On 12/28/2014 9:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The estimates were in the hundreds of thousands - and that's among U.S.
servicemen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall they obviously would have
also
killed a lot of Japanese defenders.
The estimates were continually revised upwards, from the initial estimate of 30,000
(perhaps in an effort to retroactively justify the bomb's use).
Estimates of hundreds of thousands were at the time. Perhaps they have been continually
revised downwards to attribute guilt.
Japanese casualties from Nagasaki and Hiroshima totaled about 200,000.
Suppose U.S.
casualties in an invasion had been only 10,000 and Japanese casualties only
20,000;
do you think Truman should have sacrificed 10,000 of his own citizenry to
save
180,000 of the enemy? I can assure you that the U.S. electorate would not
have
agreed with such a calculation.
So how high do you think the ratio of dead foreign civilians to dead domestic soldiers
can get before its no longer politically acceptable? 100:1, 1000:1, 10000:1? At some
point it becomes de facto genocide.
Ask yourself. If you were President what ratio would you countenance? Remember, you're
balancing the lives of your constituents who elected you to lead in their interests,
against the lives of an enemy who has already killed 100,000 U.S. troops and between 10
and 20 million in China, Burma, Indochina,...
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
