From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
news:op.s7i1sxsmeipai0{at}dsl40.bgtnvtpl.sover.net...
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:35:43 -0500, Rich Gauszka 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
>> news:op.s68lebimeipai0{at}dsl40.bgtnvtpl.sover.net...
>>> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 10:52:02 -0500, John Cuccia

>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes, that was why I posted the Hirshima picture.   The
"laws and
>>>> customs or war" are peacetime constructs which have
no influence on
>>>> wartime conduct.
>>>>
>>> And again, you'd have prefered the million or more American and Japanese
>>> casualities a full blown invasion would have cost.
>>> --
>>> Gary Wiltshire
>>
>> I'm not arguing against the Hiroshima bombing but I do doubt that we
>> would
>> have had to go into Operation 'Downfall' and invade even had we not used
>> the
>> atomic bomb.  We did own the air over Japan with the B29s  and the
>> firebombing raids had done far, far more damage to the morale of the
>> population ( i.e. 20 square miles of downtown Tokyo a sea of napalm
>> flame -
>> either burn or be asphyxiated).
>>
>>
>
> So firebombing, which killed more and destroyed more would be morally
> preferable?
>
> --
> Gary Wiltshire

It wasn't an either/or choice as both occurred.  Nor was I debating any
higher moral purpose here just that Japan would have fallen without the
need for invasion with or without the dropping of the atomic bomb.  Did the
dropping of the bomb give the Japanese an additional excuse and hasten the
surrender? - probably. Even if we did not drop it someone would have so in
some way one could say it did lead to detente, many bad science fiction
movies and the rest

"Now I become Death, the shatterer of worlds," Oppenheimer

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5