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 (39638)	11/29/2001 1:30:06 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

A game of chess can be played a myriad of ways at the outset. However, by the end game, the options are limited. We were at the end game. As with most practical decisions, it is difficult to prove that all assumptions would have borne out. However, in judging historical actions, it is only necessary to show that they are reasonable and responsible under the circumstances, and given inherent uncertainty. By those criteria, the dropping of the bombs was justified........

To: Yogizuna who wrote (39638)	11/29/2001 1:51:37 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Since the terrible deed is already done and we can not change the past, the tendency is to justify it at all costs to save face. That's one tendency. It probably explains some of the spin at least in the decades immediately following the incident. I don't know that it explains all of it though, particularly now. It WAS a very long time ago and the issue has not continued to resurface as issues do when actions are particularly revolting. I have always pretty much accepted the official rationale, although I'm more than uncomfortable with dropping the second bomb so quickly, largely because there wasn't anything to be done about it after the fact. I don't see any point in the US kicking itself over it at this late date. It may not have been the best decision, but it was not an altogether unreasonable option in the context of the day. OTOH, I see plenty of reason to examine it to see how it informs future military actions--if we were in similar circumstances now, would we do it again, what it says about the role of civilians in war and terrorism, how it informs us on genocide, etc. Refusing to look at it as a case study to save face so much after the fact seems wrongheaded to me. Karen

To: Yogizuna who wrote (39638)	11/29/2001 2:03:52 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The problem with all of these pro A-bombing Japan arguments and assumptions is that you (they) presume their is (was) no other choice.... The possibility there may have been closed minds and a lack of creativity involved This is true. Of course, hindsight is a great teacher, but one they had to do without. One concern, of course, was that the bomb wouldn't work, or wouldn't work particularly well. If they tried to drop it on a deserted area as a demonstration and it fizzled, it would be worse than not dropping it at all. Or even if it worked, people might realize that no harm happened and say "so what." I was barely alive at the time it was dropped, so didn't have any insight into the arguments made at the time. Your charge if racism might, of course, be a factor, but I think more of a factor was a) the fanaticism of the Japanese (exemplified by their kamakazi pilots) and the sense that conventional bombing wouldn't break their spirit (a valid concern since it didn't break the spirit of the English during the battle of Britain, and the bombing of German cities wasn't that big a factor in destroying the moral of the German people). Also that this was an isolated area where there were no Allied troops to put at risk (a reason for not using the bomb in Europe). We couldn't effectively hit the Germans without risking our own nearby troops.) It was a complex decicision made by people exhausted from years of bitter warfare and anxious to end the war and get on with their lives. I think there was a feeling, after Guadalcanal and the other island battles, that we had lost more than enough of our troops to the Japanese, and if we could end it and save more American lives, that was fair and just. After all, it may be a schoolyard cry, but it's also true that "they started it," so they had no right complain when we finished it. it's easy to criticize from 60 years after the events. It's a lot harder to think what we would have done in the same position.