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: one_less who wrote (516997)	9/29/2009 11:59:02 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1578158

"The numbers of dead would have been less without the A-bomb but it would have been more equal between allies and enemies." is that how you think wars should be fought ?? equal numbers of deaths?? As Patton said I don't want you to die for your country I want the other bastards to die for their country

To: one_less who wrote (516997)	9/29/2009 1:56:42 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 1578158

I don't consider myself scholarly enough to take a stand on that but I've heard others claim differently. Many claim the tide had turned and it was a matter of time. We were going to win the war. But the cost in American lives would have been horrific. I think everyone agrees the invasion of Japan would have been tremendously costly to both sides. I don't buy the argument that the "tide had turned", at least not with Japan. This was always going to be a fight to the death. If one just examines the history of, for example, Peleliu or Okinawa, this much is clear. The numbers of dead would have been less without the A-bomb but it would have been more equal between allies and enemies. It would have definitely meant more American deaths, and after all, the objective in war is to kill the enemy before they kill you. I'm not sure that a country defending itself in a war has any real obligation to suffer losses of its own soldiers to save civilian lives of the aggressors. I can't see any reason this would be true. The strongest modern argument for having used the A-Bomb is that it was a convincing deterant for 50 years when sabors were being rattled. There was no longer a question about whether or not anyone would really use it and how devastating that would be. Yet, during this period nuclear proliferation was the order of the day. Ultimately, it was Reagan's strength and SDI that reduced proliferation. Today, liberals are saying we have no threat from strategic nukes, and they (and we) have Reagan to thank for it. Although, I don't know of any liberal who would admit that fact. Today, the threat from tactical nukes is at an all time high. And that threat is pretty much being ignored. By everyone.