Was dropping the A-bomb right?

[Gruntboy]

This may have cost more lifes but it would be soldiers lifes, not civilians.

You might think that a life is always a life but:
Everyone is responsible for thier own actions, a soldier have choosed to kill other people for a cause. Any soldier who does not think the cause he is fighting for is good enough reason for giving up his own life shall not fight for that cause.

People like you cause and perpetuate wars rather than prevent them.

Send someone else to do it right? They're in the army so they're paid to die? Don't like hearing about civilian casualties over your Kellog's Frosties so send others to lessen your guilt?

That opinion makes me want to vomit. It is the primary reason I decided NOT to join the army in 1998.

What about "Citizen Soldiers"? What about draftees? Whatever happened to defending your nation? Why should we squander the lives of people who pledge to protect us?

Invasion: lots of Japanese deaths, lots of Allied deaths.
A-Bomb: relatively fewer Japanese deaths.

Yeah, its a God-awful choice to make but it is the lesser of two evils.

Those soldiers you want to die didn't have a choice. The Axis powers brought war to the world.

Are we to apply this logic now? Soldiers should die because they believe Terror is wrong? Everyone else whistles why they walk away because they don't give a damn?

NO. We make anyone who ever wants to contemplate commiting such attrocities look at what we did to the Terrorists and make them never think of doing it again. Deterrence. Peace through superior firepower.

[VoodooDali]

I think we need CE or someone else knowledgeable about physics to tell us what they knew about radiation in the 40's.

As far as a showdown with the Soviets--Patton disagreed with Roosevelt or Truman (I forget which?) pulling out of Europe when we did...the Soviets were weak at the time, and Patton felt they could have been easily conquered. How strong were they in 1945? We probably could have taken them on. Though it's hard to imagine where that would have led.

[Dottie]

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>We in the United States have never cared about sparing civilians and non-military targets except as a PR tool. What's the difference between firebombing Kyoto or Dresden or dropping a nuclear weapon on the same city? The level of destruction is the same. The death toll is the same. The target is the same: civilians.


Bombing cities not only destroys industrial centers and infrastructure, but it does something more crucial: it destroys the will of the opposition to fight. In a declared war, everyone is a potential target. Some targets are more desirable and a higher priority than others, but everyone is contributing to the war effort. How about that woman who works at the textile mill that makes uniforms for soldiers? What about the 16 year old who will one day be old enough to fight? Is the guy who seals the packages of c-rations that go out to soldiers a civilian? No, they're not combatants, but they are part of the opposition's war effort.


Americans have waged psychological warfare and shot at civilians in all of our wars. Whether it is Sherman's March to the Sea or a B-29 raid on Kobe, non-combatants have always been in our crosshairs at some point, either down the barrel of a gun or as the objects of a terror campaign.


Let's go through another scenario. You're Harry Truman. Okinawa has been captured and your warplanners are telling you that the next step is an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The Commandant of the Marine Corps, the CNO, and the Army Chief of Staff are telling you that it will cost one million allied casualties to defeat the Japanese.


George Marshall pulls you aside and reminds you that there's this little black project that we've spent three years and $2 billion developing that could bring the war to a quick end.


Fact: You (as Truman) are an elected official.


Fact: Your electorate is not tolerant of high American body counts.


Fact: In 1945, a Japanese life is not worth an American life. This is a world of segregation, overt racism, anti-semitism and concentration camps in the United States.


Fact: The Cold War was coming and Truman knew he'd have to deal with the Soviets. By denying them a power bloc in Asia (China was controlled by Chaing Kai-Shek and the Nationalists), he was strengthing the West's position in the East. Say what you will about using the Japanese to manipulate the Soviets, but the decision to drop the bomb was not made in a vacuum; Truman meant the bomb to be a message as much to the Stalin as the Japanese.


I do not believe for a second that any American politician or military senior officer (of today or yesteryear) will trade their soldiers lives to spare someone else's civilians if another means is available. In August 1945 that other means was available. And it worked.


Would the Japanese have surrendered otherwise? Maybe, maybe not. I have never seen any documented evidence to lead me to believe that they were pursing avenues of peace. The American invasion of Okinawa was on 1 April 1945 and the fighting lasted for about two months. So you have from the beginning of June until August when the Japanese could have capitulated. They didn't.


If you're Harry Truman and you've got a number of different options on your desk (invasion, the bomb, blockade the islands and let them starve, etc.) and you also know that you've got to control the situation in Europe, what are you going to do? Do you tie up valuable warships and divisions in the Pacific by invading Japan or do you move them to Europe for a possible showdown with the Soviets?


People want to think of the bomb in a single context: it's use against the Japanese populace. But you can't do that. You must consider the situation in Europe and our relationship with the Soviets and how the bomb played a role in that, both in ending the war with Japan and getting the Soviets to sit back a second and re-examing their policies in Europe.</STRONG>

1. I know civilian lifes are not highly rated in a war. I said they should be.

2. Although many people who are not soldiers clearly contribute to the war machine they are not directley involved in the killing. Though producing weapons for a unsuported cause is bad, its not as bad as using them.

3. You cant argu that it was right to drop the bomb beacause Truman and his voters were racists. Infact the thing that they were are implying that the decision about dropping the bomb were taken on other grounds then pure life-count.

[Gruntboy]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>What do you think about the suggestion the Scientific Committe came up with, that the US should demonstrate the A-bomb at an unihabited island, and threat Japan? IMO this would have been a better solution. Truman and his gang declined this because they believed they had to attack Japan without prior warning.</STRONG>

Yes, interesting point - guess that's why they came up with it.

Would Japan believe the demonstration? How could we show it to them? Would it matter (who do we show it to?)? What about an already bombed city or giving warning? What is the point of that?

Some of these questions we'll never know the answer to.

But I understand the basic logic behind dropping the bombs. Kill an enemy that won't surrender with minimum loss of Allied life. Demonstration doesn't do this. Why waste an already limited hand? Why even show your hand? Delivered as a surprise and on two occassions it had the desired effect.

I think the cold war stuff is benefical side-effects as opposed to the governing reason for using the bombs.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by VoodooDali:
<STRONG>As far as a showdown with the Soviets--Patton disagreed with Roosevelt or Truman (I forget which?) pulling out of Europe when we did...the Soviets were weak at the time, and Patton felt they could have been easily conquered. How strong were they in 1945? We probably could have taken them on. Though it's hard to imagine where that would have led.</STRONG>

Patton was a windbag who was about to bite off more than he could chew. Yes, the Soviets were weakened and tired of war, but in 1941, the Wehrmacht was the most highly-trained and best equipped army in the world and they were still chewed up in the Russian countryside. Granted there were some other factors going into that defeat, like our help through the lend-lease act and Hitler's overconfidence, but like Napoleon, the Germans were thrown back.

Lacking a reason other than Stalin's paranoia, the western Allies could not have invaded the Soviet Union in 1945. The British and French had suffered horribly, and even if we had gotten the Germans to help us (there's a thought!), it would have cost hundreds of thousands of more lives when everyone wanted peace . . . or at least a short period of without fighting.

[Celegorm]

hm... germans helping the invasion of russia?... heh, maybe 5yrs after, but not then. you forget that the entier german army was demoralised and defeated. you would've had to retool them, and train the younger ones into fighting with the US troops and not taking them out... on accident even.

i think pushing the border of russia's control back to moscow would've been a great help to the world though, but who could've had the forsight to predict how things played out.

now, the american soldier's life = enemy civilian life issue.

think about who your asking this question of during the war.

your asking their own generals!! of corse they're going to pick the lives of their own troops over that of the enemy. would you say "ok, just to play fair we'll let you kill off two of our brothers and my sister's son"?

well, leme toss the answer out for you. NO!

at that poitn in the war it was all about saving US lives, that of the japanese was secondary, although a consideration.

did he know he was murdering an entier city basically? yes.

but it was the cost of their lives that saved their people, and more importently to him, THEIR COMMANDER AND CHIEF, saved the lives of his troops.

it ended the war. it left both nations basically intact, us more than them... why its called the victor.

the japanese were able to rebuild, would they had been able to if their country had been ravished by a 2, 3 4 or 5 year long war that destroyed any building not built for military purpases by the US, and killed every soldier who didn't surrender, and civilian who didn't commit suicide?

invasion would've been far worse.

although, the US would stil have a colony... imperilism, now thats a concept almost worth adopting. although now-a-days it'd be considered the ultamite babysitter operation.

[Dottie]

Originally posted by Gruntboy:
<STRONG>People like you cause and perpetuate wars rather than prevent them.


Send someone else to do it right? They're in the army so they're paid to die? Don't like hearing about civilian casualties over your Kellog's Frosties so send others to lessen your guilt?


That opinion makes me want to vomit. It is the primary reason I decided NOT to join the army in 1998.


What about "Citizen Soldiers"? What about draftees? Whatever happened to defending your nation? Why should we squander the lives of people who pledge to protect us?


Invasion: lots of Japanese deaths, lots of Allied deaths.
A-Bomb: relatively fewer Japanese deaths.


Yeah, its a God-awful choice to make but it is the lesser of two evils.


Those soldiers you want to die didn't have a choice. The Axis powers brought war to the world.


Are we to apply this logic now? Soldiers should die because they believe Terror is wrong? Everyone else whistles why they walk away because they don't give a damn?


NO. We make anyone who ever wants to contemplate commiting such attrocities look at what we did to the Terrorists and make them never think of doing it again. Deterrence. Peace through superior firepower.</STRONG>

You are true about one thing, I will never jeopardize my own life for defending my nation, as i know of no nation worthy of defence for the sake of the nation itself.

Neither would i take part in an assault on another nation just to satisfy someones lust for power or someones fear for foreigners.

By surrendering other persons right to life you surrender your own at the same time.

I think you romanticize the army, millitary power have always been a way to controle others and get an outlet for your own petty empire dreams.

As i see it not obeying anothers greed by refusing to take up arms against civilians prevents war, not cause it.

[fable]

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>Patton was a windbag who was about to bite off more than he could chew. Yes, the Soviets were weakened and tired of war, but in 1941, the Wehrmacht was the most highly-trained and best equipped army in the world and they were still chewed up in the Russian countryside. Granted there were some other factors going into that defeat, like our help through the lend-lease act and Hitler's overconfidence, but like Napoleon, the Germans were thrown back.

Lacking a reason other than Stalin's paranoia, the western Allies could not have invaded the Soviet Union in 1945. The British and French had suffered horribly, and even if we had gotten the Germans to help us (there's a thought!), it would have cost hundreds of thousands of more lives when everyone wanted peace . . . or at least a short period of without fighting.</STRONG>

No foreign army since the Middle Ages has ever successfully invaded Russia. Period. This includes two of the mightiest war machines ever assembled in their respective times, those of Napoleon and Hitler. While it's true that Hitler fatally divided his army by declaring a second front against the Russians in WWII, the victorious Americans would have been facing a much strong Russian army than the Germans ever did. And Stalin was nothing if not a fatalist. Why should he worry about losing millions of people in another war, when he himself killed six million people in the Ukraine alone before the war, as part of a purge for dissidents?

Americans have waged psychological warfare and shot at civilians in all of our wars. Whether it is Sherman's March to the Sea or a B-29 raid on Kobe, non-combatants have always been in our crosshairs at some point, either down the barrel of a gun or as the objects of a terror campaign.

I really loathed this post of yours, and agree with just about all of it. As I see it, time and nations fluctuate between extremes of abstract and destructive conflict. You do what it takes to win a war, but sometimes, the nature of the pieces and terrain permits a more civilized kind of war: in one famous battle of the early Italian Renaissance, two armies maneuvered to a point where one side had to admit defeat, although not a single person was killed. On the other hand, when Kublai Khan began his passage west, he gave each city he encountered a choice: swear fealty, accept my government and pay me taxes, or be razed to the ground.

Currently, we appear to be sliding away from reactions to the horrors of WWI, (which included the widespread use of chemical warfare), and towards a cynical acceptance of using any tools we have to achieve a given end. The problem we face, today, is that we have weapons at our disposal that Kublai, Sherman, and a host of other military figures did not possess, which can literally destroy civilization and render the planet unfit for human life. When we look back at the record and realize that Kennedy and his cabinet were seriously considering an all-out war with the Soviet during the Cuban nuclear missile crisis, I have to wonder how far anybody is willing to go in destroying that they hold most dear, while thinking they're actually preserving it.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

[Dottie]

Originally posted by Celegorm Valkyrre:
<STRONG>now, the american soldier's life = enemy civilian life issue.


think about who your asking this question of during the war.


your asking their own generals!! of corse they're going to pick the lives of their own troops over that of the enemy. would you say "ok, just to play fair we'll let you kill off two of our brothers and my sister's son"?</STRONG>

I am not asking the generals! I am saying that if the soldiers in the US army at the time thought it was important enough to defeat japan they should have fought for it against japanese troops not japanese civilians.

If it was not important enough they should not have obeyed any orders from the generals concerning the attack.

[HighLordDave]

Originally posted by Dottie:
<STRONG>You are true about one thing, I will never jeopardize my own life for defending my nation, as i know of no nation worthy of defence for the sake of the nation itself.

Neither would i take part in an assault on another nation just to satisfy someones lust for power or someones fear for foreigners.</STRONG>

@Dottie:
This is off subject, but at what point would you be willing to sacrifice your own life? You say that under no circumstance would you give your life for your country, but what if the Nazis or the Huns or the Taliban came knocking at your national border? Would you be willing to live in subjugation because no nation is worth defending with violence?

I appreciate pacifists who believe that there are other ways to solve problems other than violence, because often they are right. At the same time, I also appreciate people like our friend Gruntboy who believe in "peace through superior firepower". Neither path is always right, although both have their place.

Soldiers do not make policy-military or otherwise. That's not their job, even though sometimes they think it is (ie-Douglas MacArthur). Soldiers fight because they're told to. Who tells them? In the west, it's an elected civilian government. Sometimes, those governments use the military to pursue aggressive policies. That's where the power of citizens like you and me comes in; if we don't like our government's actions, we can replace it.

The Japanese were not the victims of a manufactured economic war (ie-the 1991 Persian Gulf War) or war of aggression (ie-the Mexican-American War); the Japanese attacked us in a pre-emptive strike. Given that the Japanese had a long history of not surrendering when they had the chance, Truman did the right thing in deciding to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Happy Evil]

Originally posted by Dottie:
<STRONG>There is no excuse for using any kind of weapon agianst civilians. If US at the time felt that a surrender from Japan was the only way to go they should have chosed to invade.

This may have cost more lifes but it would be soldiers lifes, not civilians.<snip>
</STRONG>

Dottie you seem to forget that civilians are the ones who physically arm and tool any army. If I am waging a war against you, I will do everything I can to win. I will want to eliminate your capacity to produce arms to use against my soldiers and civilians. I will want to demoralize you citizens to the point of despair. That is my logic for attacking cities and civilians. This strategy is demonstrated plainly in many RT war sim.

Originally posted by Dottie:
<STRONG>
<snip>This may have cost more lifes but it would be soldiers lifes, not civilians.<snip>
</STRONG>

??? Wow. I would hate to be a soldier in your army. The thing you are missing IMHO, is that
the soldiers mentioned above are American sons and daughters. Not nameless, faceless soldiers used as expendable resources.
Saving American lives should have been priority number one.
Do you really think the US military would have landed on Japanes soil without dropping huge numbers of bombs on its cities? How many civilians would that kill/save compared to the H-bomb?

Originally posted by Dottie:
<STRONG>
<snip>You might think that a life is always a life but:
Everyone is responsible for thier own actions, a soldier have choosed to kill other people for a cause. Any soldier who does not think the cause he is fighting for is good enough reason for giving up his own life shall not fight for that cause.<snip>
</STRONG>

I think what your saying is that if someone chooses to be a soldier, then they should be prepared to die. I think all soldiers understand that. That does not mean they want to die needlessly nor do the their leaders want them to.

In this case I only see Americans and Japanese. Not soldiers and civilians. Kill more Japanese and save Americans?? Sounds like a winner to me.

Oh and as always, dont beat up on the US for finishing the fight Japan started.(sticks out toungue childishly)

Originally posted by Dottie:
<STRONG>
<snip>Personaly i cant see that the pride of a nation is enough reason for either killing or dying.<snip>
</STRONG>

Pride?
The US motivation for the war against Japan in WWII was pride?.

What would you die for?

Originally posted by Dottie:
<STRONG>
<snip> So Japan should have been invaded by the soldiers that thought it were important enough to die for <snip>
</STRONG>

It seems like you are questioning the conviction of the soldiers?

Let me see if I can parphrase your statement.
...Instead of dropping the bomb, the US should have sent (insert large number) American soldiers to their deaths and as a result, also send (insert larger number) Japanese civilians and soldiers to their deaths because American soldiers should want to die, albeit unnecessarily, if their cause is just.

I think my point is...
Dropping the bomb saved American lives.
Keyword is American.
Dottie speaks about people being responsible for their actions. The Japanese were held responsible for their actions.

The level and means of reprisals for the unwarrented and vicious attacks by the Imperialist Japanese seem to be the problem elements here. Well I propose the old "the ends justifies the means" scenario. The validity of that statement,IMHO, hinges on the thought that the ends (result) is justifiable itself.(To win/end the war)
Dropping the bombs did result in the immediate unconditional surrender by Japan.
No question about that.

[Dottie]

Originally posted by HighLordDave:
<STRONG>@Dottie:
This is off subject, but at what point would you be willing to sacrifice your own life? You say that under no circumstance would you give your life for your country, but what if the Nazis or the Huns or the Taliban came knocking at your national border? Would you be willing to live in subjugation because no nation is worth defending with violence?


I appreciate pacifists who believe that there are other ways to solve problems other than violence, because often they are right. At the same time, I also appreciate people like our friend Gruntboy who believe in "peace through superior firepower". Neither path is always right, although both have their place.


Soldiers do not make policy-military or otherwise. That's not their job, even though sometimes they think it is (ie-Douglas MacArthur). Soldiers fight because they're told to. Who tells them? In the west, it's an elected civilian government. Sometimes, those governments use the military to pursue aggressive policies. That's where the power of citizens like you and me comes in; if we don't like our government's actions, we can replace it.


The Japanese were not the victims of a manufactured economic war (ie-the 1991 Persian Gulf War) or war of aggression (ie-the Mexican-American War); the Japanese attacked us in a pre-emptive strike. Given that the Japanese had a long history of not surrendering when they had the chance, Truman did the right thing in deciding to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.</STRONG>

I would be willing to sacrifice myself against Nazis, but that is for the sake of my own and others freedom, not for the sake of my nation. And i would do so by targeting Nazis not by targeting people who happend to live near them.

That is right, soldiers doesnt make policy. Essentialy soldiers are for-hire guns, wich by itself are imoral. However fighting for a cause you percive as just is a different thing.

[Dottie]

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>Let me see if I can parphrase your statement.
...Instead of dropping the bomb, the US should have sent (insert large number) American soldiers to their deaths and as a result, also send (insert larger number) Japanese civilians and soldiers to their deaths because American soldiers should want to die, albeit unnecessarily, if their cause is just.

I think my point is...
Dropping the bomb saved American lives.
Keyword is American.
Dottie speaks about people being responsible for their actions. The Japanese were held responsible for their actions.

The level and means of reprisals for the unwarrented and vicious attacks by the Imperialist Japanese seem to be the problem elements here. Well I propose the old "the ends justifies the means" scenario. The validity of that statement,IMHO, hinges on the thought that the ends (result) is justifiable itself.(To win/end the war)
Dropping the bombs did result in the immediate unconditional surrender by Japan.
No question about that.</STRONG>

This is the point: America should have send no soldiers to die in japanese beach landings. But if a large group of americans thought a greater good could be served by dying in large fighting japanese soldiers this is a differnet thing.


You say the keyword is american, i think that if a person is from US or Japan is largly irelevant. And fact is that most japanese did not partake in the assault agains US.

edit: misspelled Japan

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Dottie ]

[Delacroix]

Originally posted by Happy Evil:
<STRONG>@Ivan, "Kill an entire population"??
Just a little overstated dont ya think. I thought I was the only one who didi that.
If you havent noticed the Japanese are alive and well with one of the most important economies in the world.

Sure dropping the bomb killed bunch of people. Thats what people do in wars. Until the Japanese offerd up the demanded unconditional surrender, the war was on.

I think one of the primary reasons to speed the end of the war was to keep the Soviets out of Japan.

I would like for Ivan to speculate what the current status fo Japan would be if it would have been divided between US and Soviet control?</STRONG>

Population. It is a relative term.
World population. Country population. State population. City population. The "pouplation" term is to avoid number reserches, so I say population.
In fact I use "population" as a figure to express major impression. In portuguese we call this a "Hipérbole"(enfatic expression).
Like I say: "I cry rivers of tears."
Is an expression tool, but is not wrong, since I can be talking about the entire city population.

But it is not important.


USA help to Japan. You talk about it. Don't you think it is part of some guilty sense.
Now Japan, as you point, is one of the most important econemics of the world. Yes. But Japan is facing a big cultural problem, especially with this economic bump.

The Wall of Japan.(intersting speculation)
What happens if Japan get splited in USA and URSS influence?
I don't know. Nobody knows.
But anyway, probably Japan will sufer similar problems of germany. It is a problem, but it will be a pleasure compeared to the A-bomb problem.
Do you think the A-bomb make Japan avoid the URSS influence. It is an especulation, not a good face of the A-bomb. Even if this especulation is true, than the A-bomb, IMO, still don't have good face. Because it is the A-bomb. It is the darkest part of the humans destruction feeling.

Look:

VoodooDali:
I was about 11 years old--it left an indelible image in my head. Horribly burnt children peeling their own skin off...

Nothing good can be from this.
Is hard to imagine the sufering.

One day one of my friends say to me:
"I know all Nazi flaw to the humanity, but they give importants conclusions in the medicine reserches".

Imbecile he is.
They don't give nothing of good for me. One conclusion(end) cannot be good if the way(means) to found it is evil. In this case, medicine have ethics, if someone avoid the ethic to do medicine, he is not doing real medicine. Even a war have ethics, drop A-bomb to avoid URSS influence, or to end a war, or to save lives. It don't save lives. There was no honor, the war end when USA drop the A-bombs. The war end, and start the cowardice, inconsequent, deshuman act.

My post is confusing(because of my english), I hope you understand. Any misunderstand of my part, I ask you for sorry.

[Happy Evil]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Certainly - I think the horror of the fire bombing of Tokyo is sometimes unfairly overshadowed by the A-bombs.

What do you think about the suggestion the Scientific Committe came up with, that the US should demonstrate the A-bomb at an unihabited island, and threat Japan? IMO this would have been a better solution. Truman and his gang declined this because they believed they had to attack Japan without prior warning.</STRONG>

If I understand the timelines correctly, I dont think Truman would have had time to set up a demonstration before he would have to deal with the Soviets physically entering the war with the Japanese. I also read something about a fear that the Japanese would concentrate American POW'w in cities to use as human sheilds.

[Minerva]

Guys: Could you stop using the word "Japs", please? That's a racist word, as is "Paki" for the Pakistani, and I hate those words.

Thanks.

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Minerva ]

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Minerva ]

[Happy Evil]

Originally posted by Ivan Cavallazzi:
<STRONG>

One day one of my friends say to me:
"I know all Nazi flaw to the humanity, but they give importants conclusions in the medicine reserches".

Imbecile he is.
They don't give nothing of good for me. One conclusion(end) cannot be good if the way(means) to found it is evil. In this case, medicine have ethics, if someone avoid the ethic to do medicine, he is not doing real medicine. Even a war have ethics, drop A-bomb to avoid URSS influence, or to end a war, or to save lives. It don't save lives. There was no honor, the war end when USA drop the A-bombs. The war end, and start the cowardice, inconsequent, deshuman act.
</STRONG>

Ivan, your English is better than my German.

I think problem you and I have is that you do not consider dropping the bomb as justifiable and I do.
War is kill or be killed.
Whether it is honorable or cowardice is a matter of opinion.
The bomb ended the war. All other actions, opinions, and possibilities are now only up for speculation and debate.

[Dottie]

Sorry minerva, but i cant find the word japs in any of my posts, i did use japanese and japan but i dont think they are racist in anyway.

-Edit-

I have misspelld Japan at one point though, is that what you were refering to?


-Edit again, misspelld "misspelld"... damn im tired

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Dottie ]

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Dottie ]

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Dottie ]

[Xandax]

Hmm - I'd otherwise thought to keep out of this thread - but to all I'd just like to say that:

Hindsight is 20x20.

[Yshania]

If Truman and his generals had been aware at the time that the aftermath would continue to cause cancer and deform babies fifty years on - would he have dropped the bombs? Would you?