On topic: A-Bomb necessary? A different approach?

I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone home.
This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.

But not the tens of thousands of Japanese children who died as a
consequence of the Russian mop-up of China and Korea. No way was
Stalin going to miss out on that.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

(B2431) wrote:

From: (B2431)

From: "old hoodoo"

JMO:

The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A basic
morality question.

snip more of the same.

Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
conventional bombing.

I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone home.
This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.

Yeah, right. After December 7, the invasion and rape of China, Korea, and
Southeast Asia, the fall of Bataan, the battle for Okinawa... we were
going to pack up and walk away? Not bl___y likely.

Truman was faced with what was probably one of the hardest decisions in
history. How much longer does this war have to go on, how many more men
have to die, how to keep the Russians from claiming yet more of Japan, and
what will it take to finally make the Japanese military leadership believe
that their cause is lost.

Truman's decision to use the atomic bombs was, IMO, the least of the
possible evils.

And before anyone starts arguing in favor of invasion, remember that if the
invasion succeeds, you now have to occupy and pacify that country. We did
occupy Japan for several years after, a task that was made easier by the
Emperor's order of surrender. Think in terms of the battle for Okinawa,
scale the casualties on both sides to match a mainland Japan invasion, and
_then_ try to occupy and pacify that country. No thanks.

| George Ruch
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?"

From: George Ruch
Date: 12/22/2003 10:15 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote:

From: (B2431)

From: "old hoodoo"

JMO:

The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A
basic
morality question.

snip more of the same.

Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
conventional bombing.

I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone
home.
This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.

Yeah, right. After December 7, the invasion and rape of China, Korea, and
Southeast Asia, the fall of Bataan, the battle for Okinawa... we were
going to pack up and walk away? Not bl___y likely.

snip more of the same from someone who obviously hasn't read any of my posts.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

(B2431) wrote:

From: George Ruch
Date: 12/22/2003 10:15 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

(B2431) wrote:

From: (B2431)

From: "old hoodoo"

JMO:

The only issue about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima is if it is justifiable in
war to one child in the hopes that more children will be saved overall
and/or if a single soldier is more valuable than a single child. A
basic
morality question.

snip more of the same.

Let's look at the options: blockade, atomic bombing, invasion and
conventional bombing.

I omitted one: the Allies could simply have taken all their toys and gone
home.
This would have reduced the number of child deaths in Japan to near zero.

Yeah, right. After December 7, the invasion and rape of China, Korea, and
Southeast Asia, the fall of Bataan, the battle for Okinawa... we were
going to pack up and walk away? Not bl___y likely.

snip more of the same from someone who obviously hasn't read any of my posts.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

C'mon George...you didn't see any of Dan's prior posts?, he was
being sarcastic here...
--

-Gord.

In all of the above cases the war would still be going on in China, Korea etc
and children were dying there too.

In Downfall www.warbirdforum.com/downfall.htm Richard Frank estimates
that 350,000 Japanese died in Russian captivity after the war ended.
Many of them would have been children.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
JMO:


No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment of
Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
Japanese hands.


Dead is dead and it wasnt only Japanese dying.

The war was not on hold, the 14th Army was fighting in Burma
and the invasion of Malaya was planned for August 1945. The
Japanese bioweapons program alone was killing Chinese
by the thousand and a rather vicious war was going on there.

The Soviets were about to invade Manchuria and if the Japanese
there fought to the last you are looking at another 1/2 million dead
Japanese a;one

US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have been
far more morally easy to justify.


So people should have died to salve you conscience !

Please explain the morality of that ?

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
JMO:


No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment
of
Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
Japanese hands.


Dead is dead and it wasnt only Japanese dying.

The war was not on hold, the 14th Army was fighting in Burma
and the invasion of Malaya was planned for August 1945. The
Japanese bioweapons program alone was killing Chinese
by the thousand and a rather vicious war was going on there.

The Soviets were about to invade Manchuria and if the Japanese
there fought to the last you are looking at another 1/2 million dead
Japanese a;one

US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have
been
far more morally easy to justify.


So people should have died to salve you conscience !

Please explain the morality of that ?

Keith

I always find these discussions on morality raise a number of
questions......What figure of lives lost should should be considered
*moral* is it more immoral to kill hundreds of thousands in one or two
missions than say, the approx 40/50 thousand people that died in a ten month
period during the raids by *conventional bombs* on London ? And what about
the million who lost their lives with the use of conventional weapons in
Rwanda. That occurred without too much of an outcry from the world
*community?)
..

The present trend would seem to indicate that we are on a slippery downward
slope.

BMC

"Brian Colwell" wrote in message
news:rAKFb.785460$6C4.447024@pd7tw1no...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
JMO:


No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment
of
Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on
the
Japanese hands.


Dead is dead and it wasnt only Japanese dying.

The war was not on hold, the 14th Army was fighting in Burma
and the invasion of Malaya was planned for August 1945. The
Japanese bioweapons program alone was killing Chinese
by the thousand and a rather vicious war was going on there.

The Soviets were about to invade Manchuria and if the Japanese
there fought to the last you are looking at another 1/2 million dead
Japanese a;one

US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still
would
have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have
been
far more morally easy to justify.


So people should have died to salve you conscience !

Please explain the morality of that ?

Keith

I always find these discussions on morality raise a number of
questions......What figure of lives lost should should be considered
*moral* is it more immoral to kill hundreds of thousands in one or two
missions than say, the approx 40/50 thousand people that died in a ten
month
period during the raids by *conventional bombs* on London ? And what
about
the million who lost their lives with the use of conventional weapons in
Rwanda. That occurred without too much of an outcry from the world
*community?)
.

Which is why we shouldnt get too hung up on the morality issue,
it has been said that the only truly immoral act the allies could have
committed was to lose.

I tend to agree with that. The best thing to do in 1945 was to use
all means to end the war, this did IMHO minimise the number of people
who died, Japanese , Allied and civilian.

Keith

In article rAKFb.785460$6C4.447024@pd7tw1no, says...

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"old hoodoo" wrote in message
...
JMO:


No question more japanese would have died in even a patient investment
of
Japan than died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki but it would have been on the
Japanese hands.


Dead is dead and it wasnt only Japanese dying.

The war was not on hold, the 14th Army was fighting in Burma
and the invasion of Malaya was planned for August 1945. The
Japanese bioweapons program alone was killing Chinese
by the thousand and a rather vicious war was going on there.

The Soviets were about to invade Manchuria and if the Japanese
there fought to the last you are looking at another 1/2 million dead
Japanese a;one

US casualties would have been no where near 100,000 , but we still would
have lost people of course. However, the result would possibly have
been
far more morally easy to justify.


So people should have died to salve you conscience !

Please explain the morality of that ?

Keith

I always find these discussions on morality raise a number of
questions......What figure of lives lost should should be considered
*moral* is it more immoral to kill hundreds of thousands in one or two
missions than say, the approx 40/50 thousand people that died in a ten month
period during the raids by *conventional bombs* on London ? And what about
the million who lost their lives with the use of conventional weapons in
Rwanda. That occurred without too much of an outcry from the world
*community?)
.

The present trend would seem to indicate that we are on a slippery downward
slope.

BMC




Although losses in the Pacific were less then in Europe, they were
comparable. The Pacific war was costing about 20,000 deaths a day.


--
It is really stressful to play properly blackjack when you have 16 and
the dealer has 10.

22nd saying of Bernard

Rather than taking large
areas of territory, we would have been able to force the Japanese to come to
us if they chose.

Uhuh. And what about 130,000 prisoners of war being starved, worked,
and beaten to death?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com