The horror of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan forever 'impressed' the world that such a thing is viable for preventing their use. That's why (so far) they have not been used. We will never know the outcome of all this had they not been used.
You say there are 'rules of war'. Whose rules? An ethical and moral man may create certain rules and insist that they be followed, but history shows us that evil men and societies don't care about such rules. We Americans can say we live by a higher standard and can do that as long as we are winning the fight, but a madman will not hesitate to use such weapons. Consider Nukes in the hands of Osama bin Laden. That is why a unilateral disarmament is dangerous. We can think if we act nice, then bad guys will be nice and see us as no threat. History proves different.
Any bomb kills indescrimately. In our modern, politically correct society, the word 'nuclear' has a special place in the halls of 'denial' of reason. Is it a matter of 'size counts'? Whether 10 or 10,000 being killed in a sweep of nuclear or conventional bombing... they are dead... and that is terrible.
Had the Japanese the capability of attacking the US like they did the Chinese... (read the atrocity of Nanking) they would have done it. I will say as I said in the last post... more civilians were killed in certain raids by the allies and the axis by conventional means than by nuclear means. In war, civilians are part of the infrastructure. That infrastructure is a target. War is not convenient. It is dirty, filthy, and horrible. That is why a nation with good intent must stay strong militarily... and that means nukes or something more powerful.
The Japanese did surrender unconditionally as did the Nazis. It sent a message of resolve by intent. But our 'rebuilding' of those enemy nations was something never seen in the annals of history. The armistice of WW1 and the treaty of Versailles proved one thing... 'conditional' surrender doesn't work. It also proved that to bleed your enemy after conditional surrender doesn't work either.
The Japanese were shocked into surrender by our resolve and shocked by our benevolence in rebuilding their country.
The message we send has great impact on any who would consider testing to see if they could take us... alas, a message we are diminishing with each generation.
CENSORED JAPAN A-BOMB STORIES PUBLISHED
Censored stories written by an American journalist who sneaked into Japan soon after Nagasaki was leveled by a U.S. atomic bomb have surfaced six decades later.
TUMOURS PERSIST LONG AFTER RADIATION EXPOSURE
Survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 still show a higher incidence of some tumours.
The president during the A bombs was Truman and he was reelected by beating the republican challenger Duey (not sure about spelling).
Dropping the atomic bombs did not only save American lives but it saved the Japanese as well. If we had not done this there would have been over 1 million American casualties and some of you writing on this site probably would have never been born. The USSR would have invaded the Northern Japanese islands and set up a communist government. Instead of a Korean war there would have been a Korean and Japanese war who knows how many deaths. You should all thank Harry Truman for ending the bloodiest war in history with a mere 1/2 million casualties.
One more thing. Just because a weapon is atomic does that make it worse than the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo? Far more civilians were killed using the fire bombing technique than the atomic weapons.
|The USSR would have invaded the Northern Japanese islands and set up a communist government.|
|Far more civilians were killed using the fire bombing technique than the atomic weapons.|
|QUOTE (Klausse @ 6-Mar 06, 9:25 AM)|
| Wonderful information. Mind sharing the source? |
If you survived the fire bombing, in most cases, you'll live. Atomic bombing victims were dying slowly and painfully years and decades after the event, their children and grandchildren who even were not born yet then, were harmed by it.
pockettape, when I say sources, I mean links to serious sites or at least a specific reply.
Things like "it is in their history" is not an answer. Political history is not the easiest of the subjects, it is often twisted and bent to fit the interests of this or that country.
What I was taught at school is that, being during the WWII on the side of Germany, still presented a danger because didn't officially give up. So after Berlin had fallen, the was still was going on the East.
I suspect you might have been taught differently, what dioes not mean anyboyd of us is totally right unless we can prove our points or view with valid material, not just ungrounded generalizations.
The per cent of after explosion victims in fire bombing is definitely, much much lower than in the case with atomic bomb.
With the former you die only if you was injured during the bombing, just happened to survive then.
With the latter, you could lose your totally healthy kids some years after you'd moved your family to a new place. Because it still is poisonous from the bombing that occured 30 years ago, for instance. Your grandchildren could suffer physical and mental diseases - because of the bombing that occured in that region a while ago, when you didn't even meet your wife yet.
The number of instant deaths is huge for atomic bombs (the Hiroshima bomb was a baby in comparison to what we have now),
yes, it can be compared with the victims of fire bombing:
one AB victims = victims of several years of non-stop fire bombing
Add to this a huge number of secondary deaths that do not happen with fire bombing.
In my opinion here are some links concerning fire bombing and birth defects for atomic bombs which I got by using google:
"1945 Tokyo Firebombing Left Legacy of Terror, PainThe Tokyo firebombing has long been overshadowed by the US atomic attacks on... The attack, coming a month after a similar raid on Dresden, Germany,..."
Ref. www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm - Similar pages
From that site: "The paintings are a gripping testament to the destruction as Japan prepares to mark the 60th anniversary this week of the March 9-10, 1945, air raid that killed an estimated 100,000 people in a single night of fire." and " The Tokyo firebombing has long been overshadowed by the U.S. atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki which preceded the Japanese surrender that ended World War II the following August. But the burning of the capital, which resulted in more immediate deaths than either of the nuclear bombings, stands as a horrifying landmark in the history of warfare on noncombatants."
Note: this is just Tokyo there are many other cities I can add the death toll from fire bombing clearly outweighs the atomic death toll.
Are birth defects increased among the children of atomic-bomb ...There is no statistically demonstrable increase in major birth defects considered in ... The most common of the defects seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ...
www.rerf.or.jp/eigo/radefx/genetics/birthdef.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
Health effects at Hiroshima, Nagasaki Many believe in the myth that birth defects are more common among the children of the survivors of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ...
www.hindu.com/thehindu/2001/09/06/stories/08060003.htm - 13k - Cached - Similar pages "
I am very interested in your continued statements about children and grandchildren could you please site a specific link?, than you, pockettape.
Persephone: Please learn how to use the quote and offtopic tags as your posts become difficult to read and distinguish from your words and those that belong to others.