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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (245253)	8/7/2005 2:28:06 PM
From: Taro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584521

Other generals including but not limited to Nimitz, MacArthur and Eisenhower represented a different opinion. Truman quoted the militaries agreeing with him. Quite understandable indeed. Taro

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (245253)	8/7/2005 2:29:43 PM
From: steve harris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584521

You would think an American with two degrees, working on her third could rationalize that 70k dead enemy instead of 500,000 dead Americans is better therefore you must conclude: 1) Apparently she isn't an American or 2) Apparently she isn't an American

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (245253)	8/7/2005 3:15:51 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1584521

re:Its not surprising that a neocon misses that import since number of deaths seems to be a popular way for you to measure success or failure. Personally - lives saved is a better measuring stick. In his personal diary, Truman wrote, “General Marshall told me that it might cost half a million American lives to force the enemy’s surrender on his home grounds.” Do you really believe this nonsense? Of course, Marshall said that to Truman. That's what Truman wanted to hear. However, that number was from someone's fantasy. In four years of war, the US military sustained losses of 405,000 from all theaters of that war. To suggest that bringing Japan to her knees would have required another half million American deaths is ludicrous. As it was Japan was on her knees and her allies had already capitulated. Even bombing runs similar to the ones in Dresden would have been preferable to the atomic bomb. This estimate was based on previous battle figures at Okinawa, where Americans suffered 50,000 casualties despite outnumbering the Japanese by two and a half to one. Indeed, if Truman opted to invade Japan, the total number of American and Japanese casualties would possibly be in the millions. Why stop at millions? Billions might have died had we tried to bring Japan to her senses the conventional way. Although the bomb took 150,000 Japanese lives, the number of casualties would have been far greater had an invasion been executed. The possible range of deaths given for Hiroshima alone was 70K to 200K......and that was for just the actual event. [Please note its American estimates that are at the lower end of the range.] Many thousands more died from radiation burns and sickness in the months that followed. In 1985, in a special broadcasting the fortieth anniversary of the bombings, ABC’s Ted Koppel claimed: “What happened over Japan…was a human tragedy…But what was planned to take place in the war between Japan and the United States would almost certainly have been an even greater tragedy.” When compared to a land invasion, the atomic bomb certainly saved far more Japanese lives than would a land invasion.<?I> What land invasion? We didn't do a land invasion with Germany. Such nonsense. If push came to shove, bombing runs like Dresden would have done the trick. Dropping a nuke would not have been necessary. Dropping two nukes on Japan was a human tragedy and something that Americans should not be proud of.