Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (42096)	1/9/2002 11:48:40 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 82486

The Strategic Bombing Report was there, it was then, and it was conclusive. The Japanese were going to surrender by the end of December...PERIOD: no ifs, no ands, no buts. Nonsense. The strategic bombing report is not an infallible document. With what ifs there is almost always ifs, ands and buts. Also that report assumed continued heavy bombing and blockade until the wars end. The combined with atleast a limited Soviet invasion (that did start in August) could easily have caused more death in the 5 months in question that the atom bombs did. I asked you to assume that one of three things would have happened. You reply implying it is certain that none of them would but you say "by the end of December" which would involve one of those three things, months of continued blockade and heavy conventional and incendiary bombing. Or do you think if we just ignored Japan for 5 months they would have surrendered? There is pretty much full consensus among historians that diplomacy could have ended the war well before the bombs were dropped. There is enough evidence to conclude that it is possible but there is no consensus that it actually would have happened. Also as I mentioned before the call for unconditional surrender is its own question. It that is what you condemn then fine, but once it became policy there was going to be a lot of Japanese deaths. I don't think the incendiary bombings or the slow starvation of Japan by a US blockade was any less horrible then the A-bombs. The choice is not between the murder of civilians, and the collateral death of civilians. The choice is between the estimated collateral deaths of civilians in one approach, versus the estimated collateral deaths in another approach. So under the circumstances that I laid out which approach would you choose? Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next