Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM
Initially the thoughts are 100,000 vs. 500,000. End the war in a week, or stretch it out over three months. Zero American deaths vs. Massive American deaths. Every number. Every statistic. Every estimate. Every strategy points at using the bomb.
How could a President, whose job as the top military leader is to protect his country and protect his soldiers choose a strategy which took 1) More time, 2) More human loss of life 3) More civilian loss of life and 4) more American soldier loss of life? How could he turn to his country and say "We have a way that will end this war tomorrow, and protect our troops and our country, but instead, I am going to put our boys on the ground, in the most dangerous form of combat in war."? He would have been impeached, if not worse, in days.
|
Just thought i'd answer to this then leave it... The only statistics that pointed to using the bomb were the EXTREEME ones...
--A study done by Adm. Nimitz's staff in May estimated 49,000 casualties in the first 30 days, including 5,000 at sea.
--A study done by General MacArthur's staff in June estimated 23,000 in the first 30 days and 125,000 after 120 days.
When these figures were questioned by General Marshall, MacArthur submitted a revised estimate of 105,000, in part by deducting wounded men able to return to duty.
So you see, some if not most of the figures are nowhere near the 500,000.
A lot of people in the office believe that Truman had a hatdred towards the japanese and had a motive to drop the bombs.
Here's a quote that was said by him about the japanese.
"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast. It is most regrettable but nevertheless true."
According to Truman, the japanese were beasts...
As for the things you pointed out
1) MAYBE it would have taken more time... You don't know how quickly the Japanese would have chosen to surrender after the news of the Soviets... And you're probably gonna say why didnt they surrender after the first bomb... I can ask why didn't they give it time? 2 A-bombs in a couple of days!!! Thats just discusting!!
2)Again, this is debatable depending on which figure's were more accurate!
3)This is DEFINATELY not true, thus the main reason why i am against this. Hiro and Naga cost 200,000 lives in the space of a couple of days... the majority of these were civilians. And on top of that. 100,000 more civilians died due to radiation or affects of the a-bombs.
4)This is definately true, but at least the people that would have died knew that there was that risk.
I'd also like to say i am against it because its the biggest "terrorist" attack this world has ever seen... And i'm sure, in your defence you will say the US was in a "legitimate war", but targeting non-combatants, women, children,the elderly etc appears contrary to notions of ‘legitimate war" -definately took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
If you don't agree with that, would you consider an attack on Washington with an A-bomb by Iraq to be part of this legitimate war? If you believe that is fine, then i will shut my mouth. But personally, i would definately think its a terrorist attack as the majority of people in Washington are civilians!!!
I guess we'll leave it at that... it seems that we won't change eachothers minds. lol
It was educational though...
