Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (38958)	11/27/2001 1:12:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Sorry, but I do not believe in nuking or A-bombing civilian cities to prevent military casualties.... I know that we are also debating whether an invasion would have been needed if we did not drop the bombs, but the casualties prevented where not just military. Many Japanese civilians would have died in an invasion, esp. if the Japanese government had succeeded in its plans to have almost total national resistance to the invasion. This kind of attitude reminds me of the Dialo case in NYC, where they shot at the poor guy something like 40 times.... Do you know how quickly four scared cops can shoot 40 bullets? It only takes a few seconds. It was not as if they fired, thought about it and fired again. I'm not saying the cops did a good job, or otherwise supporting their actions but it is not IMO indicative of a lack of concern for human life. It might be indicative of inadequate training. A-bombing cities with innocent civilians to force an enemy to surrender is just as sick as flying large jets into massive skyscrapers in my opinion. Even if we put aside arguments about the justice of the cause, the a-bombs may have saved lives and could be reasonably assumed before they where used to have had a good chance to end the most horrible war in human history. The WTC attack had no reasonable chance to end anything except the lives of thousands of people. Tim

To: Yogizuna who wrote (38958)	11/27/2001 1:38:16 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Well said...

To: Yogizuna who wrote (38958)	11/27/2001 4:15:10 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I think you are well-intentioned, but lacking any real appreciation of the war realities in 1945. For example, do you know that: (1) The principal industry of Hiroshima in 1945 was war materiel production? (2) That Hiroshima was headquarters for the Japanese Second Army Group, the army which was to be the first line of defense for the home islands? (3) That the defense plan for the home islands included arming the civilian population (men, women, and children), and that such arming and training was well underway at the time of the bombing? (4) That subsequent to both A-bombs, when Emperor Hirohito finally decided on surrender, factions of the military leadership attempted to assassinate him (very nearly succeeding) to prevent surrender? (5) That several days after Hiroshima, Russia declared war on Japan, creating the near-certainty that Stalin intended to invade Japan with his million-man army in China, condemning Japan to Communist police-state status similar to Poland or Hungary? I mention these facts to give you more perspective on your characterizations of "innocent civilians," "civilian cities," and "sick is sick." If you want to continue calling Truman and others "cowards," I think at the very least you owe us an explanation as to how you would have forced capitulation on a fanatical populace bent on self-destruction. Taking account of the military and political realities of the time ... tell us what your plan would have been. (And don't worry about offending me!) JC