Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 15:15:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
481 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > I haven't yet read the site (I dunno if I will-- depends I guess), but it
> > really leads me to wonder whether anyone out there actually *DOES* believe
> > it was "necessary"?
>
> No time to dig into this in depth but I should point out that I have, in
> this very group, already taken the stance that *both* bombings were necessary.
I must have missed that debate-- suffice to say that while I obviously don't
have all the information, based on what I know, I don't think they were
necessary or called for at all. Anyone want to point me somewhere to make me
reconsider?
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I think the evidence is against them being necessary to beat Japan (they were already beaten). Cynics will say that they provided a test for the new toy (I can't believe that). But I do wonder if they were deemed necessary simply to send the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) No time to dig into this in depth but I should point out that I have, in this very group, already taken the stance that *both* bombings were necessary. I spent a little time at that site late last nite (early this morning, actually). The (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
133 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
