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 : World Affairs Discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (2577)	12/11/2002 2:41:41 PM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

And what about all the other points? I didn't go into those, because you are for the most part arguing that it was not really clear that the Japanese would surrender, and I would rather not argue exactly why it was not necessary to incinerate yet another civilian city because of some uncertainty. The US could threaten to nuke the second time and wait to see if the surrender took place, but didn't. And the "condition" you are talking about was a very Japanese one of honor - that their Emperor be left untouched or something, if I recall correctly. Hardly the grounds to reduce a city full of civilians to cinder sticks, in my humble opinion. Besides, if we go into this, I will have to point out that a deliberate attack on a civilian city is a war crime according to the treaties signed by the US. I wrote long posts on this subject in the Foreign Affairs Discussion Group. A quick search should fish them up.