- 19 Aug 2003 06:04
#216731
From another topic (that was getting to long to respond to):
Sometimes, Demo, you say something that actaully makes sense
Of course, you are right. The total causlties from BOTH bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima totaled much less then the firebombing of Tokyo. Of course, history has seen this done before! The firebombing of Dresden was another such inccident- killing some 200 thousand for absolutley no gain- the war in Europe was pratically over, with the Russian's rolling into Berlin and the Allies not far behind.
It seems to me that people put *way* to much importance on 'the bomb' and how it changed everything. Quite frankly, this is silly. The bombs dropped on Japan were of minor importance at the time: think of how much effort went into making the 3 total (Trinity test included): one hell of a lot! The Manhattan project has been compared to the Apollo program in scale and ambition, but what was the result? Two deployable weapons doing less actaul damage then convential weapons, of which the effort going into make would have been considerably less.
Anyway, my point is this: The 'bomb' is just a cold war syndrome. People seem to think it mattered that the American's used it, or that they invented it. Had they not, the Russian's surley would have. So? What needs to be considered is this: what would the world have been like had the Americans dropped several 500 kiloton MRVs on five of Japan's major cities? With millions of cuasilties, I'm sure this debate would be going differntly. But this is not what happened. The bombs used on Japan were merely a quick- and expensive compared to the firebombing incidents- solution to operation Olympus (I think that's what it was called), the planned invasion of Japan.
Berlin was the orignal target for the first bomb. Would it have made any differnce if three had been dropped instead of 2? No.
Ok now I'm running on; to summorise for those who have no clue what I'm talking about:
People go on and on about the two bombs dropped on Japan, but NO one ever mentions the much worse, and less justifaible bombings of Dresden or Tokyo (both of which killed double the atomic bomb drops).
Demosthenes wrote:I don't wanna debate this either, William Blum can spin it any way he wants but the bomb was more humane than the firebombing of Tokoyo and the other Japanese cities, I notice Blum, the master of statistics credits the bomb with several hundred thousand casualities, the figure I saw put it nearer to about 120 thousand, while the firebombing of Tokoyo killed about 240 thousand. Of course I'm trying to pull those up from memory so I could be inaccurate here but as I reacall the firebombing was at least twice as devestating.
I, too have heard far more convincing evidense elsewhere that although we knew the Japanese were defeated the minute we won the battle midway (wasn't it?) the Japanese weren't going down so easily. It seems very easy for William Blum to revise everything all the time because he's a disgruntled, fossilized, Vietnam protester who's way outlived relevance. However, even if all he says is true their are still benefits that wouldn't have occurred if not for the symbology of the bomb...
...Do I like the bomb "figuratively"? No of course not no one does. Do I wish we wouldn't have felt the need to drop it? Yes, of course. Is it all that fair of William Blum to continue to fan the flames of anti-americanism by stating that this, too was just another evil act by the evil ole' United States...I don't think so. Blum seems to be the holiest of holies for anti-US liberals and foreigners of all colors, I'm not impressed he should go back to the sixties, do a little acid and chill out man!
Sometimes, Demo, you say something that actaully makes sense
Of course, you are right. The total causlties from BOTH bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima totaled much less then the firebombing of Tokyo. Of course, history has seen this done before! The firebombing of Dresden was another such inccident- killing some 200 thousand for absolutley no gain- the war in Europe was pratically over, with the Russian's rolling into Berlin and the Allies not far behind.
It seems to me that people put *way* to much importance on 'the bomb' and how it changed everything. Quite frankly, this is silly. The bombs dropped on Japan were of minor importance at the time: think of how much effort went into making the 3 total (Trinity test included): one hell of a lot! The Manhattan project has been compared to the Apollo program in scale and ambition, but what was the result? Two deployable weapons doing less actaul damage then convential weapons, of which the effort going into make would have been considerably less.
Anyway, my point is this: The 'bomb' is just a cold war syndrome. People seem to think it mattered that the American's used it, or that they invented it. Had they not, the Russian's surley would have. So? What needs to be considered is this: what would the world have been like had the Americans dropped several 500 kiloton MRVs on five of Japan's major cities? With millions of cuasilties, I'm sure this debate would be going differntly. But this is not what happened. The bombs used on Japan were merely a quick- and expensive compared to the firebombing incidents- solution to operation Olympus (I think that's what it was called), the planned invasion of Japan.
Berlin was the orignal target for the first bomb. Would it have made any differnce if three had been dropped instead of 2? No.
Ok now I'm running on; to summorise for those who have no clue what I'm talking about:
People go on and on about the two bombs dropped on Japan, but NO one ever mentions the much worse, and less justifaible bombings of Dresden or Tokyo (both of which killed double the atomic bomb drops).
The concepts "WAR" and "PROGRESS" are now obsolete.
I knew these pay offs were a good idea!)
- By ingliz
- By Unthinking Majority
- By Potemkin
- By Doug64