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 (38966)	11/27/2001 1:00:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There was no immediate need to rush in. We could have blockaded Japan until we built more bombs if they needed more persuasion. A continued blockade might have caused starvation, plus conventional bombing (which killed more Japanese then the A bombs did) and other attacks would have to continue to keep Japan from rebuilding. Another factor to consider is that if dropping the bombs didn't end the war, then an invasion could have been launched right after. If however we waited until we built more bombs there are two possible negative consequences. 1 - The Japanese could have had even more time to prepare their defences. Blowing up a city or two could scare them in to surrender (which in fact it did) but it could not destroy their defences. 2 - The Soviets could have taken over more of Japan while we waited for more bombs to be produced. Also I understand building of the bombs was pretty slow back then (although the process got much faster just a few years later). Still if it was 1945 and I was the president it would be an idea that I would have to consider. Tim