Skip to comments.
Hiroshima: Thoughts on an awful anniversary [Do the Ends Justify the Means?]
Pajamas Media ^
| 08/06/2015
| Roger Kimball
Posted on 08/06/2015 8:52:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 last
To: spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
I reminded of “The Mirror” episode of the old Twilight Zone show.
101
posted on
08/06/2015 9:12:53 PM PDT
by
Harmless Teddy Bear
(Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
To: Harmless Teddy Bear
“I reminded of The Mirror episode of the old Twilight Zone show.”
I am not familiar with that particular episode and it is probably good that I do not. LOL
102
posted on
08/06/2015 9:23:26 PM PDT
by
spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
(Why does every totalitarian, political hack think that he knows how to run my life better than I?)
To: PreciousLiberty
I think the number of strictly
collateral civilian casualties incurred from hitting Hiroshima's military targets with incendiaries could have been very high, even possibly higher than using the A-bombs.
That could have been justified if it could be shown that it was the best way to shorten the war by a month, avoid invading southern Kyushu and save a couple hundred thousand lives.
However, this raises questions:
- with the extremely heavy Japanese troop buildup in Kyushu, why would the US nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki and NOT nuke Kyushu?
- If the aim was to shorten the war, why wouldn't the US stipulate beforehand that they would spare Hirohito and his family (as they ended up doing anyway)?
- And if the aim was not
It seems to me that Truman made the decision to hit soft civilian targets rather than the available, hugely significant military targets; and that the war could have been shortened by stipulating in advance what we already were prepared to do anyway (spare the royal family and allow some of the Japanese leadership the opportunity to "save face"); and that the actual plan was to achieve a psychological shock/terror effect by slaughtering civilians.
103
posted on
08/07/2015 5:13:39 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
("He shall defend the needy, He shall save the children of the poor, and crush the oppressor.")
To: PreciousLiberty
Big typo, sorry. The last part of that second paragraph, followed by the third paragraph, was supposed to be this:
- And if the aim was not quite simply the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities together with their population, why did the USA choose precisely the weapons which would do that and nothing else?
It seems to me that Truman made the decision to hit soft civilian targets rather than the available, hugely significant military targets; and that the war could have been shortened by stipulating in advance what we already were prepared to do anyway (spare the royal family and allow some of the Japanese leadership the opportunity to "save face"); and that the actual plan was to achieve a psychological shock/terror effect by slaughtering civilians.
104
posted on
08/07/2015 5:40:35 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
("He shall defend the needy, He shall save the children of the poor, and crush the oppressor.")
To: Mrs. Don-o
*Some* means, yes. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did indeed have military value. For example, the torpedoes used by the IJN such as at Pearl Harbor, were manufactured at Nagasaki.
105
posted on
05/14/2016 3:18:30 PM PDT
by
Jacob Kell
(Jimmy Carter is the skidmark in the panties of American history, Obama is the yellow stain in front)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-105 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson