Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsri.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsri!clarke From: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) Newsgroups: can.politics Subject: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki Message-ID: <1279@utcsri.UUCP> Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 16:02:02 EDT Article-I.D.: utcsri.1279 Posted: Mon Jul 22 16:02:02 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 16:30:55 EDT References: <1197@utcsri.UUCP> <5772@utzoo.UUCP> <1240@utcsri.UUCP> Reply-To: clarke@utcsri.UUCP (Jim Clarke) Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 26 Summary: In article <1278@utcsri.UUCP> hogg@utcsri.UUCP (John Hogg) writes: >In article <307@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Nuking cities is something that was done once, strictly for dramatic effect, >>to end the second world war. I don't think it's on people's minds today >>as a direct end. > > ... The numbers killed, using >any reasonable estimate, were far less than the casualties that would have >resulted from fighting the war to its bitter end in a conventional manner. >"Mopping up" the inventors of the kamikaze airplane, including the final >defence of their homeland, would have involved more Japanese CIVILIAN casualties >than two small (by current standards) nuclear bombs. So it can be argued, >quite reasonably, that the first use of atomic bombs SAVED lives.) It's been suggested, in my opinion reasonably, that dropping those bombs on a less heavily inhabited area, such as a smaller island, would have been enough to convince the Japanese to surrender. In fact, this is just where the generals and the scientists began to disagree, if I remember my history. On the other hand, would we have avoided WW III for forty years if we hadn't seen what a small nuclear bomb does to a city? Maybe we owe a *very* big debt to those Japanese dead. Let's hope we go on owing it. -- Jim Clarke -- Dept. of Computer Science, Univ. of Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4 (416) 978-4058 {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsri!clarke