From: "Rich Gauszka" 


"Gary Wiltshire"  wrote in message
news:op.s7j7rac2eipai0{at}dsl40.bgtnvtpl.sover.net...
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:59:26 -0400, Rich Gauszka 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "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
>>
>>
>
> So we could have let millions of Japanese starve to death, or better yet
> fall under Soviet occupation now that the war in Europe was over.
>
> --
> Gary Wiltshire

Didn't say that.  FWIW I am not critical of Truman's decision. I was just
arguing that an invasion ( with a million or so projected casualties ) was
probably unnecessary even if we didn't drop the bomb.  I  agree that
Truman's decision to do so was the prudent one.

As to the long term effects of radiation poisoning that's been an ongoing
learning process by all the superpowers.  I still remember seeing news
reels of troops in close proximity to nuclear tests in my youth ( not a
good thing ).   We weren't the only ones engaged in atmospheric tests
subjecting
people to massive contamination ( French in Polynesia, Soviets in
Kazakhstan and Phil's Brits in the link below to name a few )

http://www.sea-us.org.au/thunder/britsbombingus.html

Britain actively used Australian soil and people to conduct it's nuclear
testing program during the 1950s and 1960s. The 5 areas it conducted the
tests are at Monte Bello Islands in north-western Western Australia (just
off the mainland, near Monkey Mia); Emu Field in north-western South
Australia; the infamous Maralinga in south-western South Australia;
Christmas Island and Malden Island, both due south of Hawaii, on either
side of the Equator. After the Grapple series of tests, the British lent
the site to the US in 1962 for the Dominic series of 25 explosions. Two
further atomic bomb tests, Totem 1 and 2, were carried out at Emu Field on
October 15 and 27, 1953. The next series of atomic bomb tests were carried
out at Maralinga between September 27, 1956 and October 9, 1957, along with
a series of "minor" trials up to 1963. The Grapple series of
tests were undertaken at Malden and Christmas Islands May 15, 1957, to
September 23, 1958.

During the mainland tests many army personnel were deliberately exposed to
the blasts just to see what effect radiation had on troops. Security at the
test sites was lax. The testing range boundaries were not properly
monitored, allowing people to walk in and out. Any signs were in English,
which the local Aboriginal population could not read. Fallout from the
ground blasts led to massive contamination of the Australian interior. The
fallout from Maralinga even reached Adelaide and Melbourne. Some places are
still heavily radioactive due principally to the presence of 20 kg of
plutonium, the most toxic element known to humans.

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