Mitch wrote: > On the subject of nuking Japanese cities, isn't it still commonly accepted > that taking Japan and Okinawa inch by inch like giant versions of Iwo Jima > would have been far bloodier than dropping a couple of low yield nukes? >
And isn't any acceptance of any type of argument of this sort more wag the dog? i.e. divert the argument to a stance you think you can win. USA, no matter the argument for/against, has never been held to account as the lone country on the planet for use of this most terrible of terrible weapons. Go ahead, wag the dog again. btw, I can accept any of the posited wag the dog argument supporting Nagasake/Hiroshima, but... Standard banned closure, omitted. mao _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
