Subject:
|
Re: More on Palestine
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:30:49 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
391 times
|
| |
|
|
> But please explain how it was terrorism, exactly, to win a war against an
> evil empire with less loss of life than a protracted island by island, house
> to house campaign? Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't military targets, perhaps?
Hiroshima, as one of the largest Japanese harbours and railway junctions,
probably has been one. The question in this case is more: Couldn't the US
have waited to see how the Soviet strike against Japan, started shortly
before, turns out? Wasn't the main reason to drop The Bomb to show it to the
Soviets in the beginning of what later turned out to become the Cold War? No
evidence here, just questions.
Nagasaki is a totally different case. Nagasaki, without much industry and
infrastructure located there, has mostly been a test for the first Plutonium
Bomb (after two Uranium Bombs, the one tested in New Mexico, and the one
dropped on Hiroshima). The target has not been selected for direct military
reasons towards Japan, but to collect experience with a bomb in a different
topograpy. This has been proven by the protocols of talks concerning target
selection, which have been disclosed in the Oppenheimer trial.
:wq
Horst
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: More on Palestine
|
| (...) WE? That, I suspect, was the US's doing, and the US's alone, I don't think FDR consulted ANZAC. So you're off the hook. But please explain how it was terrorism, exactly, to win a war against an evil empire with less loss of life than a (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
