Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:63825 talk.politics.mideast:34039 trial.talk.politics.peace:44 alt.desert-storm:7657 Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bonnie.concordia.ca!IRO.UMontreal.CA!matrox!altitude!elevia!alain From: alain@elevia.uucp (W.A.Simon) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,trial.talk.politics.peace,alt.conspiracy,alt.desert-storm Subject: Re: The Nuclear Option Message-ID: <1991Feb14.165446.24497@elevia.uucp> Date: 14 Feb 91 16:54:46 GMT References: <1991Feb7.025838.13793@panix.uucp> <1991Feb9.075438.17779@alembic.acs.com> <1991Feb11.023449.17583@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1991Feb11.172446.7039@engin.umich.edu> <1991Feb11.204302.27201@meteor.wisc.edu> <1991Feb12.1 Organization: Alamut - A Disney Corporation - Now hiring Lines: 68 In jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: >In article <1991Feb12.195346.8520@elevia.uucp> alain@elevia.uucp (W.A.Simon) writes: > In jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes: > >Truman was in a quite different political position. If he had > >let American soldiers die because of failure to use the bomb, > >his political chances would have been nil. > Truman (and the people who were advising him) decided > to use strategic (not tactical) nukes for reasons which > have little to do with saving US lives. Saving US lives > may have been a convenient rationale, and a good side > effect, but the true reason was to scare the Soviets > shitless. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first victims > of the cold war. I am not saying it was the only reason, > but the two bombs would not have been dropped if it had > just been to terminate the war speedily. Japan, by that > time, was already quite damaged and about to cave in. > There was a need on the part of the US to show superior > military strength and the will to use it. In Baghdad, > the bombing is meant to do exactly this, with some > restraint. The time may come when this will not be > enough and more convincing arguments must be used. If > it is done under tactical conditions, nobody will blame > the US for it. I don't think the US consider strategic > nukes at all. > I just hope the diplomats get together before anyone > wins this war. >Alain, how old are you? I was born a year after Hiroshima. Is this relevant? > When you ask men slightly older than >me, what he thought when the A-bomb was dropped, he is likely >to say something like, "My division had just been shipped from >Europe to California, and we were getting ready to be shipped >out to take part in the invasion of Japan. The bomb saved my >life." Another said "My ship was being refitted after taking >two kamikaze hits". >The invasion of Japan would have been extremely bloody. Given how >narrow was the margin of the Japanese decision to surrender after the >A-bomb, it seems quite unlikely that they would have surrendered >before an invasion without the bomb. >If the bomb had been witheld, these men would have found out before >very long. Truman might even have been impeached. There were >15 million men in the service at that time. The bomb may have saved these guys. The official doctrine is that it did. And why not. But there were many reasons for and against it flying around. The quick end to the war was only one of them. No issue is ever that simple. In fact there were very strong evidences that Japan was about to capitulate anyway and a show of force a hundred miles off the coast of Japan might have been enough. Imagine the impression it would have had on a forewarned audience. Given the "dirty" nature of the then current bombs, a display of power on a remote island, with invited Japanese dignitaries, was considered. Both ideas had actually been considered. That they were rejected is an indication that other factors entered the equation. My sources say nothing about Japanese hesitations after the bombings. There were many face saving tactics, but no real illusion as to the outcome. -- Alain UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP