Kristof on Heroshima
Jonathan
Blood on Our Hands?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Tomorrow will mark the anniversary of one of the most morally contentious
events of the 20th century, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. And after 58
years, there's an emerging consensus: we Americans have blood on our hands.
There has been a chorus here and abroad that the U.S. has little moral
standing on the issue of weapons of mass destruction because we were the
first to use the atomic bomb. As Nelson Mandela said of Americans in a
speech on Jan. 31, "Because they decided to kill innocent people in Japan,
who are still suffering from that, who are they now to pretend that they are
the policeman of the world?"
The traditional American position, that our intention in dropping the bombs
on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki was to end the war early and save lives, has
been poked full of holes. Revisionist historians like Gar Alperovitz argue
persuasively that Washington believed the bombing militarily unnecessary
(except to establish American primacy in the postwar order) because, as the
U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey put it in 1946, "in all probability" Japan
would have surrendered even without the atomic bombs.
Yet this emerging consensus is, I think, profoundly mistaken.
While American scholarship has undercut the U.S. moral position, Japanese
historical research has bolstered it. The Japanese scholarship, by
historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that
Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the
atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up,
so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force
surrender.
"We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to
end the war," Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said
later.
Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides
wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't
prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that
meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, "sacrificing 20 million
Japanese lives."
The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described
by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a "gift from heaven."
Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia.
This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground
invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The
fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed
14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll
would have run into the millions.
"The atomic bomb was a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end
the war," Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief cabinet secretary in 1945, said
later.
Some argue that the U.S. could have demonstrated the bomb on an uninhabited
island, or could have encouraged surrender by promising that Japan could
keep its emperor. Yes, perhaps, and we should have tried. We could also have
waited longer before dropping the second bomb, on Nagasaki.
But, sadly, the record suggests that restraint would not have worked. The
Japanese military ferociously resisted surrender even after two atomic
bombings on major cities, even after Soviet entry into the war, even when it
expected another atomic bomb - on Tokyo.
One of the great tales of World War II concerns an American fighter pilot
named Marcus McDilda who was shot down on Aug. 8 and brutally interrogated
about the atomic bombs. He knew nothing, but under torture he "confessed"
that the U.S. had 100 more nuclear weapons and planned to destroy Tokyo "in
the next few days." The war minister informed the cabinet of this grim
news - but still adamantly opposed surrender. In the aftermath of the atomic
bombing, the emperor and peace faction finally insisted on surrender and
were able to prevail.
It feels unseemly to defend the vaporizing of two cities, events that are
regarded in some quarters as among the most monstrous acts of the 20th
century. But we owe it to history to appreciate that the greatest tragedy of
Hiroshima was not that so many people were incinerated in an instant, but
that in a complex and brutal world, the alternatives were worse.
[I used to believe that nuking Japan was a horrible thing to do... then I
read the operational details of Operation Downfall, the proposed (and in the
process of execution) plan to invade Japan.
After Okinawa, the US realized that the only way to take Japan was to use
chemical weapons on the Japanese population... and planned to kill millions
of Japanese, regardless of status.
The reality here is that nuking Japan was a horrific event, but considering
the alternatives, it was the most humane thing to do.
Jonathan]
Caliban
> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
>
> Blood on Our Hands?
> By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
snip
I saw this today, too. Good article.
I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people inside
a minute (at Hiroshima). But I bear in mind how hindsight is 20/20.
J Alex
"Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
> >
> > Blood on Our Hands?
> > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
>
> snip
>
> I saw this today, too. Good article.
>
> I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
inside
> a minute (at Hiroshima).
As my father was in a training camp in south Florida as a prelude to being
sent to the Pacific, I have no mixed feelings on incinerating 60,000 people
at Hiroshima.
Jonathan
"Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:J3QXa.7065$jg7....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I do not.
Let's say we hadn't dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... and
instead we had commenced Operations Olympic and Coronet...
After we had killed 30 or 40 million Japanese and lost one million
Americans, what would history be saying now about us?
Please read up on Downfall, Coronet and Olympic before you judge the
bombing.
Jonathan
Caliban
My concerns are that there may have been alternatives, like demo-ing the
bomb before dropping it on a city. Kristof talks about this and argues this
wouldn't have worked. I don't know one way or the other. I certainly can't
vehemently attack the decision to drop the bomb. But I can stand back, over
50 years later, and discuss whether it was absolutely necessary and whether
in the future there are alternatives.
Of course the question, "My relative (son, daughter, sibling, parent, etc.)
vs. two or more of someone else's is very difficult."
I personally don't consider the position "I'd rather 60,000 people die
instead of any one of my relatives" to be a moral one. On the contrary, it
is an emotion-laden one, bereft of logic and best interests for society.
Not that I'd necessarily choose any differently.
Caliban
> "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
> inside
> > a minute (at Hiroshima). But I bear in mind how hindsight is 20/20.
>
> I do not.
Fine.
> Let's say we hadn't dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... and
> instead we had commenced Operations Olympic and Coronet...
>
> After we had killed 30 or 40 million Japanese and lost one million
> Americans, what would history be saying now about us?
You're guessing.
It's about as reasonable as my saying a demo of the bomb would have led to
the Japanese surrender without the loss of a single civilian life.
Both your and my scenario are plausible.
> Please read up on Downfall, Coronet and Olympic before you judge the
> bombing.
We're all gambling on whether alternatives may have better achieved the same
effect. Please consider that this is all speculation.
Do not presume that I oppose or support this bombing over a half-century
ago. My mind simply is not made up.
Jonathan
> "J Alex" <nos...@nospamx.info> wrote
> > "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
> > > >
> > > > Blood on Our Hands?
> > > > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > I saw this today, too. Good article.
> > >
> > > I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
> > inside
> > > a minute (at Hiroshima).
> >
> > As my father was in a training camp in south Florida as a prelude to
being
> > sent to the Pacific, I have no mixed feelings on incinerating 60,000
> people
> > at Hiroshima.
>
> My concerns are that there may have been alternatives, like demo-ing the
> bomb before dropping it on a city.
What makes you think the Japanese would have even recognized this as
anything but a stunt?
> Of course the question, "My relative (son, daughter, sibling, parent,
etc.)
> vs. two or more of someone else's is very difficult."
>
> I personally don't consider the position "I'd rather 60,000 people die
> instead of any one of my relatives" to be a moral one. On the contrary, it
> is an emotion-laden one, bereft of logic and best interests for society.
>
Would you have preferred 30 million die?
Jonathan
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
> > inside
> > > a minute (at Hiroshima). But I bear in mind how hindsight is 20/20.
> >
> > I do not.
>
> Fine.
>
> > Let's say we hadn't dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... and
> > instead we had commenced Operations Olympic and Coronet...
> >
> > After we had killed 30 or 40 million Japanese and lost one million
> > Americans, what would history be saying now about us?
>
> You're guessing.
>
No, I am extending facts to a larger example.
In Okinawa, 200,000 Japanese died, and nearly none of them surrendered...
and that was just an outpost... If we invaded the Japanese main islands and
moved toward Tokyo, we would have seen every man, woman and child attacking
US forces, the only solution for force protection would have been to
slaughter all of them.
> It's about as reasonable as my saying a demo of the bomb would have led to
> the Japanese surrender without the loss of a single civilian life.
>
Not even remotely.
> Both your and my scenario are plausible.
>
Yours isn't.
There was an attempted coup the night before Herohito's radio address by
members of the Japanese military, they did not want to surrender under any
circumstances... if vaporizing two cities didn't convince them, then
certainly vaporizing some chunk of ocean wouldn't have.
> > Please read up on Downfall, Coronet and Olympic before you judge the
> > bombing.
>
> We're all gambling on whether alternatives may have better achieved the
same
> effect. Please consider that this is all speculation.
>
Sure it is.
But how would the the US be viewed now if we had invaded Japan, and used
nerve agent on Japanese 'civilians'?
Jonathan
J Alex
"Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> "J Alex" <nos...@nospamx.info> wrote
> > As my father was in a training camp in south Florida as a prelude to
being
> > sent to the Pacific, I have no mixed feelings on incinerating 60,000
> people
> > at Hiroshima.
>
> My concerns are that there may have been alternatives, like demo-ing the
> bomb before dropping it on a city.
Possibly. But they only had 2 bombs, and were months away from a 3rd.
<snip>
>
> Of course the question, "My relative (son, daughter, sibling, parent,
etc.)
> vs. two or more of someone else's is very difficult."
>
> I personally don't consider the position "I'd rather 60,000 people die
> instead of any one of my relatives" to be a moral one.
> On the contrary, it
> is an emotion-laden one, bereft of logic and best interests for society.
Seriously? I'd be very suspicious of anyone who said their parents or kids
were no more important than a citizen (or 60,000) in an enemy country.
Besides, self (and family) interest is an essential trait, not an immoral
emotional attitude. My interest in providing safe streets for "people" is
bland, but my interest in providing safe schools and streets for my kids is
extremely high. Concern for self and family is a great motivator to improve
things.
Stephen Fuld
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
> >
> > Blood on Our Hands?
> > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
>
> snip
>
> I saw this today, too. Good article.
>
> I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
inside
> a minute (at Hiroshima).
So, given that more people were killed in the conventional fire bombing of
Tokyo than in Hiroshima,
it is the RATE (in a minute) that bothers you, not the absolute number?
The unfortunate result of the use of the atomic bomb is IMO the unreasonable
fear of nuclear energy on the part of most of the populace. This seems a
little strange given that high explosives were developed (a substantial leap
over the low explosivs that were prevalent at the time) and are now
routinely used for things like construction, mining, etc. and don't engender
any fer among the populace.
--
- Stephen Fuld
e-mail address disguised to prevent spam
Caliban
> > Of course the question, "My relative (son, daughter, sibling, parent,
> etc.)
> > vs. two or more of someone else's is very difficult."
> >
> > I personally don't consider the position "I'd rather 60,000 people die
> > instead of any one of my relatives" to be a moral one.
> > On the contrary, it
> > is an emotion-laden one, bereft of logic and best interests for society.
>
> Seriously? I'd be very suspicious of anyone who said their parents or
kids
> were no more important than a citizen (or 60,000) in an enemy country.
> Besides, self (and family) interest is an essential trait, not an immoral
> emotional attitude. My interest in providing safe streets for "people" is
> bland, but my interest in providing safe schools and streets for my kids
is
> extremely high. Concern for self and family is a great motivator to
improve
> things.
It's a tradeoff, as always. Over-concern for self and family leads to chaos.
No concern for self and family leads to chaos.
Caliban
> "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
> > >
> > > Blood on Our Hands?
> > > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
> >
> > snip
> >
> > I saw this today, too. Good article.
> >
> > I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
> inside
> > a minute (at Hiroshima).
>
> So, given that more people were killed in the conventional fire bombing of
> Tokyo than in Hiroshima,
> it is the RATE (in a minute) that bothers you, not the absolute number?
No. I mentioned the rate as an interesting aside. Both rate and number are
important.
> The unfortunate result of the use of the atomic bomb is IMO the
unreasonable
> fear of nuclear energy on the part of most of the populace. This seems a
> little strange given that high explosives were developed (a substantial
leap
> over the low explosivs that were prevalent at the time) and are now
> routinely used for things like construction, mining, etc. and don't
engender
> any fer among the populace.
I agree. Fortunately, it seems to me only a small portion of the population
cares about the source of their electrical power.
Caliban
snip speculation
I agree to disagree about what would have happened.
> But how would the the US be viewed now if we had invaded Japan, and used
> nerve agent on Japanese 'civilians'?
I don't know what you're getting at.
We very likely could have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein via a few
strategically dropped nuclear bombs. Civilians would perish, of course. But
we probably would not have lost the 200+ troops to date we lost, or I'm
seeing that number reduced by half or so.
Weren't 100 Americans' lives worth many thousands of Iraqis and Saddam's
lives?
If you think world opinion of us would have soured, sure. But then given the
U.S. is willing to throw away American soldiers' lives in this instance, why
not in the WWII instance?
Yes, it's a different time, but I don't think the calculus of either
situation is notably different when getting down to the bottom lines.
Again, I am not saying I know it was wrong to drop the atomic bomb in WW2. I
am saying I just don't know that it was right.
David Johnston
wrote:
>"J Alex" <nos...@nospamx.info> wrote
>> "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
>> > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
>> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
>> > >
>> > > Blood on Our Hands?
>> > > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
>> >
>> > snip
>> >
>> > I saw this today, too. Good article.
>> >
>> > I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
>> inside
>> > a minute (at Hiroshima).
>>
>> As my father was in a training camp in south Florida as a prelude to being
>> sent to the Pacific, I have no mixed feelings on incinerating 60,000
>people
>> at Hiroshima.
>
>My concerns are that there may have been alternatives, like demo-ing the
>bomb before dropping it on a city.
Why bother when there were more devastating bombing raids occuring
on a regular basis?
David Johnston
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:J3QXa.7065$jg7....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
>> >
>> > Blood on Our Hands?
>> > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
>>
>> snip
>>
>> I saw this today, too. Good article.
>>
>> I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
>inside
>> a minute (at Hiroshima). But I bear in mind how hindsight is 20/20.
>>
>>
>
>I do not.
>
>Let's say we hadn't dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... and
>instead we had commenced Operations Olympic and Coronet...
>
>After we had killed 30 or 40 million Japanese and lost one million
>Americans, what would history be saying now about us?
You wouldn't have lost one million Americans. First of all, that
estimate was casualties, not fatalities. And of course, it wasn't
realistic. It was a worst case scenario written by guys who were
considerably overestimating the resistance that the Japanese
were capable of putting up.
David Marc Nieporent
> The unfortunate result of the use of the atomic bomb is IMO the
> unreasonable fear of nuclear energy on the part of most of the
> populace. This seems a little strange given that high explosives
> were developed (a substantial leap over the low explosivs that were
> prevalent at the time) and are now routinely used for things like
> construction, mining, etc. and don't engender any fer among the
> populace.
And yet, oddly, Japan has no problem with nuclear power. The fear is here
in the US.
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://tollbooth.blogspot.com
David Marc Nieporent
More damaging, but perhaps not more devastating.
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> snip speculation
>
> I agree to disagree about what would have happened.
>
> > But how would the the US be viewed now if we had invaded Japan, and used
> > nerve agent on Japanese 'civilians'?
>
> I don't know what you're getting at.
>
I am getting at the idea that if the US had invaded Japan and killed 30 or
40 million people using chemical weapons, the same people complaining about
the atomic bomb would be complaining abou that...
> We very likely could have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein via a few
> strategically dropped nuclear bombs. Civilians would perish, of course.
But
> we probably would not have lost the 200+ troops to date we lost, or I'm
> seeing that number reduced by half or so.
>
Not at all... the two countries have nothing to do with one another.
> Weren't 100 Americans' lives worth many thousands of Iraqis and Saddam's
> lives?
>
You cannot compare an unnecessary war with World War II...
Caliban
<cali...@earthlink.net> uttered the profundity:
snip
> >My concerns are that there may have been alternatives, like demo-ing the
> >bomb before dropping it on a city.
>
> Why bother when there were more devastating bombing raids occuring
> on a regular basis?
Without getting into all the permutations of speculations, let me just say
again, but explicitly, that I'm very comfortable with my uncertainty about
what would have been, thanks. :-)
Caliban
"Only religious zealots have no margin of error."
Jonathan
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3f2ff741...@news.telusplanet.net...
An invasion and occupation of Japn, of a Japan that had not surrendered,
whose military was pressing its people to defend their homeland, you think
would result in less than the generally accepted casualty number?
I think the 1 million casualties number is a low estimate... and the
assumptions that 2 million Japanese would have been killed is
preposterous... (the use of chemical weapons on Kyushu would produce that
many casualties by itself...).
Jonathan
Jonathan
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:bgosm0$qn4do$1...@ID-90378.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Stephen Fuld wrote:
>
> > The unfortunate result of the use of the atomic bomb is IMO the
> > unreasonable fear of nuclear energy on the part of most of the
> > populace. This seems a little strange given that high explosives
> > were developed (a substantial leap over the low explosivs that were
> > prevalent at the time) and are now routinely used for things like
> > construction, mining, etc. and don't engender any fer among the
> > populace.
>
> And yet, oddly, Japan has no problem with nuclear power. The fear is here
> in the US.
>
Japan also isn't a culture that is prone to protest...
Jonathan
Caliban
snip
> > > But how would the the US be viewed now if we had invaded Japan, and
used
> > > nerve agent on Japanese 'civilians'?
> >
> > I don't know what you're getting at.
>
> I am getting at the idea that if the US had invaded Japan and killed 30 or
> 40 million people using chemical weapons, the same people complaining
about
> the atomic bomb would be complaining abou that...
Your 30 or 40 million people killed by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki(?) is way more erroneous than my claim of 20,000 American troops
being in Iraq. :-)
The number killed by the A bombs is around a few hundred thousand. (If one
insists on taking into account subsequent, somewhat speculative
radiation-induced cancer deaths, the calculation becomes tricky.)
sniperoo
> > Weren't 100 Americans' lives worth many thousands of Iraqis and Saddam's
> > lives?
> >
>
> You cannot compare an unnecessary war with World War II...
I can compare a specific tactic from one to that of another. You may think
it unreasonable. I do not. :-)
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> snip
> > > > But how would the the US be viewed now if we had invaded Japan, and
> used
> > > > nerve agent on Japanese 'civilians'?
> > >
> > > I don't know what you're getting at.
> >
> > I am getting at the idea that if the US had invaded Japan and killed 30
or
> > 40 million people using chemical weapons, the same people complaining
> about
> > the atomic bomb would be complaining abou that...
>
> Your 30 or 40 million people killed by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki(?) is way more erroneous than my claim of 20,000 American troops
> being in Iraq. :-)
>
Where did I say that the bombs killed 30 or 40 million people? I was
referring to an invasion and occupation of a hostile Japan.
> The number killed by the A bombs is around a few hundred thousand. (If one
> insists on taking into account subsequent, somewhat speculative
> radiation-induced cancer deaths, the calculation becomes tricky.)
>
Best gues is between 150,000 and 250,000 people were killed outright... (I
have seen much lower and much higher estimates), the incidence of cancer
killed another 100,000 people (including GIs who went to Heroshima and
Nagasaki....)
> sniperoo
> > > Weren't 100 Americans' lives worth many thousands of Iraqis and
Saddam's
> > > lives?
> > >
> >
> > You cannot compare an unnecessary war with World War II...
>
> I can compare a specific tactic from one to that of another. You may think
> it unreasonable. I do not. :-)
>
Tactics, no.
But justifications... definitely.
Iraq was not an enemy of the US, Japan was, Iraq did not attack the US,
Japan did, Iraq did not execute and experiment on American POWs, Japan did.
Iraq did not use biological weapons on a neighbor, Japan did. Iraqis were
willing to surrender, Japanese were not.
To compare the two, as far as justifcations go, doesn't make sense...
Jonathan
>
David Johnston
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On Tue, 05 Aug 2003 15:45:35 GMT, "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>
>>> My concerns are that there may have been alternatives, like demo-ing
>>> the bomb before dropping it on a city.
>
>> Why bother when there were more devastating bombing raids occuring
>> on a regular basis?
>
>More damaging, but perhaps not more devastating.
If you are referring to long term effects, none of them were
understood by the people at the time.
Caliban
> "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > > "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > snip
> > > > > But how would the the US be viewed now if we had invaded Japan,
and
> > used
> > > > > nerve agent on Japanese 'civilians'?
> > > >
> > > > I don't know what you're getting at.
> > >
> > > I am getting at the idea that if the US had invaded Japan and killed
30
> or
> > > 40 million people using chemical weapons, the same people complaining
> > about
> > > the atomic bomb would be complaining abou that...
> >
> > Your 30 or 40 million people killed by the bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and
> > Nagasaki(?) is way more erroneous than my claim of 20,000 American
troops
> > being in Iraq. :-)
> >
>
> Where did I say that the bombs killed 30 or 40 million people? I was
> referring to an invasion and occupation of a hostile Japan.
I am lost.
All I know is people "complaining" about lives lost to the atomic bomb, to
war, or to chemical weapons are on moral ground. All war is criminal, etc.
All innocent deaths are evil.
I cannot see how it's absolutely so that incinerating 60,000 civilians in 60
seconds was right. I do not know that it was. I don't know how anyone can
know for sure, except through a kind of religious faith.
Jeffrey Wheeler
news:AZTXa.1312119$Ho4.9...@news.easynews.com...
> Iraq was not an enemy of the US,
Iraq had been an enemy of the US for many years. To mention a less
talked about example, the old regime did look into assassinating American
leaders (notably in 1993 and 1999--and if the US had left Saddam in power,
quite possibly 2003). Also remember the years of taunts, teases, and threats
that Saddam made against the US from before the Gulf War till now. At this
end of the hateful rhetoric, officials probably also got tired of the Iraqi
regime bribing nations to oppose the United States. Humanitarian and
punitive responses, dealing with Iraq's opposition to the War on Terror and
support of organizations like the People's Mujahideen and Uganda's Allied
Democratic Forces, as well as a raid to both capture individuals wanted for
crimes against humanity and to resolve UN-validated concerns about Iraq's
weapons programs, are fair motivation in themselves, and exceptional
motivation when taken together: We had more justification for the unpopular
war in Iraq than we did for the popular war in Kosovo. Whether the Iraqi
government was an active threat may be argued in circles, but it was most
definitely an enemy of the United States.
> Iraq did not execute and experiment on American POWs,
> Iraq did not use biological weapons on a neighbor
Iraq did, too.
--
Jeffrey Wheeler
http://jeffreywheeler.cjb.com
Stephen Fuld
> "Stephen Fuld" <s.f...@PleaseRemove.att.net>
> > "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
> > > >
> > > > Blood on Our Hands?
> > > > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > I saw this today, too. Good article.
> > >
> > > I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
> > inside
> > > a minute (at Hiroshima).
> >
> > So, given that more people were killed in the conventional fire bombing
of
> > Tokyo than in Hiroshima,
> > it is the RATE (in a minute) that bothers you, not the absolute number?
>
> No. I mentioned the rate as an interesting aside. Both rate and number are
> important.
Then why is there such an uproar over the 60,000 in Hiroshima compared to
the almost non-existant complaining about the 100,000 in the Tokyo fire
bombing?
> > The unfortunate result of the use of the atomic bomb is IMO the
> unreasonable
> > fear of nuclear energy on the part of most of the populace. This seems
a
> > little strange given that high explosives were developed (a substantial
> leap
> > over the low explosivs that were prevalent at the time) and are now
> > routinely used for things like construction, mining, etc. and don't
> engender
> > any fer among the populace.
>
> I agree. Fortunately, it seems to me only a small portion of the
population
> cares about the source of their electrical power.
As a counter, I note that one of the "compromises" that the Republican
Senate had to give up on in order to get an energy bill passed was that the
compromise eliminated tome subsidized loans for nuclear power plants.
Jonathan
"Jeffrey Wheeler" <REMOVEw...@CAPSjeffreywheeler.cjb.net> wrote in
message news:x9WXa.96109$X43....@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com...
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:AZTXa.1312119$Ho4.9...@news.easynews.com...
>
> > Iraq was not an enemy of the US,
>
> Iraq had been an enemy of the US for many years. To mention a less
> talked about example, the old regime did look into assassinating American
> leaders (notably in 1993 and 1999--and if the US had left Saddam in power,
> quite possibly 2003).
We have been looking into assasinating Castro for 40 years, is Cuba an enemy
of the US?
> Also remember the years of taunts, teases, and threats
> that Saddam made against the US from before the Gulf War till now.
And he was not, and never has been a real threat to the US or her interests.
> At this
> end of the hateful rhetoric, officials probably also got tired of the
Iraqi
> regime bribing nations to oppose the United States. Humanitarian and
> punitive responses, dealing with Iraq's opposition to the War on Terror
Yep, you are right, by Bush's definition, since Iraq did not ally with the
US during the War on Terror, then they are an enemy...
> and
> support of organizations like the People's Mujahideen and Uganda's Allied
> Democratic Forces, as well as a raid to both capture individuals wanted
for
> crimes against humanity and to resolve UN-validated concerns about Iraq's
> weapons programs, are fair motivation in themselves, and exceptional
> motivation when taken together:
US interests often conflict with many nations, this does not make them
enemies... we each just have different foreign policy goals.
I am not saying Iraq was an ally of the US, but to say they were an enemy
before we invaded is a stretch...
> We had more justification for the unpopular
> war in Iraq than we did for the popular war in Kosovo.
So?
> Whether the Iraqi
> government was an active threat may be argued in circles, but it was most
> definitely an enemy of the United States.
>
They were a gnat...
> > Iraq did not execute and experiment on American POWs,
> > Iraq did not use biological weapons on a neighbor
>
> Iraq did, too.
> --
Citation please?
Jonathan
>
> Jeffrey Wheeler
> http://jeffreywheeler.cjb.com
>
>
Jonathan
"shawn" <sh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:gbc0jv4gmo6hg9svl...@4ax.com...
> "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> >> "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> >> > > "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> >> > > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
to
> >war, or to chemical weapons are on moral ground. All war is criminal,
etc.
> >All innocent deaths are evil.
> >
> >I cannot see how it's absolutely so that incinerating 60,000 civilians in
60
> >seconds was right. I do not know that it was. I don't know how anyone can
> >know for sure, except through a kind of religious faith.
>
> were the 60,000 dying instantly or millions dying in an invasion.
> Given those two options it's not unreasonable to feel that the first
> is the right option.
>
> The question is were those two the only options. I don't think anyone
> can really answer that question. Ideally, Japan would have been
> blockaded until they finally surrendered, but I doubt if that was
> possible at the time.
Those two were the extremes of options...
Here are some others that were considered...
Continue strategic bombing of the entire country with conventional weapons
until Japan surrendered.
Blockade and Quarantine Japan, and let them all starve to death (continue
bombing).
There were a few others, but the above two were considered inhumane (a
blockade would have killed off most of the poor in the country, while
bolstering the power of the elite... as most sanctions do, where those in
power point to the sanctions and blame them for everything...)
I am not proud of the atomic bombing of Japan, but given all of the
alternatives, it was the best available option.
Jonathan
David Marc Nieporent
Actually, I was referring to psychological effects.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
David Marc Nieporent
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Jeffrey Wheeler" <REMOVEw...@CAPSjeffreywheeler.cjb.net> wrote in
>> > Iraq was not an enemy of the US,
>> Iraq had been an enemy of the US for many years. To mention a less
>> talked about example, the old regime did look into assassinating American
>> leaders (notably in 1993 and 1999--and if the US had left Saddam in power,
>> quite possibly 2003).
>We have been looking into assasinating Castro for 40 years, is Cuba an enemy
>of the US?
Yes.
>> Also remember the years of taunts, teases, and threats
>> that Saddam made against the US from before the Gulf War till now.
>And he was not, and never has been a real threat to the US or her interests.
Yeah, he was. Why do you think the US attacked him twice?
>> and
>> support of organizations like the People's Mujahideen and Uganda's Allied
>> Democratic Forces, as well as a raid to both capture individuals wanted for
>> crimes against humanity and to resolve UN-validated concerns about Iraq's
>> weapons programs, are fair motivation in themselves, and exceptional
>> motivation when taken together:
>US interests often conflict with many nations, this does not make them
>enemies... we each just have different foreign policy goals.
>I am not saying Iraq was an ally of the US, but to say they were an enemy
>before we invaded is a stretch...
Not in the least. Of course Iraq was an enemy. We didn't merely have
different "interests." We were diametrically opposed.
>> > Iraq did not execute and experiment on American POWs,
>> > Iraq did not use biological weapons on a neighbor
>> Iraq did, too.
>Citation please?
Do some research. Go look up "Iran Iraq war" in a book.
David Johnston
>
>The question is were those two the only options. I don't think anyone
>can really answer that question. Ideally, Japan would have been
>blockaded until they finally surrendered, but I doubt if that was
>possible at the time.
It was perfectly possible. But of course it would have killed more
than 60,000 people. In fact it would have killed more than a straight
invasion, but of course almost all of them would have been Japanese.
David Johnston
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeffrey Wheeler" <REMOVEw...@CAPSjeffreywheeler.cjb.net> wrote in
>message news:x9WXa.96109$X43....@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com...
>> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:AZTXa.1312119$Ho4.9...@news.easynews.com...
>>
>> > Iraq was not an enemy of the US,
>>
>> Iraq had been an enemy of the US for many years. To mention a less
>> talked about example, the old regime did look into assassinating American
>> leaders (notably in 1993 and 1999--and if the US had left Saddam in power,
>> quite possibly 2003).
>
>We have been looking into assasinating Castro for 40 years, is Cuba an enemy
>of the US?
There's no serious doubt that the United States is an enemy of Cuba.
David Johnston
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>> Also remember the years of taunts, teases, and threats
>>> that Saddam made against the US from before the Gulf War till now.
>
>>And he was not, and never has been a real threat to the US or her interests.
>
>Yeah, he was. Why do you think the US attacked him twice?
He was annoying and easy to knock over.
Jonathan
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-EC3EBE...@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <bgpi9...@enews2.newsguy.com>,
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Jeffrey Wheeler" <REMOVEw...@CAPSjeffreywheeler.cjb.net> wrote in
> >> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Iraq was not an enemy of the US,
>
> >> Iraq had been an enemy of the US for many years. To mention a less
> >> talked about example, the old regime did look into assassinating
American
> >> leaders (notably in 1993 and 1999--and if the US had left Saddam in
power,
> >> quite possibly 2003).
>
> >We have been looking into assasinating Castro for 40 years, is Cuba an
enemy
> >of the US?
>
> Yes.
>
Then couldn't one argue that there is more historical need to invade Cuba
than Iraq?
I mean, Cuba threatened us with real, live, verifiable nukes once..
> >> Also remember the years of taunts, teases, and threats
> >> that Saddam made against the US from before the Gulf War till now.
>
> >And he was not, and never has been a real threat to the US or her
interests.
>
> Yeah, he was. Why do you think the US attacked him twice?
>
Because he attacked Kuwait, and I agreed with that war... this time he did
nothing whatsoever...
And, could you tell me, please, what the fuck happened to the quest for Bin
Laden? I just read that we moved nearly 800 SF out of Afghanistan (those
that spoke Farsi and Persian...) and into Iraq...
We replaced those SF with Spanish speaking troops (from 7th SFGA) who are
completely out of their element...
>
> >> and
> >> support of organizations like the People's Mujahideen and Uganda's
Allied
> >> Democratic Forces, as well as a raid to both capture individuals wanted
for
> >> crimes against humanity and to resolve UN-validated concerns about
Iraq's
> >> weapons programs, are fair motivation in themselves, and exceptional
> >> motivation when taken together:
>
> >US interests often conflict with many nations, this does not make them
> >enemies... we each just have different foreign policy goals.
> >I am not saying Iraq was an ally of the US, but to say they were an enemy
> >before we invaded is a stretch...
>
> Not in the least. Of course Iraq was an enemy. We didn't merely have
> different "interests." We were diametrically opposed.
>
Opposed on what?
Iraq had not moved forces to its borders, it made no threats (overt or
otherwise) against anyone we care about, why did we go to war? The WMD thing
was utter bullshit, as the DPRK, Iran and others are a more serious threat
to the US than Iraq ever would be.
>
> >> > Iraq did not execute and experiment on American POWs,
> >> > Iraq did not use biological weapons on a neighbor
>
> >> Iraq did, too.
>
> >Citation please?
>
> Do some research. Go look up "Iran Iraq war" in a book.
>
Biological weapons use? There are lots of speculation about a bio weapons
program, lots of 'evidence' of same, but not one single documented case of
Iraq using biological weapons on anyone.
I don't think so.
Jonathan
Jonathan
"Stephen Fuld" <s.f...@PleaseRemove.att.net> wrote in message
news:P5YXa.86453$3o3.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Actually it was well over 150,000 killed in Tokyo, and the reason for a lack
of outrage is because it wasn't easy... we had over 1000 B-29s involved,
over two days...
Jonathan
Jonathan
Really?
When was the last time the US or Cuba used military force against the other
nation?
Jonathan
Steve Bartman
Johnston) wrote:
>>We have been looking into assasinating Castro for 40 years, is Cuba an enemy
>>of the US?
>
>There's no serious doubt that the United States is an enemy of Cuba.
By what definition? We do hundreds of millions of dollars in trade
every year.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Those two were the extremes of options...
>
>Here are some others that were considered...
>
>Continue strategic bombing of the entire country with conventional weapons
>until Japan surrendered.
They might not have. Strategic bombing of the time was only useful
against massed industrial targets. Once they were gone we were bombing
rice paddies.
>Blockade and Quarantine Japan, and let them all starve to death (continue
>bombing).
Japan was and is self-sufficient in rice. Most protein is from the
ocean, lakes, and rivers. There would have been malnourishment, but
once you kill most of the urban populations the rural folks would have
been fine food-wise.
The bomb was used for several reasons not mentioned yet. Truman's
biographer, David McCullough, describes the decision process he used
while at the Potsdam Conference. He essentially, despite Gar
Alpervitz's attempts to re-write history, never considered NOT using
it. We'd spent billions developing it, it was a weapon, we were
engaged in total war--we used it. No-brainer.
Truman was also facing large and growing public pressure to get the
troops home. VE Day was three months in the past, and there were near
riots when ETO troops were told they'd be shipped to the Pacific. The
domestic economy was marking time, building more consumer demand, and
industry wanted to get on with the conversion. And, probably the
biggest factor, the Soviets declared war on Japan as Stalin had
promised FDR they would. Truman could see Soviet moves already
developing in Eastern Europe and he didn't want them getting a toehold
in China, or worse, Indo-China. He needed to end the war quickly.
Steve
David Marc Nieporent
"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>> >"Jeffrey Wheeler" <REMOVEw...@CAPSjeffreywheeler.cjb.net> wrote in
>> >> > Iraq was not an enemy of the US,
>> >> Iraq had been an enemy of the US for many years. To mention a less
>> >> talked about example, the old regime did look into assassinating American
>> >> leaders (notably in 1993 and 1999--and if the US had left Saddam in power,
>> >> quite possibly 2003).
>> >We have been looking into assasinating Castro for 40 years, is Cuba an enemy
>> >of the US?
>> There's no serious doubt that the United States is an enemy of Cuba.
>Really?
Really.
>When was the last time the US or Cuba used military force against the other
>nation?
What does that have to do with the issue?
David Johnston
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There's no serious doubt that the United States is an enemy of Cuba.
>
>Really?
>
>When was the last time the US or Cuba used military force against the other
>nation?
They aren't friends. They aren't neutral. What does that leave?
David Johnston
wrote:
What, despite the law against it?
Steve Bartman
Johnston) wrote:
>>By what definition? We do hundreds of millions of dollars in trade
>>every year.
>
>What, despite the law against it?
Not on food and medicine.
=====================
Farm Bureau rep advocates more Cuban trade
Gary Luth returns from ag conference eager for fewer restrictions
July 29, 2003
By STEVE TARTER
of the Journal Star
BLOOMINGTON - Gary Luth is one Illinois farmer who believes this
country's policy toward Cuba should include more agriculture.
Representing the Illinois Farm Bureau, Luth recently returned from a
conference with Cuban officials anxious to see trade with the United
States continue to grow.
"In the last two years we've seen a real gain in trade. Last year this
country sold over $125 million in agricultural products to Cuba. If
you go back to 1999, that trade balance was zero," said Luth, a
corn-soybean farmer in Douglas County, 30 miles southeast of
Champaign.
Illinois was the leading exporter of ag products, largely because of
the presence of Archer Daniels Midland Co., the Decatur-based grain
refiner, he said.
"Trade is allowed with Cuba now but there are restrictions involved.
No credit can be extended and deals must go through a third-party
bank," said Luth.
Without such restrictions, U.S. business with Cuba could double or
triple, he said. "Estimates are that we could do $1 billion in ag
products with Cuba over the next five years (without the trade
restrictions)," said Luth, who took a bus ride into the Cuban
countryside during his visit.
http://www.pjstar.com/news/business/g175952a.html
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Caliban
> "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > inside
> > > > a minute (at Hiroshima).
> > >
> > > So, given that more people were killed in the conventional fire
bombing
> of
> > > Tokyo than in Hiroshima,
> > > it is the RATE (in a minute) that bothers you, not the absolute
number?
> >
> > No. I mentioned the rate as an interesting aside. Both rate and number
are
> > important.
>
> Then why is there such an uproar over the 60,000 in Hiroshima compared to
> the almost non-existant complaining about the 100,000 in the Tokyo fire
> bombing?
Because if you come up with a metric that combines rate and number of
killings, Hiroshima "wins." Or psychologically speaking, the instantaneous
vaporization of many people in Hiroshima leaves a bigger effect than many
people dying of fire bomb wounds. (More below on how "devastation" is
perhaps "measured.")
I think the gist of this point of yours is made often, although IIRC I have
seen Dresden compared to Hiroshima more often than Tokyo. At least, Dresden
is the WWII city that comes to my mind when people want to point out that
the allied's conventional weapons were 'comparably effective' to the nukes
at killing civilians.
For my part, I wouldn't characterize one as an "uproar" vs. the other. I
will say that perhaps one reason why people like myself are quicker to cast
doubt on whether the A-bomb should have been dropped is because, as DMN
suggested, the "devastation" may be characterized as greater. If
"devastation" is measured in terms of rate of death, number of deaths, and
also, from another Google post, density of death, then Hiroshima/Nagasaki
trump Tokyo/Dresden. (Some guy posted on Google the death rate at the end of
1945 was 54% for Hiroshima vs. 10% for Tokyo.)
> > > The unfortunate result of the use of the atomic bomb is IMO the
> > unreasonable
> > > fear of nuclear energy on the part of most of the populace. This
seems
> a
> > > little strange given that high explosives were developed (a
substantial
> > leap
> > > over the low explosivs that were prevalent at the time) and are now
> > > routinely used for things like construction, mining, etc. and don't
> > engender
> > > any fer among the populace.
> >
> > I agree. Fortunately, it seems to me only a small portion of the
> population
> > cares about the source of their electrical power.
>
> As a counter, I note that one of the "compromises" that the Republican
> Senate had to give up on in order to get an energy bill passed was that
the
> compromise eliminated tome subsidized loans for nuclear power plants.
If you're saying that this small portion of the population nonetheless
wields a lot of power and has successfully pushed commercial nuclear power
advocates and experts around a lot using political means, I agree. I should
have noted this in my original comment.
Jim
"Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "J Alex" <nos...@nospamx.info> wrote
> > "Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote
> > > "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/05/opinion/05KRIS.html
> > > >
> > > > Blood on Our Hands?
> > > > By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
> > >
> > > snip
> > >
> > > I saw this today, too. Good article.
> > >
> > > I continue to have mixed feelings on incinerating some 60,000 people
> > inside
> > > a minute (at Hiroshima).
War sucks and if you are going into war either willingly or by force - yo
go into it to kill as many of your enemy, do it swiftly and often and then
get out.
60 Japenese, 60,000, 6,000,000 or whatever. If it saved 1 American life it
is worth it.
As for those making comments that we should have shown the effects of the
bomb to the Japanese without bombing a city - be real - did the Japanese
attack an uninhabeted island before they bombed Pearl Harbor?
Be serious.
Jonathan Levy
Better that the bomb be used at the end of WW II than at the
beginning of the next war. Once created, weapons tend to be used.
For some reason, the world has managed to go 58 years without nuclear
weapons being used -- let alone becoming just one more tool of war.
Two uses at the end of a war followed by time for the world to see and
consider their implications may have produced a better result than if
we had entered Korea or some other subsequent war with nuclear weapons
in our arsenal but less general understanding about what they really
meant.
oldunc...@yahoo.com
> And yet, oddly, Japan has no problem with nuclear power. The fear is here
> in the US.
Of course they do. Where do you think Gozilla comes from?
Jonathan
"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:hk61jvsth9o6siped...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:34:47 -0500, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Those two were the extremes of options...
> >
> >Here are some others that were considered...
> >
> >Continue strategic bombing of the entire country with conventional
weapons
> >until Japan surrendered.
>
> They might not have. Strategic bombing of the time was only useful
> against massed industrial targets. Once they were gone we were bombing
> rice paddies.
>
Hence the term strategic.
You do the strategic bombing until Japan has no population, industry or
troop centers... You then do interdiction bombing on cars on the road, AAA
positions, and the like... then you move down to tactical strikes with
P-51s, F-8 Bearcats, F4Us, attacking anything that moves.
> >Blockade and Quarantine Japan, and let them all starve to death (continue
> >bombing).
>
> Japan was and is self-sufficient in rice. Most protein is from the
> ocean, lakes, and rivers. There would have been malnourishment, but
> once you kill most of the urban populations the rural folks would have
> been fine food-wise.
>
Yet many people argue that a blockade of Japan would have forced a
surrender... hmm...
> The bomb was used for several reasons not mentioned yet. Truman's
> biographer, David McCullough, describes the decision process he used
> while at the Potsdam Conference. He essentially, despite Gar
> Alpervitz's attempts to re-write history, never considered NOT using
> it. We'd spent billions developing it, it was a weapon, we were
> engaged in total war--we used it. No-brainer.
>
Actually, I think the cost was a secondary concern, but you nailed it on the
head right here ---
> Truman was also facing large and growing public pressure to get the
> troops home. VE Day was three months in the past, and there were near
> riots when ETO troops were told they'd be shipped to the Pacific. The
> domestic economy was marking time, building more consumer demand, and
> industry wanted to get on with the conversion. And, probably the
> biggest factor, the Soviets declared war on Japan as Stalin had
> promised FDR they would. Truman could see Soviet moves already
> developing in Eastern Europe and he didn't want them getting a toehold
> in China, or worse, Indo-China. He needed to end the war quickly.
>
A friend of my dad's was in ETO, and had orders for PTO, he was actually on
a ship in the Panama Canal when he heard about the atomic bomb...
Up until the day he died he had a huge picture of HST in every room of his
house, in his car, in his wallet, he loved that man...
Jonathan
> Steve
>
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
"Jonathan Levy" <j...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:f14b9fdb.0308...@posting.google.com...
> There is at least one other argument that I have not seen brought out.
> Better that the bomb be used at the end of WW II than at the
> beginning of the next war. Once created, weapons tend to be used.
Really?
How come we haven't seen biological weapons used on any scale? (sure there
are small usages in China by the Japanese...)
> For some reason, the world has managed to go 58 years without nuclear
> weapons being used -- let alone becoming just one more tool of war.
That is another fear... and a good point.
If we hadn't used them in 1945 and had 5 years to debate them, we would have
certainly used them against China (as some proposed) in the Korean War...
> Two uses at the end of a war followed by time for the world to see and
> consider their implications may have produced a better result than if
> we had entered Korea or some other subsequent war with nuclear weapons
> in our arsenal but less general understanding about what they really
> meant.
Well, GWB is reconstituting the US nuclear force, with an emphasis on
smaller, more likely to be used, tactical nukes...
Maybe 58 years was just long enough to forget about Heroshima and Nagasaki
(on this, 58th Anniversary of Hiroshima).
Jonathan
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> They might not have. Strategic bombing of the time was only useful
>> against massed industrial targets. Once they were gone we were bombing
>> rice paddies.
>>
>
>Hence the term strategic.
Strategic bombing is by definition strategic bombing against strategic
targets. Food supplies can be strategic targets; we had a
comprehensive program of bombing rice paddy dikes in North Vietnam for
example. Didn't work there either, but the attempt was made, albeit
with better hardware and more chance of success.
>You do the strategic bombing until Japan has no population,
A war crime then, and now.
industry or
>troop centers... You then do interdiction bombing on cars on the road,
Who is driving? You already killed everyone.
AAA
>positions, and the like... then you move down to tactical strikes with
>P-51s, F-8 Bearcats, F4Us, attacking anything that moves.
If what's moving is farmers you're into war crime land again.
This whole "kill them all, let God know his own" strategy you propose
also presumes that American GIs and pilots could kill civilians by the
tens of millions--worse than what the Nazis did to the USSR in four
years--and suffer no ill-effects, offer no resistance, foment no
refusal to follow orders. I think the planners were naive.
>Yet many people argue that a blockade of Japan would have forced a
>surrender... hmm...
We don't know. It would have allowed large numbers of troops to be
do-mobbed, which was the more pressing political issue. The Japanese
merchant marine was gone. I believe the IJN was two light cruisers and
a variety of yard craft. They had no petroleum or rubber. They would
have been easy to blockade.
>Actually, I think the cost was a secondary concern, but you nailed it on the
>head right here ---
Truman specifically mentions sunk costs in the documents used by
McCullough.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jeffrey Wheeler
> We have been looking into assasinating Castro for 40 years, is Cuba an
enemy
> of the US?
If we recognize that Castro is a murderous, anti-American, dictatorial
pr*ck sitting off a coast of the United States, then yes.
> And he was not, and never has been a real threat to the US or her
interests.
Which is why we had Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Fox, and
engaged in acts of war with his regime every day for over a decade...
> Yep, you are right, by Bush's definition, since Iraq did not ally with the
> US during the War on Terror, then they are an enemy...
Iraq was not acting as the modern equivalent of World War II
Switzerland, Jonathan.
> US interests often conflict with many nations, this does not make them
> enemies... we each just have different foreign policy goals.
I don't call promoting the murder of Americans to be simply a different
policy goal, and Iraq was doing that and more.
> Citation please?
Well, let's consider a few bits of Iraq's recent history...
In September of 1980, Iraq began an eight-year war against Iran,
utilizing WMDs against Iran's military and firing ballistic missiles at
Iranian cities. Meanwhile, Shiite Muslims in Iraq were viewed by Saddam as
inferior to his predominately Sunni army in fighting Iran, and were
subsequently killed by the thousands.
February 1988 saw Iraq 'relocate' Kurds from their homes, killing as
many as 180,000 civilians with the use of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, VX, and
poisons dropped in food, water, agriculture and animal supplies. The
following March, Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurdish town of Halabja,
killing approximately 5,000 people and promoting birth defects that continue
to affect families today.
In August of 1990, Iraq began seven months of occupation in Kuwait,
committing atrocities against more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians, placed
civilians inside & around Iraq military targets in a failed attempt to deter
the Gulf War's liberation forces, placed military targets near schools and
hospitals and residential neighborhoods for the same reason, took and
tortured hostages and POWS. Not all were returned, and what evidence remains
indicates they were likely executed. Iraqi forces setting fire to the
nation's oil wells destroyed forty percent of Kuwait's water supply--the
economic and ecological consequences of will last countless generations.
Mass graves were found in Iraq, and the Western public began to hear the
firsthand accounts of Iraqi dissidents about everyday torture and death at
the hands of government officials: Lives sent feet first through plastic
shredders, menstruating women stripped and suspended by their legs,
electrocution chambers used to interrogate suspects, men made to watch their
wives or daughters being raped, individual cases of poisons slowly,
painfully ripping biological functions apart. The United States, France, and
Great Britain formed a non-UN aerial observation program known as a 'no-fly
zone' over Northern Iraq to protect the repressed Kurdish population; this
occurred in April 1991. To improve conditions in Iraq, the United States
provided Iraq $36 billion in humanitarian support, food, and medicine;
however, Iraq siphoned most of the aid elsewhere, refused $3bn of it, and
rejected $1bn in additional US aid distributed through existing United
Nations reconstruction funds.
Throughout the 1990s, Iraq drained the largest and diverse marshlands in
the Middle East--they were populated by about 500,000 Ma'dan Arabs, Shias
whose culture in the region stretches back from the Sumerians more than
5,000 years ago, joined efforts to overthrow the government, and Saddam
retaliated by damming their marshes and reducing their population in Iraq to
less than 10,000 individuals. A no-fly zone over Southern Iraq followed in
August 1992.
Iraq extended its hostilities to include an assassination attempt on
former President George HW Bush while he visited Kuwait in April of 1993, as
well as an attempt to re-invade Kuwait in October of the following year. At
the end of August 1996, Iraq assisted in the capture of the Kurdish capital
of Erbil, forever silencing many of those Kurds opposed to Saddam Hussein.
France bowed to Iraqi promises of the largest Iraq oil deal outside the
Middle East and an annual $3 billion trade in exchange for ending
involvement with the northern zone in 1996 and the southern zone in 1998;
longtime Iraq allies China and Russia engaged in similar agreements
involving policy deals, including those at the United Nations. UN
inspections at the mercy of the regime prompted US and UK forces to bomb
suspected weapons sites in Iraq in 1998. President Bill Clinton shortly
thereafter signed the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998, making regime change in
Iraq an official US national security policy, and in 1999 another
assassination plot was foiled.
Through frequently illegal deals with Russia, France, China, Egypt, the
United Arab Emirates, and Syria, Iraq was able to significantly increase its
income to such a degree that oil revenue went from $4 billion in 1997 to $18
billion in 2000. France initially supported a resolution drafted by the
United States and the United Kingdom in early 2001 to "isolate Saddam
Hussein's government and prevent him from rebuilding his military or
developing weapons of mass destruction" through 'smart' sanctions against
Iraq, but France changed positions when Iraq temporarily cut oil exports to
France and halved its imports of French goods & services. Russia vetoed the
proposal, and shortly thereafter received an oil deal from Iraq valued at
$40 billion, on top of $8 billion Iraq owed for past arms exports. Again,
the Iraqi people saw little money. Though the UN's Oil for Food program was
arranged to ensure that sanctions against Iraq did not harm the general
populace, the Iraqi government increasingly used loopholes in the process to
fund other projects. In June 2002, Saddam Hussein reduced Oil for Food
funding for medical supplies to a mere $40 million, and redirected $25
million in humanitarian aid to update sports facilities.
Up until the fall of Hussein's government in April 2003, Iraqi
dissidents were regularly imprisoned, tortured, killed, mutilated, and
raped. Iraqi prisons like Abu Ghraib saw as many as 60 executions in a day.
The Iraqi regime supported terrorist causes, ranging from at least political
support for the World Trade Center attacks, to providing financial rewards
to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and a haven for the People's
Mujahideen. Uganda's Allied Democratic Forces, a terrorist group friendly to
Al Qaeda, kept in touch with the Iraqi intelligence service. Deceits
regarding banned weapons programs were acknowledged unanimously by the
United Nations Security Council, and even as the curtain began to fall on
Hussein's Iraqi regime UN weapons inspector Hans Blix reiterated concerns
regarding Iraq's failure to provide "immediate, active, unconditional, full
cooperation," with the only point of contention among the major world powers
being how to deal with that failure.
So if the Iraqi government wasn't an enemy of the United States, how
wicked does a regime have to be in order to become one? I suppose North
Korea is just having a difference of opinion?
And then there is this:
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/index.ssf?/base/news-10/105997525225580.xml
Jonathan
> This whole "kill them all, let God know his own" strategy you propose
No, not propose, postulate.
I think the nukes worked quite well.
I was trying to think of alternatives... Personally, I don't think any of
the alternatives would have killed less people or ended the war quickly.
> also presumes that American GIs and pilots could kill civilians by the
> tens of millions--worse than what the Nazis did to the USSR in four
> years--and suffer no ill-effects, offer no resistance, foment no
> refusal to follow orders. I think the planners were naive.
>
I have seen segments of Operation Downfall that called for using chemical
weapons on the Japanese Islands...
In fact, I have read articles about large stockpiles of Chem sent to PTO in
the Spring/Sumer of 1945...
> >Yet many people argue that a blockade of Japan would have forced a
> >surrender... hmm...
>
> We don't know. It would have allowed large numbers of troops to be
> do-mobbed, which was the more pressing political issue. The Japanese
> merchant marine was gone. I believe the IJN was two light cruisers and
> a variety of yard craft. They had no petroleum or rubber. They would
> have been easy to blockade.
>
However, there is still the matter of some 3500 planes... that could be a
regular threat to your blockade force....
I think a blockade, coupled with interdiction bombing might have worked...
but you would still have to bring pressure to Japanese populaiton centers...
> >Actually, I think the cost was a secondary concern, but you nailed it on
the
> >head right here ---
>
> Truman specifically mentions sunk costs in the documents used by
> McCullough.
>
That money was spent before he took office...
And I think it was Fermi who said that it didn't matter if they built a
bomb, the spinoffs for physics were worth the expense.
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bgpi9...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> > We have been looking into assasinating Castro for 40 years, is Cuba an
> enemy
> > of the US?
>
> If we recognize that Castro is a murderous, anti-American, dictatorial
> pr*ck sitting off a coast of the United States, then yes.
>
He is a minor annoyance at best.
If he were a real enemy, we wouldn't be delivering Cubans back to him, we
wouldn't allow people in the US to send him millions of dollars, and we
wouldn't permit our allies to trade with him.
> > And he was not, and never has been a real threat to the US or her
> interests.
>
> Which is why we had Operation Desert Storm, Operation Desert Fox, and
> engaged in acts of war with his regime every day for over a decade...
>
In for a penny, in for a pound...
We decided to help the Kuwaitis in 1991, we dicked it up, and so we had to
protect Kurds and Shiites for the following 10 years...
> > Yep, you are right, by Bush's definition, since Iraq did not ally with
the
> > US during the War on Terror, then they are an enemy...
>
> Iraq was not acting as the modern equivalent of World War II
> Switzerland, Jonathan.
>
Who said they were?
> > US interests often conflict with many nations, this does not make them
> > enemies... we each just have different foreign policy goals.
>
> I don't call promoting the murder of Americans to be simply a
different
> policy goal, and Iraq was doing that and more.
>
Well, OBL actually killed a few thousand Americans.... and we have diverted
most of the military to fight Iraq... does that make any sense?
> > Citation please?
>
> Well, let's consider a few bits of Iraq's recent history...
> In September of 1980, Iraq began an eight-year war against Iran,
> utilizing WMDs against Iran's military and firing ballistic missiles at
> Iranian cities.
Chemical weapons... using the term WMD is a cute way of saying he used
everything... he never used bio agents or nuclear weapons on Iran (or on
anyone else).
> Meanwhile, Shiite Muslims in Iraq were viewed by Saddam as
> inferior to his predominately Sunni army in fighting Iran, and were
> subsequently killed by the thousands.
An internal matter for Iraq.
> February 1988 saw Iraq 'relocate' Kurds from their homes, killing as
> many as 180,000 civilians with the use of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, VX,
and
> poisons dropped in food, water, agriculture and animal supplies.
Again, no biological weapons used.
> The
> following March, Iraq used chemical weapons on the Kurdish town of
Halabja,
> killing approximately 5,000 people and promoting birth defects that
continue
> to affect families today.
Chem, not bio.
> In August of 1990, Iraq began seven months of occupation in Kuwait,
> committing atrocities against more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians, placed
> civilians inside & around Iraq military targets in a failed attempt to
deter
> the Gulf War's liberation forces, placed military targets near schools and
> hospitals and residential neighborhoods for the same reason, took and
> tortured hostages and POWS.
Again, not evidence of the use of biological agents.
> Not all were returned, and what evidence remains
> indicates they were likely executed. Iraqi forces setting fire to the
> nation's oil wells destroyed forty percent of Kuwait's water supply--the
> economic and ecological consequences of will last countless generations.
> Mass graves were found in Iraq, and the Western public began to hear the
> firsthand accounts of Iraqi dissidents about everyday torture and death at
> the hands of government officials: Lives sent feet first through plastic
> shredders, menstruating women stripped and suspended by their legs,
> electrocution chambers used to interrogate suspects, men made to watch
their
> wives or daughters being raped, individual cases of poisons slowly,
> painfully ripping biological functions apart.
So, you are saying that Saddam was evil? Ok, I will concede that point...
But, I asked for a citation on Iraqi use of biological weapons against an
enemy.
> Iraq extended its hostilities to include an assassination attempt on
> former President George HW Bush
Ah... the real reason, revenge for an assasination attempt of his dad....
> So if the Iraqi government wasn't an enemy of the United States, how
> wicked does a regime have to be in order to become one?
It has nothing to do with wicked... it has to do with threats... Iraq was
not a threat to the US... and since the Iraqi people didn't and don't want
us there, they shouldn't have been liberated by us.
I am actually sorry that Saddam Hussein is gone, these people did not
deserve to be freed from him.
And the fact that Americans have died for those ungrateful fucks, makes this
all the more unnecessary.
> I suppose North
> Korea is just having a difference of opinion?
North Korea is an active enemy of the US...
But, the statement being challenged was that Iraq had not used biological
weapons, and I have still seen not a thing to suggest otherwise.
Jonathan
David Johnston
Since they weren't hoping to terrorise the Americans into submission
with a demonstration, the analogy doesn't seem relevant.
David Marc Nieporent
> But, the statement being challenged was that Iraq had not used
> biological weapons, and I have still seen not a thing to suggest
> otherwise.
Then you need to do some research on aflatoxin.
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://tollbooth.blogspot.com
Jonathan
> Jonathan wrote:
>
> > But, the statement being challenged was that Iraq had not used
> > biological weapons, and I have still seen not a thing to suggest
> > otherwise.
>
> Then you need to do some research on aflatoxin.
>
And I have seen quiet a few references saying that Iraq has weaponized all
sorts of Bio agents... but not a single instance of its use...
If you have a cite for Iraqi use of biological weapons, then provide it...
Jonathan
David Marc Nieporent
>>> But, the statement being challenged was that Iraq had not used
>>> biological weapons, and I have still seen not a thing to suggest
>>> otherwise.
>> Then you need to do some research on aflatoxin.
> And I have seen quiet a few references saying that Iraq has
> weaponized all sorts of Bio agents... but not a single instance of
> its use...
> If you have a cite for Iraqi use of biological weapons, then provide
> it...
Jeffrey Goldberg had a detailed article in the New Yorker discussing it
several months ago; the evidence was not conclusive, but it was definitely
there.
Jonathan
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:bgrnor$rjucu$1...@ID-90378.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Jonathan wrote:
> > "David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in
> >> Jonathan wrote:
>
> >>> But, the statement being challenged was that Iraq had not used
> >>> biological weapons, and I have still seen not a thing to suggest
> >>> otherwise.
>
> >> Then you need to do some research on aflatoxin.
>
> > And I have seen quiet a few references saying that Iraq has
> > weaponized all sorts of Bio agents... but not a single instance of
> > its use...
> > If you have a cite for Iraqi use of biological weapons, then provide
> > it...
>
> Jeffrey Goldberg had a detailed article in the New Yorker discussing it
> several months ago; the evidence was not conclusive, but it was definitely
> there.
>
Do you have a link?
What was the target, how were the weapons delivered (aerosol, missile,
mortar, blankets)?
What casualties were achieved?
Jonathan
Brett A. Pasternack
> Two uses at the end of a war followed by time for the world to see and
> consider their implications may have produced a better result than if
> we had entered Korea or some other subsequent war with nuclear weapons
> in our arsenal but less general understanding about what they really
> meant.
Fascinating point, and I think you're onto something. Until one was
actually used, I don't know that we would have really understood what
would happen. And in the meantime the bombs were becoming more powerful.
You make a good case that if we hadn't used them then, the end result
might well have been worse.
Jonathan
"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3F3166...@erols.com...
Imagine if we the first one we used had been a 200 MTon Fusion device on the
North Korean/Chinese border?
Wow... this sounds really bizarre, but we are really lucky that the biggest
thing we had in 45 was a 20 kton fission bomb...
Jonathan
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>If he were a real enemy, we wouldn't be delivering Cubans back to him, we
>wouldn't allow people in the US to send him millions of dollars, and we
>wouldn't permit our allies to trade with him.
WE trade with him. (Well, Cuba.)
Steve
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I was trying to think of alternatives... Personally, I don't think any of
>the alternatives would have killed less people or ended the war quickly.
There were alternatives that probably would have killed fewer people.
There were no alternatives that would have worked quickly.
>> also presumes that American GIs and pilots could kill civilians by the
>> tens of millions--worse than what the Nazis did to the USSR in four
>> years--and suffer no ill-effects, offer no resistance, foment no
>> refusal to follow orders. I think the planners were naive.
>>
>
>I have seen segments of Operation Downfall that called for using chemical
>weapons on the Japanese Islands...
So? It was a planning document. It would have taken presidential
permission to execute. There is no way Truman would have ordered the
mass gassing of civilian populations.
Although the US never ratified the 1920s anti-chemical treaty (neither
did Japan), it was the policy of the US not to use chemical weapons
first. In 1943 FDR said: "Use of such weapons has been outlawed by the
general opinion of civilized mankind.
This country has not used them, and I hope that we never will be
compelled to use them. I state categorically that we shall under no
circumstances resort to the use of such weapons unless they are first
used by our enemies."
http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/geneva1.html
>In fact, I have read articles about large stockpiles of Chem sent to PTO in
>the Spring/Sumer of 1945...
Large quantities of chemical weapons were sent to Italy in 1943, and
killed 83 US troops after the Germans bombed the ship carrying mustard
gas. We still never used them in combat.
>However, there is still the matter of some 3500 planes... that could be a
>regular threat to your blockade force....
There was no gas. There were few pilots who could get a plane off the
ground, let alone target a moving vessel. The Okinawa campaign
devastated the kamikaze force.
For that matter we had more than enough submarines to enforce a
blockade, with the carriers over the horizon. The Japanese had no
merchant marine, and what maritime nation left on the planet was going
to risk trying to run a blockade against the most powerful navy the
world has ever seen?
>I think a blockade, coupled with interdiction bombing might have worked...
>but you would still have to bring pressure to Japanese populaiton centers...
No, you have to bring pressure on the Emperor.
>> >Actually, I think the cost was a secondary concern, but you nailed it on
>the
>> >head right here ---
>>
>> Truman specifically mentions sunk costs in the documents used by
>> McCullough.
>>
>
>That money was spent before he took office...
Thus the term "sunk costs." But Truman had a deep sense of public
responsibility, and was very personally frugal.
>And I think it was Fermi who said that it didn't matter if they built a
>bomb, the spinoffs for physics were worth the expense.
Fermi wasn't a politician.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Imagine if we the first one we used had been a 200 MTon Fusion device on the
>North Korean/Chinese border?
You have an extra zero there, plus 5 extra MT. The crazy Russians
never went above about 60 MT, and we weren't that crazy.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
"Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:sJ4Ya.33$7z1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> I think the gist of this point of yours is made often, although IIRC I
have
> seen Dresden compared to Hiroshima more often than Tokyo. At least,
Dresden
> is the WWII city that comes to my mind when people want to point out that
> the allied's conventional weapons were 'comparably effective' to the nukes
> at killing civilians.
>
Actually the firebombing of Tokyo, 14-15 MAR 1945, was far more deadly than
the bombing of Dresden... but since it took over 1000 bombers 2 days of
bombing to do the damage...
I think the main complaint was that Hiroshima was easy... one bomber, one
bomb....
Jonathan
Jonathan
<oldunc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:83d5f6bf.03080...@posting.google.com...
Nuclear weapons testing by the US in the Pacific.
Jonathan
Jonathan
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 20:56:14 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Imagine if we the first one we used had been a 200 MTon Fusion device on
the
> >North Korean/Chinese border?
>
> You have an extra zero there, plus 5 extra MT. The crazy Russians
> never went above about 60 MT, and we weren't that crazy.
>
You are right, however, the Russians did build a 100 Mton bomb, the Tsar
Bomba, of which a scaled down version (at 50 Mton) was tested (holding the
record for the largest man-made explosion to date).
The largest US bomb was 9 Mton...
I do remember something called a Davey Crocket that was about 0.1 ktons and
weighed only 50 pounds or so...
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Roman J. Rohleder
>>> > Iraq did not use biological weapons on a neighbor
>
>>> Iraq did, too.
>
>>Citation please?
>
>Do some research. Go look up "Iran Iraq war" in a book.
Ah, the first Gulf War.
There was usage of chemical weapons on both sides (with Iraq using it
more than Iran), but no biological warfare that is publicly known.
>---------------------------------------------
>David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Gruss, Roman
Roman J. Rohleder
>
>"Jonathan Levy" <j...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
>news:f14b9fdb.0308...@posting.google.com...
>> There is at least one other argument that I have not seen brought out.
>> Better that the bomb be used at the end of WW II than at the
>> beginning of the next war. Once created, weapons tend to be used.
>
>Really?
>
>How come we haven't seen biological weapons used on any scale? (sure there
>are small usages in China by the Japanese...)
Actually, biological warfare has a long history. I would define
"throwing plague infected bodies over the fortification of a city" as
biological warfare. Or leaving bodies in water ressources... At least
the intention and the result is the same but the method.
>Jonathan
Gruss, Roman
Jonathan
"Roman J. Rohleder" <rjr_g...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:5kc3jvkd87je6ru85...@4ax.com...
> David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> schrieb:
>
> >>> > Iraq did not use biological weapons on a neighbor
> >
> >>> Iraq did, too.
> >
> >>Citation please?
> >
> >Do some research. Go look up "Iran Iraq war" in a book.
>
> Ah, the first Gulf War.
>
> There was usage of chemical weapons on both sides (with Iraq using it
> more than Iran), but no biological warfare that is publicly known.
>
And don't you think that if Iraq had used bio agents, Bush would have been
talking about it every 5 mins...?
Jonathan
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> schrieb:
> >
> >"Jonathan Levy" <j...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
> >news:f14b9fdb.0308...@posting.google.com...
> >> There is at least one other argument that I have not seen brought out.
> >> Better that the bomb be used at the end of WW II than at the
> >> beginning of the next war. Once created, weapons tend to be used.
> >
> >Really?
> >
> >How come we haven't seen biological weapons used on any scale? (sure
there
> >are small usages in China by the Japanese...)
>
> Actually, biological warfare has a long history. I would define
> "throwing plague infected bodies over the fortification of a city" as
> biological warfare.
Always very small scale...
If the USSR used its bio stockpile on the US, you would see 100 million dead
in a matter of weeks...
Jonathan
Jonathan
"shawn" <sh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:o6a3jvk72tqdcftbv...@4ax.com...
> border?
Depends, with a Cobalt reinforced casing...
Irradiate most of SE China, the DPRK and Japan.
Kill about 30-50 million people over a few years...
> Would it have been more of a terror device to scare them into
> giving up?
There would be nothing to surrender...
> Would it have killed numerous soldiers?
It would have killed millions, women, children, soldiers, people in other
countries...
> Also how likely
> would such an act have been to cause the Chinese to declare war
> against the US?
I would thin somewhere in the neighborhood of 100% likelihood.
> What kind of war would they have conducted?
Massive human wave attacks, and they would have had the support of the
USSR... so nuclear bombers over the poles...
> I've never
> heard of them having much of a Navy or Air Force so would any such war
> have been limited to Asia?
It isn't China, per se, it is her ally, the big Bear to the North...
Jonathan
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>What was the target, how were the weapons delivered (aerosol, missile,
>mortar, blankets)?
It's also important to distinguish between biological weapons, and
biological agents used as weapons. Many agents are classed as
biological, but are really just forms of chemical weapons produced by
biological processes. Aflatoxin, ricin, and botulinum are in this
category--they aren't alive and can't reproduce themselves. True
biological weapons have DNA and can reproduce in a host or in a
favorable growth environment. Smallpox and plague for example.
Aflatoxin in concentrated doses can be very nasty, but it grows
naturally in the soil (actually about thirteen varieties I think) and
is found in peanuts and other ground grains. When I worked at Planters
we had to be extraordinarily careful about sourcing from regions with
semi-drought as aflatoxin growth accelerates in dry conditions. We did
extensive chemical testing of all incoming raw shipments no matter
where grown.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
David Marc Nieporent
>> There is at least one other argument that I have not seen brought out.
>> Better that the bomb be used at the end of WW II than at the
>> beginning of the next war. Once created, weapons tend to be used.
>Really?
>How come we haven't seen biological weapons used on any scale? (sure there
>are small usages in China by the Japanese...)
There were widespread uses in China by the Japanese; there was also uses
against American Indians.
But there's no use on a widespread scale because it's a crappy military
weapon. It's an excellent _terrorist_ weapon, if perfected, but a crappy
military one.
Thom Wilkerson
>Japan also isn't a culture that is prone to
> protest...
Was there supposed to be a smiley somewhere? Or do you know nothing of
Japanese politics?
Did you not catch news of the near riot that those "reserved and staid'
Japanese legislators had in the Diet last week over the decision to send
mere support troops to Iraq?
Haven't you ever see pictures of the Japanese demonstrators hurling
molatov cocktails at police over mass layoffs, plant closures or even
the building of Haneda Airport forcing the police to meet them with a
huge phalanx dressed in full riot gear?
When the Japanese riot, they are matched only by the Koreans for their
utter ferocity.
After Iwo Jima, American planners were well aware that the Japanese
would fight to the death to their last child to 'defend the Home
Islands' and not surrender unless the Emperor himself expressly told
them to.
If Hirohito wouldn't surrender after 100,000 died in one night of the
Tokyo firebombing, IMO the A-bomb was truly the only way.
When the Japanese beg the world forgiveness for Pearl, Bataan, Nanking,
and their horrifically sadistic chem and bio experiments used on US and
Chinese POWs that would even make Hitler blush, then I'll think about
Hiroshima.
Thom Wilkerson
>As for those making comments that we
> should have shown the effects of the
> bomb to the Japanese without bombing
> a city - be real - did the Japanese attack
> bombed Pearl Harbor?
Yah, Great point!
Transition Zone
Yet, here, sometimes there is no intention and the results effect a two
edged sword.
Caliban
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and some people don't care if the
whole word becomes blind and toothless.
Thom Wilkerson
>An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,
> and some people don't care if the whole
> word becomes blind and toothless.
Jonathan
> >> What kind of war would they have conducted?
> >
> >Massive human wave attacks, and they would have had the support of the
> >USSR... so nuclear bombers over the poles...
>
> nuclear bomb in North Korea. It looks like if we hadn't used the bombs
> against Japan they wouldn't have been used anywhere since then.
That is exactly the opposite of the point.
If we hadn't used them on Japan and studied the effects, we WOULD have used
them on Korea...
BTW, who can tell me how many nukes the US had when North Korea invaded
South Korea... (answer at bottom).
> Ever
> since that time we've either had the possibility of someone else
> getting involved in the war that has nuclear weapons, or they would
> have been massive overkill. After all once the USSR had nukes it
> wasn't likely we would allow ourselves to get in a shooting war with
> them, and using nuclear weapons against a country like Iraq is
> counter-productive.
The point is that since we used them on Japan we knew what their effects
were on cities... if we hadn't, we wouldn't have, and boom boom boom...
Jonathan
We had 2.
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>BTW, who can tell me how many nukes the US had when North Korea invaded
>South Korea... (answer at bottom).
I'm not sure where you got that answer, but it's irrelevant. We could
make more quickly. Further, Mac's plan didn't involve bombs. He wanted
to spread a miles-deep band of radioactive dust along the Yalu to
bottle-up the Chinese (and the next 100,000 years be damned.)
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
I remember reading something about that (Machester's biography?)...
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
> "Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"shawn" <sh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> >news:41v4jv02b25hudato...@4ax.com...
> >> >> What kind of war would they have conducted?
> >> >
> >> >Massive human wave attacks, and they would have had the support of the
> >> >USSR... so nuclear bombers over the poles...
> >>
> >> So that brings up a good explanation of why we wouldn't have used a
> >> nuclear bomb in North Korea. It looks like if we hadn't used the bombs
> >> against Japan they wouldn't have been used anywhere since then.
> >
> >That is exactly the opposite of the point.
> >
> >If we hadn't used them on Japan and studied the effects, we WOULD have
used
> >them on Korea...
>
Explained above...
> One of the reasons we never used
> nuclear weapons after Japan is due to the threat of the USSR
> retaliating our use of nuclear weapons with their nukes. So why do you
> think it's only after we knew the effects of nukes that we decided not
> to use them? I'm sure it's a part of the decision, but I would think
> the threat of the USSR getting involved was more of a reason not to
> use them.
I will grant that... but we are wildly speculating here...
If the US hadn't used them in Japan, how quick would the Russians have been
to get them?
By showing a willingness to use them, we probably spiked Stalin's fears of a
preemptive attack on the USSR...
> Heck, you brought up the support of the USSR as one reason
> we didn't use them. Do you think their support would never have
> included nukes, even after we've used them in North Korea?
>
No.
But I also think that the blockade of Berlin did not become WW3 precisiely
because of American nukes... There was a very complicated game of chess
being played from 1945 through 1968... and I think the US willingness to use
nuclear weapons in Japan is the primary reason WW3 never happened.
Not using them in Korea may have even given the USSR some pause... what were
we saving them for if not to use them in war...
Again, wild speculation...
We were at war with the USSR in Korea anyways... (Russian pilots flying
MiG-15s...)...
Rambling...
Jonathan
>
David Johnston
>"Jonathan" <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"shawn" <sh...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>news:41v4jv02b25hudato...@4ax.com...
>>> >> What kind of war would they have conducted?
>>> >
>>> >Massive human wave attacks, and they would have had the support of the
>>> >USSR... so nuclear bombers over the poles...
>>>
>>> So that brings up a good explanation of why we wouldn't have used a
>>> nuclear bomb in North Korea. It looks like if we hadn't used the bombs
>>> against Japan they wouldn't have been used anywhere since then.
>>
>>That is exactly the opposite of the point.
>>
>>If we hadn't used them on Japan and studied the effects, we WOULD have used
>>them on Korea...
>
>Why do you think that is the case? One of the reasons we never used
>nuclear weapons after Japan is due to the threat of the USSR
>retaliating our use of nuclear weapons with their nukes. So why do you
>think it's only after we knew the effects of nukes that we decided not
>to use them? I'm sure it's a part of the decision, but I would think
>the threat of the USSR getting involved was more of a reason not to
>use them. Heck, you brought up the support of the USSR as one reason
>we didn't use them. Do you think their support would never have
>included nukes, even after we've used them in North Korea?
<Shrug> That's not really the issue. The issue is how scarey
nukes would be for a human race who had never used them.
Possibly the Americans would have regarded them as just
a big bomb rather than an apocalyptic horror, which is pretty
much how they regarded it before they used them on Japan.
So the Russians might use them in retaliation. So what?
The Americans know that the Russians don't have a delivery
system capable of delivering nukes to their shores, but NATO
is within striking range of the good bits of Russia. Who has
more to fear?
Jim
"Caliban" <cali...@earthlink.net> wrote:
If you simply allow people who wish to hurt you to do so - eventually you
will be blind and toothless and they won't.
There are times you have to act and act with a vengence.
Jonathan
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:02:34 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I was trying to think of alternatives... Personally, I don't think any of
> >the alternatives would have killed less people or ended the war quickly.
>
> There were alternatives that probably would have killed fewer people.
A Blockade may have... but I could see the war going on until the 1950s...
with a humanitarian catastrophe in Japan...
> There were no alternatives that would have worked quickly.
>
I am curious...
What was the thinking at the time... As I understood it, the joy of VJ way
surpassed any outcry of the bomb's use...
> >> also presumes that American GIs and pilots could kill civilians by the
> >> tens of millions--worse than what the Nazis did to the USSR in four
> >> years--and suffer no ill-effects, offer no resistance, foment no
> >> refusal to follow orders. I think the planners were naive.
> >>
> >
> >I have seen segments of Operation Downfall that called for using chemical
> >weapons on the Japanese Islands...
>
> So? It was a planning document. It would have taken presidential
> permission to execute. There is no way Truman would have ordered the
> mass gassing of civilian populations.
>
I would need to see some evidence of that...
> Although the US never ratified the 1920s anti-chemical treaty (neither
> did Japan), it was the policy of the US not to use chemical weapons
> first. In 1943 FDR said: "Use of such weapons has been outlawed by the
> general opinion of civilized mankind.
>
While I would like to believe the US would not have used chemical weapons
first, an argument could have been made that since the Japanese used
Chemical and Biological agents in China, it would not have been first use.
> This country has not used them, and I hope that we never will be
> compelled to use them. I state categorically that we shall under no
> circumstances resort to the use of such weapons unless they are first
> used by our enemies."
>
> http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/geneva1.html
>
I doubt, that even if an enemy used NBC on us, that we would respond with
NBC... there just isn't any need... and the weapons are too dangerous (for
our own forces)....
> >In fact, I have read articles about large stockpiles of Chem sent to PTO
in
> >the Spring/Sumer of 1945...
>
> Large quantities of chemical weapons were sent to Italy in 1943, and
> killed 83 US troops after the Germans bombed the ship carrying mustard
> gas. We still never used them in combat.
>
I didn't suggest that we had... I am suggesting that if chemical weapons
were in theater (they were), and if the invasion bogged down, the temptation
to use them would have far surpassed any moral question....
> >I think a blockade, coupled with interdiction bombing might have
worked...
> >but you would still have to bring pressure to Japanese populaiton
centers...
>
> No, you have to bring pressure on the Emperor.
>
Which is what we did... I keep hearing that Herohito's radio address of Aug
14th was the first time most Japanese had ever heard his voice...
> >And I think it was Fermi who said that it didn't matter if they built a
> >bomb, the spinoffs for physics were worth the expense.
>
> Fermi wasn't a politician.
>
That wasn't my point.
Even if the Manhattan Project had not been succesful in building a bomb, the
advancements in physics were worth it...
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
"Thom Wilkerson" <th...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20947-3F3...@storefull-2357.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> When the Japanese beg the world forgiveness for Pearl, Bataan, Nanking,
> and their horrifically sadistic chem and bio experiments used on US and
> Chinese POWs that would even make Hitler blush, then I'll think about
> Hiroshima.
>
IIRC, didn't Bill Clinton apologize to Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Jonathan
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> There were alternatives that probably would have killed fewer people.
>
>A Blockade may have... but I could see the war going on until the 1950s...
Not me.
>with a humanitarian catastrophe in Japan...
As I said, they could feed themselves. They might have reverted to
1600 A.D., but I don't see a humanitarian catastrophe. Lots dead from
lack of medical care, but not starvation, and with no contact with the
outside world little chance of an epidemic.
>I am curious...
>
>What was the thinking at the time... As I understood it, the joy of VJ way
>surpassed any outcry of the bomb's use...
Generally speaking there was no thought to it in the way we see it
now. Only that the war was over and things would get back to where
they had been in 1929.
Charlie Bass, Truman's best friend and later press secretary, urged
him not to us the bomb, accurately foreseeing the new world it would
open up, but Truman weighed the alternatives and went ahead. Back at
the U. I looked up the microfilm of the major papers for that month
for a research paper and as I recall they were more about the
technical marvel of splitting the atom than they were about any moral
or geopolitical qualms. Lots of Sunday-supplement stories about what
an "atomic" bomb was. Readers of pulp fiction knew, but the average
citizen had no science schooling.
>> >I have seen segments of Operation Downfall that called for using chemical
>> >weapons on the Japanese Islands...
>>
>> So? It was a planning document. It would have taken presidential
>> permission to execute. There is no way Truman would have ordered the
>> mass gassing of civilian populations.
>>
>
>I would need to see some evidence of that...
Truman had been in office about 90 days when FDR died. He continued
his policies in many areas. Chemical weapon usage would be one of
them. Given his WWI veteran status and the degree of international
outrage over the gas chambers at the concentration camps (known by
August 1945), no decision to use cheahvemical weapons would have been
left with theater commanders. It would have taken presidential
authority, and Truman would not have given it.
>> Although the US never ratified the 1920s anti-chemical treaty (neither
>> did Japan), it was the policy of the US not to use chemical weapons
>> first. In 1943 FDR said: "Use of such weapons has been outlawed by the
>> general opinion of civilized mankind.
>
>While I would like to believe the US would not have used chemical weapons
>first, an argument could have been made that since the Japanese used
>Chemical and Biological agents in China, it would not have been first use.
This was not widely known in 1945 except to those privy to
intelligence information. Further, the Japanese did not use chemical
weapons on US forces, although they could have numerous times.
>I didn't suggest that we had... I am suggesting that if chemical weapons
>were in theater (they were), and if the invasion bogged down, the temptation
>to use them would have far surpassed any moral question....
Perhaps, on the battlefield. But you were earlier discussing
large-scale depopulation of southern Japan by wholesale use of nerve
agents on tens of millions of civilians. That would never have
happened. I personally believe US air crews would have refused those
orders as well.
>Which is what we did... I keep hearing that Herohito's radio address of Aug
>14th was the first time most Japanese had ever heard his voice...
True. And in a blockade scenario, without the press of time,
back-channel diplomacy efforts would have increased ten-fold.
Steve
Jonathan
> >I didn't suggest that we had... I am suggesting that if chemical weapons
> >were in theater (they were), and if the invasion bogged down, the
temptation
> >to use them would have far surpassed any moral question....
>
> Perhaps, on the battlefield. But you were earlier discussing
> large-scale depopulation of southern Japan
Actually, just Kyushu...
The plan was to invade the island from the South, set up a cordon across the
middle of the island and stage a secure defense of that perimeter... then
run heavy bombers out of Southern Kushu into Okaido and other areas (this
was supposed to begin November 1, 1945, and then in Feb, 1946 we would
assault from the sea, Tokyo proper...)
The plan I was referring to was a contingency plan against the reinforcement
of Northern Kyushu, using chemical artillery shells to stop any advance by
Japanese forces...
Personally, I think they would have needed to kill everyone on Kyushu for
this to work...
> by wholesale use of nerve
> agents on tens of millions of civilians. That would never have
> happened. I personally believe US air crews would have refused those
> orders as well.
>
Why would air crews that had firebombed cities even think twice about an
order to drop nerve agent?
Personally, I think the moral argument you are making doesn't wash in the
face of massive US casualties.
> >Which is what we did... I keep hearing that Herohito's radio address of
Aug
> >14th was the first time most Japanese had ever heard his voice...
>
> True. And in a blockade scenario, without the press of time,
> back-channel diplomacy efforts would have increased ten-fold.
>
To what extent?
The military-class in Japan was dead-set against surrender (under any
circumstances...)
> Steve
>
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>Why would air crews that had firebombed cities even think twice about an
>order to drop nerve agent?
Because fir-bombing nominally industrial targets is wholly different
than gassing civilians to make them go away. Fire destroys factories;
nerve agents just make them sticky. Targeting civilians because they
were civilians was a war crime then and is now. There is substantial
justification that an order to target civilians directly would have
been an illegal order and officers would have been bound by oath to
disobey.
>Personally, I think the moral argument you are making doesn't wash in the
>face of massive US casualties.
Besides a moral argument (which I try to never make as morality is
religion-based) there is a far better legal and political argument. A
nation gearing up for the Nuremberg trials shouldn't have been
exterminating millions of civilians.
>> True. And in a blockade scenario, without the press of time,
>> back-channel diplomacy efforts would have increased ten-fold.
>To what extent?
>
>The military-class in Japan was dead-set against surrender (under any
>circumstances...)
Yet they folded like cardboard when the Emperor made his decision, so
there was at least one operative circumstance that worked.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:29:13 GMT, "Jonathan"
> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Why would air crews that had firebombed cities even think twice about an
> >order to drop nerve agent?
>
> Because fir-bombing nominally industrial targets is wholly different
> than gassing civilians to make them go away.
Do you mean like Tokyo? Dresden? These were population centers... not
industrial sites (though Dresden did have a railroad marshalling yard that
was moving a German division to the Eastern front at the time).
> Fire destroys factories;
> nerve agents just make them sticky. Targeting civilians because they
> were civilians was a war crime then and is now. There is substantial
> justification that an order to target civilians directly would have
> been an illegal order and officers would have been bound by oath to
> disobey.
>
Wait a second.
Considering that the civilian population in Hiroshima was a consideration in
the decision to drop the bomb there, couldn't one argue that that was an
illegal order?
I am not fond of nukes because they are indiscriminate... I, like the USAAC
of WW2 did not like area bombing, and chose the far more risky daylight
bombing because they could do precision bombing (sort of... it was 1943...)
> >Personally, I think the moral argument you are making doesn't wash in the
> >face of massive US casualties.
>
> Besides a moral argument (which I try to never make as morality is
> religion-based) there is a far better legal and political argument. A
> nation gearing up for the Nuremberg trials shouldn't have been
> exterminating millions of civilians.
>
Is hundreds of thousands ok then?
I just don't think Japanese civilians were as much of a concern as you
claim... I think, in the Summer of 1945, killing 1000 Japanese civilians to
save the life of one American was a rational decision.
>
> >> True. And in a blockade scenario, without the press of time,
> >> back-channel diplomacy efforts would have increased ten-fold.
>
> >To what extent?
> >
> >The military-class in Japan was dead-set against surrender (under any
> >circumstances...)
>
> Yet they folded like cardboard when the Emperor made his decision, so
> there was at least one operative circumstance that worked.
>
Let's say the emporer had refused to surrender... and told his people to
fight to the last child standing.
How many Japanese would we have had to kill to end that war?
The reality here is that Shintoists believed that the Emporer was God's
representative on this Earth, they would have followed him to hell.
The only reason WW2 ended was because the emporer made that radio address...
and the only reason he made that radio address was because of the shock of
two cities disappearing.
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com
David Johnston
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:ajq2jv019v1fo6qas...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 18:02:34 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I was trying to think of alternatives... Personally, I don't think any of
>> >the alternatives would have killed less people or ended the war quickly.
>>
>> There were alternatives that probably would have killed fewer people.
>
>A Blockade may have... but I could see the war going on until the 1950s...
>with a humanitarian catastrophe in Japan...
>
>> There were no alternatives that would have worked quickly.
>>
>
>I am curious...
>
>What was the thinking at the time... As I understood it, the joy of VJ way
>surpassed any outcry of the bomb's use...
Why would anyone cry out at the use of the bomb at the time? The
taboo aainst the use of nuclear weapons developed during the
era of MAD.
Merlin Dorfman
...
: [I used to believe that nuking Japan was a horrible thing to do... then I
: read the operational details of Operation Downfall, the proposed (and in the
: process of execution) plan to invade Japan.
: After Okinawa, the US realized that the only way to take Japan was to use
: chemical weapons on the Japanese population... and planned to kill millions
: of Japanese, regardless of status.
Or an air and naval blockade, that would have starved tens of
millions of Japanese, while hundreds of thousands of Chinese and
Indonesians died in the ongoing war there. (We tend to forget that
the US was not the only nation fighting Japan.)
And even if Japan surrendered without the bomb, even within a
couple of months, deaths in Japan due to conventional bombing,
naval gunfire, disease, and starvation; and deaths in China and
Indonesia, would have exceeded deaths due to the bombs.
: The reality here is that nuking Japan was a horrific event, but considering
: the alternatives, it was the most humane thing to do.
I'm afraid you're right.
As for the argument that a demonstration drop should have been
made...one was made, on Hiroshima, and it did not cause Japan to
surrender.
Ultimately, we can't decide in retrospect, based on what we
know now, whether it was right to use the bomb. It has to be
decided based on what was known at the time. Truman wanted to end
the war as fast as possible, with the fewest additional deaths (not
only American but Japanese and others), and using the bombs seemed
to offer the best prospect of that.
Caliban
> As for the argument that a demonstration drop should have been
> made...one was made, on Hiroshima, and it did not cause Japan to
> surrender.
IIRC some historians indicate there was evidence that Japan was trying to
communicate its desire to surrender in the days between the two bombings. I
don't think it's as clearcut as you imply above.
Annie Keitz
wrote:
Yes! They were communicating with the Russians after the first bomb
drop. They were ready to surrender but wanted to keep their Emperor
-- short of the uncontitional surrender demanded by the allies. So
the second bomb was dropped.
In 20/20 hindsight, the first bomb met the criteria of a just action
but the second isn't so clear cut.
Annie Keitz
ke...@his.com
David Johnston
wrote:
>"Merlin Dorfman" <dor...@rahul.net>
>> As for the argument that a demonstration drop should have been
>> made...one was made, on Hiroshima, and it did not cause Japan to
>> surrender.
>
>IIRC some historians indicate there was evidence that Japan was trying to
>communicate its desire to surrender in the days between the two bombings.
No, Japan was communicating its desire to negotiate a peace treaty
between the two bombings. There's a difference.
Hunter Rose
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>I doubt, that even if an enemy used NBC on us, that we would respond with
>NBC... there just isn't any need... and the weapons are too dangerous (for
>our own forces)....
"Proportional response". Threatening to use NBC in response
to an NBC attack is a deterrent. Same with Nukes (and it worked).
HR
Caliban
Well, as I've suggested earlier, I myself don't feel very good about setting
the criteria of what "just" is, maybe especially as a citizen of the most
powerful country in the world which has thrown its weight around on many an
occasion.
This is just myself, of course. I do not stand on high moral ground with
this stance.
I was literally, personally preparing to go after the 9/11 perpetrators
within hours after it happened; there was no choice involved; as someone
connected with the military, one must; etc; and I didn't care how many
foreign civilians were killed "collaterally" in the process. For a short
while back then, perhaps I knew a little better the strife that Americans
felt after four years battling WWII. Nonetheless, I don't think I have
emphasized enough that a huge factor in my thinking is that these were
civilians we murdered en masse and point blank at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We
Americans should remember how we felt on 9/11 when some three thousand
innocents of our own were slaughtered.
Again, I do not condemn the decision to drop the first bomb. I just don't
applaud it, either.
As for the second bomb, glad to have you bear witness to the doubts about
its necessity.
Steve Bartman
<jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Bartman" <sbar...@visi.com> wrote in message
>news:fe08jv001b2tf357e...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 08 Aug 2003 18:29:13 GMT, "Jonathan"
>> <jrc...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Why would air crews that had firebombed cities even think twice about an
>> >order to drop nerve agent?
>>
>> Because fir-bombing nominally industrial targets is wholly different
>> than gassing civilians to make them go away.
>
>Do you mean like Tokyo? Dresden?
Yes. Industrial, military HQ, military training, communications, etc.
Not farm villages.
These were population centers... not
>industrial sites
Sorry, but they were.
(though Dresden did have a railroad marshalling yard that
>was moving a German division to the Eastern front at the time).
Transportation nexi are legitimate military targets.
>Wait a second.
>
>Considering that the civilian population in Hiroshima was a consideration in
>the decision to drop the bomb there,
I'd need a cite on that.
couldn't one argue that that was an
>illegal order?
No, because Hiroshima was a large industrial center, as was Nagasaki.
Kyoto was on the original target list but was removed because no
legitimate military purpose could be found, and it had incidental
cultural and emotional value we wanted to preserve for post-war.
>I am not fond of nukes because they are indiscriminate... I, like the USAAC
>of WW2 did not like area bombing, and chose the far more risky daylight
>bombing because they could do precision bombing (sort of... it was 1943...)
And the post-war strategic bombing survey showed that the effort in
Europe was largely ineffective.
>> >Personally, I think the moral argument you are making doesn't wash in the
>> >face of massive US casualties.
>>
>> Besides a moral argument (which I try to never make as morality is
>> religion-based) there is a far better legal and political argument. A
>> nation gearing up for the Nuremberg trials shouldn't have been
>> exterminating millions of civilians.
>
>Is hundreds of thousands ok then?
Hundreds of thousands as an effect of attacking military targets is a
tragedy, but legal. Hundreds of thousands killed for no reason is a
war crime, same as if we lined them up against a wall and
machine-gunned them.
>I just don't think Japanese civilians were as much of a concern as you
>claim... I think, in the Summer of 1945, killing 1000 Japanese civilians to
>save the life of one American was a rational decision.
If they were on a military target.
>> Yet they folded like cardboard when the Emperor made his decision, so
>> there was at least one operative circumstance that worked.
>>
>
>Let's say the emporer had refused to surrender... and told his people to
>fight to the last child standing.
Then I suspect we would have expended maximum effort to send him to
his ancestors and get a new batter up. He was always a legitimate
military target.
>How many Japanese would we have had to kill to end that war?
Speculation. My only point is the difference between combat legal
under international law, and murder. You should know the difference.
I'm the one who trained to kill wholesale; you were in the retail
business.
>The reality here is that Shintoists believed that the Emporer was God's
>representative on this Earth, they would have followed him to hell.
>
>The only reason WW2 ended was because the emporer made that radio address...
>and the only reason he made that radio address was because of the shock of
>two cities disappearing.
No, he made the radio address because he was fundamentally a good man.
The remainder of his life gave ample opportunity for him to
demonstrate that.
Steve
--
www.thepaxamsolution.com
Jonathan
"Hunter Rose" <hun...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:19i8jvo6v43beseel...@4ax.com...
Sure.
That is why Bush's announcement to develop smaller nukes, scares the crap
out of me... it implies that we have a president who believes that nuclear
weapons are not over the line in combat...
Jonathan
> HR
>
Jonathan
> >> Because fir-bombing nominally industrial targets is wholly different
> >> than gassing civilians to make them go away.
> >
> >Do you mean like Tokyo? Dresden?
>
> Yes. Industrial, military HQ, military training, communications, etc.
> Not farm villages.
>
> These were population centers... not
> >industrial sites
>
> Sorry, but they were.
>
I meant to say "not just"...
> (though Dresden did have a railroad marshalling yard that
> >was moving a German division to the Eastern front at the time).
>
> Transportation nexi are legitimate military targets.
>
I would not argue otherwise.
> >Wait a second.
> >
> >Considering that the civilian population in Hiroshima was a consideration
in
> >the decision to drop the bomb there,
>
> I'd need a cite on that.
>
Jim Burnes' and Henry Stimson's commission for target selection mentioned
that they wanted a target with worker's homes nearby so they could study the
effects on their homes.
> couldn't one argue that that was an
> >illegal order?
>
> No, because Hiroshima was a large industrial center, as was Nagasaki.
Mitsubishi torpedo plant in Hiroshima, et al... but another reason they were
selected is because they had no previous bomb damage...
It is interesting to note that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were viewed somewhat
as additional tests for the bomb...
> Kyoto was on the original target list but was removed because no
> legitimate military purpose could be found, and it had incidental
> cultural and emotional value we wanted to preserve for post-war.
>
Henry Stimson vetoed Kyoto...
> >I am not fond of nukes because they are indiscriminate... I, like the
USAAC
> >of WW2 did not like area bombing, and chose the far more risky daylight
> >bombing because they could do precision bombing (sort of... it was
1943...)
>
> And the post-war strategic bombing survey showed that the effort in
> Europe was largely ineffective.
>
It was, primarily because we targeted the wrong things...
In Iraq (GWI), A-10 pilots were told to target fuel and water trucks instead
of armored formations...
In Germany (WW2), they attacked ball-bearing plants (the idea being to take
out a critical industry that would cripple all others... good idea, wrong
execution)...
They should have been targeting power plants.
> >> >Personally, I think the moral argument you are making doesn't wash in
the
> >> >face of massive US casualties.
> >>
> >> Besides a moral argument (which I try to never make as morality is
> >> religion-based) there is a far better legal and political argument. A
> >> nation gearing up for the Nuremberg trials shouldn't have been
> >> exterminating millions of civilians.
> >
> >Is hundreds of thousands ok then?
>
> Hundreds of thousands as an effect of attacking military targets is a
> tragedy, but legal. Hundreds of thousands killed for no reason is a
> war crime, same as if we lined them up against a wall and
> machine-gunned them.
>
The reality here is that if the US had not killed crap loads of Japanese
civilians, the emporer might not have made his surrender appeal... The way
you get an enemy to retreat is to inflict more losses than they are willing
to sustain... the way you get an enemy to sue for peace is to inflict many
more casualties than is reasonable....
> >I just don't think Japanese civilians were as much of a concern as you
> >claim... I think, in the Summer of 1945, killing 1000 Japanese civilians
to
> >save the life of one American was a rational decision.
>
> If they were on a military target.
>
True...
But what was the military value of firebombing Tokyo for two days straight?
Seems like a waste of ordnance....
> >> Yet they folded like cardboard when the Emperor made his decision, so
> >> there was at least one operative circumstance that worked.
> >>
> >
> >Let's say the emporer had refused to surrender... and told his people to
> >fight to the last child standing.
>
> Then I suspect we would have expended maximum effort to send him to
> his ancestors and get a new batter up. He was always a legitimate
> military target.
>
Yes, he was...
But my question was leading to how far would we be willing to go to beat
Japan, if we didn't have the bomb...
And my guess is that we would have crossed the Rubicon, and used chemical
weapons...
> >How many Japanese would we have had to kill to end that war?
>
> Speculation. My only point is the difference between combat legal
> under international law, and murder. You should know the difference.
> I'm the one who trained to kill wholesale; you were in the retail
> business.
>
The idea of killing civilians for my job description was always something we
conceived of as totally accidental... we were ingrained to check targets so
often that I could not fire at someone who did not have a weapon...
And, you usually end up finding that there is far less friendly fire, and
accidental civilian deaths in the Infantry than from bombers and artillery
(who rarely see their targets...)
I will concede that the support-by-fire element is almost in this position,
not being able to clearly see what they are shooting at...
> >The reality here is that Shintoists believed that the Emporer was God's
> >representative on this Earth, they would have followed him to hell.
> >
> >The only reason WW2 ended was because the emporer made that radio
address...
> >and the only reason he made that radio address was because of the shock
of
> >two cities disappearing.
>
> No, he made the radio address because he was fundamentally a good man.
If that were true, he would never have let his Army do what they did in
China.
> The remainder of his life gave ample opportunity for him to
> demonstrate that.
>
Or he just realized when he was beaten...
I would argue that he was intelligent, but basically he just had decent
survival instincts...
Jonathan
> Steve
> --
> www.thepaxamsolution.com