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 (40408)	12/4/2001 4:19:07 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

We could have slowed a bit... Putting aside the political repercussions of delaying an end to the war (which would have included both fierce domestic opposition as well as the threat of Russian intervention) ... Your plan would have been music to the ears of the Japanese militarists. It would have given them precious additional time to prepare defensive emplacements throughout the homeland, to expand their multifaceted suicide attack forces, and to mobilize, train, and arm large numbers of the civilian population. Every additional day granted would have ensured higher and higher casualty rates for our troops in the event an invasion was still necessary.You seem unwilling to accept the fact that through its leadership, Japan was committed to the death of the nation as preferable to unconditional surrender. Moreover, you seem to be saying that in the worst case scenario, we would have been justified in dropping even more A-bombs on cities then we did, including major cities. In other words, if delaying didn't work, then we could bomb them off the map. Am I seeing just a slight lapse in logic here? By the way, the Japanese were warned in advance of a "terrible new weapon."