Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utflis.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!utai!utflis!brown
From: brown@utflis.UUCP (Susan Brown)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Message-ID: <222@utflis.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Jul-85 15:12:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: utflis.222
Posted: Wed Jul 24 15:12:33 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 16:32:07 EDT
References: <1197@utcsri.UUCP> <5772@utzoo.UUCP> <1240@utcsri.UUCP> <1279@utcsri.UUCP> <5816@utzoo.UUCP>
Reply-To: brown@utflis.UUCP (Susan Brown)
Organization: FLIS, University of Toronto
Lines: 15
Summary: 

In article <5816@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> 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.
>
>	The political situation in Japan was more complicated than
>	Westerners would think, and surrender was very difficult.
>	It is most unlikely that a demonstration would have been
>	enough; two atom-bombed cities just barely sufficed.
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
But there wasn't much time between the two to assess the affects in the
Japanese government.  Communications were out etc. Maybe the first one
would have been enough.  A number of "revisionists" take the view that
the second one was to show Stalin that business was meant.  Does your
lengthy article discuss these aspects?  If so, I would be interested.