I hate it when people are being stupid intentionally. You are being stupid intentionally.
You know that there were no more military targets to bomb. You know the last few cities that had been placed "off limits" for several months had been designated as test sites for the testing of both the uranium and plutonium bombs. You know that it was safe to leave these cities as the test sites because they had no military application.
You know that the Japanese were entirely blockaded and that they were being bombed at will--anywhere, anyplace, anytime.
You know that the atom bombs did far less damage than the firebombing had; you know they could have continued to "win the war" by using incendiary bombing to take out the last few civilian "targets" that were still standing.
You know that saying that "anything" COULD have happened is not an argument as to whether a particular choice was reasoned or moral. You know that dropping the bombs "COULD" have activated a martian mustard gas release; but for me, or anyone else, to use "possibility" rather than "plausibility" as an argument, would expose our stubborn ignorance.
Anyone can use an "argument" such as yours in any situation. You can tell the judge that you killed 300 teens at the roller skating rink because they "MIGHT" have taken over the world and made you speak valley talk. But the judge will weigh the evidence for your plea of self defence, and he or she will render a verdict BASED on that evidence: NOT on the possibility that anything capable of being conceived is POSSIBLE...but on accepted bases of reason and rationality that have become norms for judging behaviour.
You are pretending to believe that dropping those bombs prevented Japan from winning the war. What a shameless person you are.
The Strategic Bombing Report was established by by the US Secretary of War. It was put in place by Americans to reflect American interests, at a time of raging anti-Japanese emotion...rightly so. It utilized 300 civilians, 350 officers, and 500 enlisted men. "Sixty percent of the military segment of the organization for the Japanese study was drawn from the Army, and 40 percent from the Navy. Both the Army and the Navy gave the Survey all possible assistance in the form of men, supplies, transport, and information. The Survey operated from headquarters in Tokyo, with subheadquarters in Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and with mobile teams operating in other parts of Japan, the islands of the Pacific, and the Asiatic mainland."
All of these military men might be expected to have just a slight touch of bias, huh??? But even THIS huge report of something like 1400 volumes commissioned in the midst of raging passions , concluded that:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
Now from a slightly biased source, saying only what needed to be said--this is unequivocal and clear.
Now, you may still claim that nobody knew anything at the time. You can claim they did not know they has a naval blockade that had cut off Japan from essential supplies, both for conducting war and for conducting life. You can claim they did not know they had destroyed Japan's navy and air force. You can claim they did not know that there were no more military targets from the air. You can claim they did not know that when they flew over to drop down fire bombs they were no longer being opposed.
You can claim that they did not know any of these things, and you can claim that you do not now know any of these things. You can claim that all the great leaders who spoke against the bombing, and who wiped their hands clear of the mess, were the only people at that time who were aware of these facts.
You can claim anything you want. You have a first amendment. But so do others. They can oppose your views; and they may point out that your views are ignorant, even though you are entitled to them... |
