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

"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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "Keith Willshaw"

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.

A false morality question (sorry this is piggybacked Dan, I know this isn't
from you). Age should not be a qualifier for moral actions . If life is
sacred, it is sacred for all, the soldier who puts life on the line is equal
to the child.



I offered that option to an individual who was only concerned with child
casualties.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


Is there any reason why death is morally approached due to age? Death is
death. If life is sacred for a young human so it must be for an adult. It
does not matter how many children would have died. What matters is how many
people would have died. The nuclear weapons may have killed many, but how
many people - not just children - did not die because the war was brough to
a close? The total stopping of the Japanesse war machine saved people
throughout the Pacfic region.
A second but far more nebulous idea is, did the use of the two weapons
pursuade later powers to aviod further use of nuclear capeabilty? Did the
use in 1945 prevent an exchange over Cuba? Conjecture but worth considering.

Tom C

"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

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.


And allowed this of Chinese civilians to continue dying as the Japanese
bio-weapons program swung into top gear, not to mention the plight of the
populations of Malaya and Singapore who were starving.

Nice plan.

Holy crap, Keith--is your "tongue-in-cheek detector" completely offline or
what?

Brooks


Keith

(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

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

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 21:42:23 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote:


And allowed this of Chinese civilians to continue dying as the Japanese
bio-weapons program swung into top gear, not to mention the plight of the
populations of Malaya and Singapore who were starving.


Or the standing order to massacre all allied POWs and internees in malaya,
thailand and indonnesia, the moment the invasion of Malaya kicked off on
the 1st sept 45.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

Keep in mind that those who condemn the atomic bombing are not interested in
the Japanese, except as stage props--innocent victims useful for swaying
opinion; the more maimed (and in more horrific ways) and the more killed, the
better. Thus the relentless exagerating of deaths. They really do want more
to have been killed than really were, because that makes the "crime" even more
heinous.
What is really "on trial" for these people is the US, which they see as the
greatest force for evil in the world. The US is not "bad" ...("bad" being a
catch-all for all sorts of perjoratives: evil, racist, sexist, speciest,
fascist, imperialist, capitalist, money-worshipping, rich, oppressive, selfish,
polluting, loud-mouthed, arrogant, over-tipping, global-warming-increasing
meanies)... the US is not "bad" _because_ it dropped the bomb; the US dropping
the bomb is Exhibit A in the pile of evidence adduced to demonstrate the
wickedness of the US.
Thus, arguments about casualties in a projected invasion are pooh-poohed, and
even the need for an invasion is questioned: we could have negotiated an end to
the war.
(The question of the morality of leaving militarists in power in Japan is
brushed aside, of course; it's all about Amerikkka.)
The mindset is not, of course, confined to Hiroshima. You can see it in
discussions of the US attack on Iraq today. What the Sadam regime did to
deserve or provoke the attack are irrelevant, the suffering of the Iraqi people
under him is a red herring dragged across the path to divert attention from the
true, malignant motives of the US. You can also see the same mindset in
discussions of the Vietnam War, the Cold War and.... It is _only_ US motives
and actions that are to be criticized. The alleged and doubtless wildly
exaggerated crimes of those the US has opposed are never an issue to be taken
seriously.
So debaters talk past each other. One side says, "What the US did was bad. It
did what it did because itis a bad country." The other side says, "The US felt
compelled to do what it did by circumstance, to end a much greater evil."
The response to that is: "Did not!" Which gets the retort: "Did too!"
repeated endlessly.
Of course, had Truman held back the bomb and invaded, making of Japan a super
Okinawa, today's anti-bomb crowd would be excoriating the US for having had the
means to quickly "end the killing" and not doing so--because it wanted the
opportunity to conduct a genocidal extermination campaign against the Japanese
people and firmly eliminate the possibility that Japan could ever become an
economic rival in the future.
Damned if you do and ....


Chris Mark

(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.