From: Neal Wilson (newilson@IX.NETCOM.COM)
Date: Sun Apr 11 1999 - 14:25:40 PDT
Ronald Gillen wrote: > > A Cassel wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Any discussion of the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki > > tends to avoid one glaring issue. The time frame. > > > =================snip======================================= > > > > 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. > > =================snip============================================ > > As horrible as the A bomb was and the civilian casualties that it caused > at the time it probably saved many more lives on the Allied side > than it took. > > It has been estimated that an invasion of Allied forces onto the > Japanese Islands homeland would have resulted in one to two million > casualties > and have prolonged the war up to two and a half years. > > Japanese housewives were prepared to tie kitchen knives to broom handles > and use them as spears to defend their villages from the invaders. > > If the Emperor had not ordered the Japanese to surrender they would have > fought on indefinitely. > > I regret that the planners did not have the vision > to drop a demonstration A-bomb in a place on Japanese soil that would > have gotten their instant attention, like Yokohama Harbor and at a cost > of fewer civilian casualties. > > Those Allied advisors that understood the Japanese cultural mentality > in many instances had difficulty in restraining the military planners > from performing acts that would have only enraged the Japanese > population and caused insurmountable problems. > > One American Admiral, 'Bull' Halsey, wanted to ride > the Emperors white horse in the Tokyo > victory parade, it took an order from General McArthur to stop him. > > Others wanted to hang the Emperor, had this happened we would > probably still be fighting in Japan. > > >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? > > I have been told by more than one resident of Hiroshima that there were > never any warning leaflets , that if such leaflets were > dropped they would have been taken very seriously indeed. > This story may have been for home news consumption > to offset the horror of having a whole city destroyed and has since > become an urban legend. > > Any comments ??? > > Regards ..... Ron Gillen A concern expressed about a "demonstration" bomb was that demonstration of such a gigantic explosive would have prompted the Japanese to IMMEDIATELY "dispose" of any remaining POWs, of which there were some 30,000 Americans, I believe. As it was, some of the Japanese camps took it upon themselves to eliminate what POWs they had. Also, there was a very nearly successful plot to kidnap the Emporer _before_ he made his surrender-order broadcast, in order to keep the Japanese fighting--a demonstration bomb would have been little more than useless. Neal Wilson