"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