From: A Cassel (acassel@DREAMSOFT.COM)
Date: Sat Apr 10 1999 - 21:20:14 PDT
Hi All, Any discussion of the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki tends to avoid one glaring issue. The time frame. To military commanders, the A Bomb was a tremendously powerful bomb and little more. As technology improved (?) it, it became far more. With the development of the H Bomb it became the potential destroyer of civilization. Pictures of scientists doing research on the aftermath of the explosions in Japan, and the Pacific tests, show a pathetic lack of knowledge of the dangers of radiation. Protection is mainly gloves and foot coverings worn over shoes. A previous writer correctly stated the Japanese viewpoint of surrender being dishonorable. I recall a story of one Pacific island being recaptured by US Marines where the only captive taken was a legless officer who was trying to impale himself on his ceremonial sword when he was taken prisoner. An invasion of Japan by allied forces would have led to enormous loss of life on the armies involved as well as the Japanese civilian population. Yes, the bomb is a horrible weapon, but is the loss of lives in the two cities better than the cost of the invasion that would have occurred? While the weapons were powerful, the physical damage would have been far less in European cities due to concrete, steel and brick construction, and the effects of radiation were not even a consideration at the time. A comparison between Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki is quite valid. Delivery of a formal declaration of war was not delivered on a timely basis due to incompetence of the Japanese ambassador, and thus would have not been the "sneak" attack it became. Air Force planes dropped leaflets on the targeted cities warning the civilian population to leave or face destruction. They chose not too. Neither event shows great thought of human values, but isn't war the ultimate failure of diplomacy? Art