Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:16:18 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
598 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> I think I missed that the first time. It was my understanding that they
> surrendered about as immediately as could be possibly arranged given the
> circumstances. Can you restate why you feel they did not surrender
> immediately?
"As immediately as possible" I suppose you could question, but according to
the timeline:
- 8/6 Bomb #1
- 8/9 Bomb #2
- 8/14 Surrender
There was more time inbetween the 2nd bomb and the surrender than between
the 1st and 2nd bombs, in fact. And in fact, had it not been for the
emperor's stated desire, it sounds like war would have persisted.
> ...
> Now, weapons are expended for tactical objectives but those objectives
> themselves are part of the strategic objective of winning.
> ...
Yes, I fully agree that the objective was to win. The tactic behind the
atomic strike, however, was fear (I believe), moreso than it was any sort of
actual physical damage the bomb might have done.
> OUR objective in using the a-bomb was to destroy a significant part of the
> Japanese war effort support structure and to inflict casualties. The fact
> that it *happened to convince* the Japanese that we were well nigh
> invincible does not necessarily imply that that convince-ment was our
> objective. So I reject the assertion that "obviously we did it to scare the
> Japanese" as well as "obviously we did it to show off to the Russians".
> Nothing is obvious about that and you will have to prove it in detail, step
> by step.
Only if I want to convince you. Unless you're not entitling me to my
interpretation of the events, in which case I'll fight you on that. I think
it was a scare tactic, plain and simple, under the guise of a militarily
"justified" strike-- hence, a terror weapon, rather than a strategic weapon.
Although perhaps "strategic" covers the "terrorist" category as well, but
nevertheless, I think it the action's intent was to scare more than
incapacitate retaliation.
> Absent that, instilling fear cannot be claimed to be the primary objective
> unless you show it to be so.
And likewise your viewpoint. I hold that my interpretation, given the facts
available, is a just as logically valid of a conclusion as yours is. And
further, I think mine makes more sense (subjectively of course). And there
we can agree to disagree. Try to convince me otherwise if you like-- but I'm
not overly likely to change my mind.
Meanwhile, I'll ask this-- if it *were* the case that scaring them was our
primary objective, would you then consider it a terrorist action on our
part? How about if it were only a 2ndary objective? Partially terroristic?
At least I hope you'll agree with me that far.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I actually agree to a large extent that the tactic was to induce fear. That is in fact a legitimate war strategy at some level. The only way to win a war is to win the morale battle. You can't kill every single enemy. This is why a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) There was, in fact, an attempted coup by high-ranking officers once the Emperor's wishes had become known. The problem with Fascist thinking was that it was seen as a struggle of civilizations; Hitler in fact articulated that if the German (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) I think I missed that the first time. It was my understanding that they surrendered about as immediately as could be possibly arranged given the circumstances. Can you restate why you feel they did not surrender immediately? (...) I fear a (...) (23 years ago, 17-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
|
|
|
|
