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

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 12:54:11 -0600, "old hoodoo"
wrote:

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.

To me, its a question of responsibility. I personally do not feel that
cold bloodiedly killing a child to possibly save the life of an adult or
other children is justified, but that is just me.


Second-guessing fifty eight years after a war that was remarkable for
its scope, destruction and brutality is a futile exercise.

But, let me point out one observation that I regularly make to my
political science classes. When someone brings up "save the children"
as a rationale for any decision it usually means that logic and reason
will be abandoned in favor of emotionalism.

It is virtually impossible to guarantee that no child will be killed
in any military operation. To set the moral bar at that level will
guarantee defeat and will most assuredly result in much higher
casualties than to recognize the violence of war and then conduct it
as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Maybe the question you should ask yourself while posturing about
saving the children is whether you would be willing to sacrifice
yourself, your spouse, your siblings, your parents and your adult
children in defense of your country while making your strategic
decisions based on protection of the enemy's children.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

On 23 Dec 2003 16:09:20 GMT, ost (Chris Mark) wrote:

Thus the relentless exagerating of deaths.

For my summary of what I was able to find out about the Hiroshima
death toll, see www.warbirdforum.com/hirodead.htm


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:20:29 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote:

Maybe the question you should ask yourself while posturing about
saving the children is whether you would be willing to sacrifice
yourself, your spouse, your siblings, your parents and your adult
children in defense of your country while making your strategic
decisions based on protection of the enemy's children.

Well said.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

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

ost (Chris Mark) wrote:
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
I'll agree with that. Anyone else notice that nearly everyone who signed
that letter to the Smithsonian on the Enola Gay exhibit seem to be poster
childs of the far left? Especially Chomsky, who was an apologist for such
distinguished people as Pol Pot, Slobodoan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and
Fidel Castro, to name a few. How anybody could read or listen to this guy
is beyond me. A suitable punishment would be staking him out in the desert
and leave a trail of honey for the ants....

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

old hoodoo ) wrote:
: 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.

: To me, its a question of responsibility. I personally do not feel that
: cold bloodiedly killing a child to possibly save the life of an adult or
: other children is justified, but that is just me.

: There is also a question if a massive invasion of Japan with the was the
: only option.

Of course not. But the best estimates at the time were, and in
my opinion remain, that all the other options would lead to more
deaths (American, Japanese, and other; adults and children).

: Due to our overwhelming naval and air superiority we could
: have taken over limited strategic sections for the basing of aircraft would
: have had complete dominance over the Islands.

We already had complete dominance. Not an issue. We had
enough aircraft carriers that we could put hundreds of planes in
the air over Japan at any time.

: Rather than taking large
: areas of territory, we would have been able to force the Japanese to come to
: us if they chose. However the Japanese would most probably not have had the
: infrastructure to move large numbers of troops to face our bridgeheads,
: especially in the face of our air and naval superiority.

Support of bridgheads other than in very Southern Japan--
Kyusho or Shikoku--would have been a logistical nightmare. And
Japan was very prepared to resist establishment of bridgheads
in those locations. After the war, we found out that they were
even better prepared than we thought.

: If they did manage to move in a large concentration of troops, then it would
: have been ok to nuke em.

: I think we could have looked at different options. We had already
: successfully starved the Japanese for fuel. They had lost the capacity to
: produce aircraft in any numbers. All they had was a reserve of obsolescent
: aircraft for suicide attacks and these would have been ineffectual once we
: established air bases on Japan.

Not true. They would have been even more effectual than at
Okinawa due to the shorter distances.

: There is no question the Japanese Army would have initially attempted to
: starve its own people to feed itself, but there would be ways to get around
: that and the Japanese people and much of its army would have probably risen
: up against this as it would have been their families that were starving. We
: could have also supplied humanitarian aid to Japanese civilians....the Jap
: army could not be everywhere, especially when we established bridgeheads
: that would have forced their concentration.

Blatant speculation, based on nothing. And certainly not worth
risking tens of thousands of lives on the validity of this
speculation.

: 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.

So that makes it OK?

: 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.

Pure speculation. And don't forget that thousands of Chinese,
Indonesians, and Filipinos were dying every week in continuing
warfare in those countries, which would have continued all during
the months of low-level warfare in Japan that you are proposing.
Is that OK also?