Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Oct 2001 00:37:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
605 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
> 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.
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 demonstration of the bomb would not have been very
effective. It would not have brought the reality of war to the Japanese
civilians, whose fear of worse must have been a factor in the emperor's
decision to surrender.
Now we have made some gentlemen's agreements that certain fear tactics
are off limits. I'm not sure how effective they really are, though they
probably do increase the likelyhood that the loser will be treated with
some degree of respect once they surrender (if you've restrained from
torturing the POWs you captured, I'm a lot less likely to torture you
when I win).
I still believe there is a real difference (though it may be only in
degree) between dropping the bombs and the flying of planes into
buildings. I would even say that the bombing of London is closer to the
bombing of Hiroshima than to 9-11.
One difference I feel is that I truly do not believe bin Laden really
wants a settlement. I doubt he would be happy if the "Muslim" lands were
freed of any non-Muslims. Perhaps he would be happy if the entire world
was Muslim, but I wonder still then. I think he and others want power,
but they don't know how to get power through means accepted by most of
the world.
The US on the other hand desired increased world security. Sure, we were
most concerned with our own, but then we also recognize that the
security of others increases our own security. I think we have forgotten
that post WWII (but I think we are now recognizing it again). I suspect
(hope) we will put increased pressure on Israel to work with the
Palestinians to reach peace, though I think it will be a long road to
true peace.
I think Arafat is somewhere between. I think he does want peace, though
I'm not sure he has quite the strength to get the Palestinians to do
what they need to do. I think he's also playing both sides of the game a
bit, but I think he is open to peace. In the end, it's possible we may
need to go in and settle things, though I think it will be much better
if we don't have to do that.
The difference between what the US did in WWII and what bin Laden is
doing makes me want to be able to call them different things. To this
extent, I think the definition of war and terrorism need to be
different, or we need a different word to describe bin Laden. I can
accept though that while in general we were waging war not terrorism in
WWII that we may have performed some terrorist acts. I don't think
dropping the bomb was one of those. I would be far quicker to put the
firebombings in those categories (though I'm not sure we recognized what
firebombing would do).
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) "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. (...) (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
|
|
|
|
