"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F6FC1B5.3CE31525@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:34:55 GMT, "Benjamin Lee"
> > <benmlee@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >While we are finger pointing, the US was also quite aggressive in using
the
> > >first nuclear bomb.
> >
> > Not really. More lives were lost in the Battle of Okinowa than in
> > Hiroshima and Nagaski combined.
>
> For that matter the fire raids in Tokyo destroyed more property and
> killed more people than the nuclear attacks.
>
> However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> magnitude of what they did.
>
> Ed

How so? I'm curious to hear the argument for it being a mistake. Where
might we be today had those 2 bombs not been dropped?

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
>
> > >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> > >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> > >magnitude of what they did.
> >
> > They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
> We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
> the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
> assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
> Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
> Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
> we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
> I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
> of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
> course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
> decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
> started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
> ended it.
>
> Ed

Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
sue for peace many times towards the end. The problem with less than 100%
victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.

I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
to that point.

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
>
> > >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> > >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> > >magnitude of what they did.
> >
> > They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
> We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
> the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
> assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
> Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
> Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
> we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
> I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
> of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
> course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
> decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
> started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
> ended it.
>
> Ed

Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
sue for peace many times towards the end. The problem with less than 100%
victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.

I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
to that point.

 

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>
>
> Matt Osborn wrote:
>
> > >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> > >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> > >magnitude of what they did.
> >
> > They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
> Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
> willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
> We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
> the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
> assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
> Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
> Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
> we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
> I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
> of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
> course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
> decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
> started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
> ended it.
>
> Ed

Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
sue for peace many times towards the end. The problem with less than 100%
victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.

I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
to that point.

 

In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:

> I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
> wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
> to that point.

No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
a walk in the park.

 

In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:

> I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
> wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
> to that point.

No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
a walk in the park.

 

In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:

> I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> just go home. It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
> wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
> to that point.

No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
a walk in the park.

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:01:56 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <bpqk2t02hk6@enews1.newsguy.com>, Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
>
>No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
>government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
>producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
>need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
>
>Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
>they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
>having the captial to do the development.
>
>In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
>you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
>
>> Radical environmentalists
>> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
>with the status quo.
>
>> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
>
>Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
>a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
>generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
>overcome.
>
>
Yet the problem remains that wind is a form of energy.
If we take that energy out of the ecosystem, and convert it to heat
(the end result of the whole process), we are making changes to the
system.
yet the ecos say we aren't allowed to change the system.
This works for solar, too; we take sunlight (that heats the desert)
and transport it elecrtically to other places, and we've screwed with
the environment.
Uh-oh, I think I'm going nuts here...

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:01:56 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <bpqk2t02hk6@enews1.newsguy.com>, Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
>
>No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
>government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
>producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
>need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
>
>Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
>they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
>having the captial to do the development.
>
>In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
>you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
>
>> Radical environmentalists
>> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
>with the status quo.
>
>> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
>
>Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
>a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
>generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
>overcome.
>
>
Yet the problem remains that wind is a form of energy.
If we take that energy out of the ecosystem, and convert it to heat
(the end result of the whole process), we are making changes to the
system.
yet the ecos say we aren't allowed to change the system.
This works for solar, too; we take sunlight (that heats the desert)
and transport it elecrtically to other places, and we've screwed with
the environment.
Uh-oh, I think I'm going nuts here...

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

 

On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:01:56 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:

>In article <bpqk2t02hk6@enews1.newsguy.com>, Jerry McG wrote:
>
>> Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>> if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>> large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track.
>
>No, they wouldn't. There is too much money in the status-quo and US
>government is about money. I wish the primary goal was telling the oil
>producing countries to stick it up their behind because the US doesn't
>need oil imports any more, but that doesn't make the forces that be money.
>
>Of course, if corporations were long sighted instead of short sighted
>they would make themselves the dominate forces in the new technologies
>having the captial to do the development.
>
>In other words, if stupidity wasn't the most powerful force on the planet
>you'd be right and that's the way it should be done.
>
>> Radical environmentalists
>> have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>> technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>> answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>> space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Yes, no energy generation is clean and pretty enough, also keeping us
>with the status quo.
>
>> Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient,
>
>Wind is efficient. As efficient or more than any other means of turning
>a generator. The question with wind is having it there to turn the
>generator. But with correct deployment of turbines this could be
>overcome.
>
>
Yet the problem remains that wind is a form of energy.
If we take that energy out of the ecosystem, and convert it to heat
(the end result of the whole process), we are making changes to the
system.
yet the ecos say we aren't allowed to change the system.
This works for solar, too; we take sunlight (that heats the desert)
and transport it elecrtically to other places, and we've screwed with
the environment.
Uh-oh, I think I'm going nuts here...

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"