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: zonder who wrote (2578)	12/11/2002 2:54:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3959

The US could threaten to nuke the second time and wait to see if the surrender took place, but didn't. I see three possible results 1 - Japan surrenders in a timely matter, even without the 2nd bomb. 2 - Japan doesn't surrender and we drop the 2nd bomb and then they surrender. 3 - Japan doesn't surrender and we wait. The opposition forces against the surrender have time to prepare and they prevent the surrender even after the 2nd bomb with help from the fact that the 2nd bomb is less of a shock then it would be right after the first. We don't have another nuke right away but we go back to incendiary bombing and kill tens or hundreds of thousand more Japanese or we invade and kill hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Perhaps we get another nuke ready in time in which case we use the third nuke and then Japan surrenders but again at the cost of a greater amount of death and destruction. 2 seems most likely to me. Followed closely by 1, then 3. #3 is the least likely but the possiblility was large enough not to ignore. 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. So we never should have attacked any of Japan's cities? The war was pretty much a total war, and Japan was determined. We had to either pretty much destroy them to get them to surrender. Should we have let the war drag on until the 50s (assuming no bombing of cities, conventional or otherwise), and then maybe they get nukes and use them on our fleet enforcing the blockade? In general I am against attacking cities but against a fantatical enemy you can't leave the cities off limits and bring the war to an end. Tim