On Sat, 24 Nov 2001 CurtAdams@aol.com wrote (regarding using the
atomic bomb against Russia):
> At least with the benefit of hindsight I'd say that our killing the
> requisite tens of millions of Russian soldiers and civilians would
> have been an inescusable atrocity.
Hmmm... It is probably impossible to speculate here (without
a JBrain to run a simulation). However, an atomic bomb strike
against central Moscow might have eliminated Stalin and much
of the KGB apparatus. That would not have saved the millions
that had been previously killed (at the hands of Stalin or Hitler).
Whether the post-WWII actions of various communist regimes
is responsible for "millions" of deaths, I am unsure. For example,
total U.S. deaths during the Korean war were only ~28,000 so
I think you would have to stretch things pretty far to get
into the millions. As Moscow itself is a fairly spread
out city (nothing like the density of NYC), the civilian
casualties might have been greater tha Hiroshima or Nagisaki
but probably not "significantly" greater.
Given the political instability that could have resulted
from such actions (the Soviet Union would then have had
a *real* reason to use atomic weapons), I doubt it can
be reasonably justified.
> Hitler killed tens of millions of Russians and captured/destroyed the
> majority of its prewar industry and army and that *still* wasn't
Yep, the point of this is very clear. Stalin played the delay
game long enough to get his industry relocated to the Urals
where Hitler's bombers couldn't reach it. Both Napoleon and
Hitler stumbled on the sheer size of Russian and its massive
population and resource reserves.
We should heed those lessons -- a pan-Arabic state stretching from
Algeria to Pakistan with 500+ million people, united under
a single leader (Hitler/Stalin prototype) and/or an interpreted
(irrational) religious unifying force, with atomic weapons
*is* something to be seriously concerned about.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:21 MDT