriousness of the current nuclear
crisis, should the
Smithsonian not accede to this request for
a fair and balanced
presentation and a reasoned discussion of
the many profound issues
involved, we will join with others in this
country and around the
world to protest the exhibit in its present
form and to catalyze a
national discussion of critical nuclear issues.

So the Smithonsian will be blackmailed into
providing
a platform for a protest of current policy?
I hope the
institution will resist this firmly and condemn
it in
clear words. While I symphatise with the protest
against
the nuclear policy of this US government, I
think it is an
appalling idea to drag an institution like
this into politics.

here is my $0.02

1.fire bombing of Tokyo killed more then the
Atomic bomb.

2. by dropping it then, we saved lives, cause
we got first hand
knowledge of what it was capable of, and thereby
preventing nuclear
war in the future. imagine what would happen
if we dropped it in Korea
war?

3. the people against the exhibit chances are
did not live during this
time. people were getting tired of war, and
if dropping one a-bomb
would save thousand lives it would be worth
it.Otherwise Truman would
have been lynched by the mothers and wives of
this country for the
needless deaths of their sons/husbands.

4. and i dont buy your veterans response either
cause they probably
were not going to be in the invasion force.
Talk to a grunt who was,
and he will Kiss Trumans ass if he were still
alive for dropping the
bomb.

just my .$02.


Good post, Lyle. 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki is a lot better
than having U.S. 6th Army storm the beaches of Kyushu.

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