Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
Sorry...I must have missed that.
So with the intelligence they had, they could predict a death toll of 500,000 and maybe several times that, with a land invasion.
With the atomic bomb they predicted a death toll of 100,000 to 200,000.
500,000 is a more acceptable loss of life than 200,000?
You will have to explain the logic behind that one.
(Don't give me the civilians and soldiers argument. The civilians were becoming soldiers.)
|
Ok, lets put it this way... lets say the estimation for the 500,000 deaths was over a period of 3 months of battle for example (i'm not too sure what it was excatly)
Why couldn't they have tried a land based battle for lets say 15 day?... that would have cost roughly 83,000 deaths from BOTH SIDES (according to the estimate), not just 200k japanese and 0 US... And then, if the americans realised that the death toll will only increase and increase and increase for NO REASON, THEN drop the A-bomb...
And i will use the civilians argument because the civilians were not becoming soldiers... They might have been told to/(believed it was right to) fight for their country, but they certaintly didn't have the weapons to and will/training to be called a soldier... IF you say that the civilians were becoming soldiers, then that will JUSTIFY ALL killings of civilians during a war.