I believe at that time the best estimates were that the American
casualties in an invasion of the Japanese homeland would run about one
million. The Japanese casualites at that time were supposed to be running
about ten to our one.
Is the gentleman saying we could have conquered the Japanese homeland
with a much lower casualty rate on both sides than the one estimated? If so
upon what does he base this estimate? If not is the gentleman saying that it
would have been preferable to have eleven million American and Japanese
casualities required if we didn't use the atomic bomb than to have the
roughly half million casualties we had with the bomb.
On the human level -- we had not attacked the Japanese at Pearl Harbor
-- we had entered that war against our will. I had several Uncles-to-be
fighting in that theatre of war -- should I have extended the threat against
my Uncle's lives and limbs for even one second if the weapon was available to
end the fighting?
Thank you,
Ron h.
In a message dated 11/24/01 9:01:28 AM Pacific Standard Time,
sentience@pobox.com writes:
> I think that if the United States had realized, that far back in time, how
> much the threat of nuclear war - and later, nanotechnological war and
> biological war - would hang over the heads of future generations, the
> correct decision would have been to spend the lives necessary to subdue
> Japan the hard way. The US was the first to acquire nuclear weapons, and
> then immediately used them, in war, against a nonnuclear opponent's cities.
> This is not a good precedent if some country other than the US is the
> first to acquire military nanotechnology. This does not help the US's
> argument for nuclear nonproliferation.
> > (end)
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT