BA> TW> So STARVING Millions to death would be Better than dropping the Bomb
BA> TW> and quickly ending the war with FAR less casualities??

BA>It does depend on one's POV, doesn't it?

BA>Nobody went after Curtis LeMay for his firebombing of Japanese cities - whic
BA>killed more Japanese people than both of the nukes combined.  Japanese citie
BA>were very vulnerable to fire because of the type of construction used, there
BA>was
BA>little concrete or masonry in residential areas.  Yet because no nukes were
BA>used
BA>I guess that's OK.

Actualy it was another hard choice. While Japan did have a large
Industrial base a great deal of War Materiand foir the Support of trhwe
goals was done in little "Mom & Pop" factories spread out in
places fire
bombed. Now perhaps like i ngermant they could have saturated bombed
those villages back into the Stone age. BUT at least the Fire raids gave
far more the chance to get away than a 500 Pound Bomb does.

BA>Remember that all we knew about the nukes in 1945 was that they were very bi
BA>bangs.  All the knowledge about radiation, fallout and other hazards was
BA>developed
BA>later.

 Actaully not really. They knew a whole lot about the Reactions HU
GE neutron flux making other things Radioactive and that it could be a
problem. In fact in case you didn't know they waited to drop them until
the Wind Conditions was just right so the Contamination(Fallout) would
not be spread very far from Ground Zero.
---
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ 0