Yes, you are right. "only 140k" is a rather insensitive way to put it... my apologies. Any loss of life is significant. Without belittling these horrific events further, all I was trying to point out is the A-bombs get far more credit in history than they should. Statistically, the human loss only accounted for around 7% of the total war losses estimated for Japan. I am unable to find it (now that I am looking for it) but I wrote a hard copy military strategy paper on it back in the mid-80s that has actual numbers and references (I apologize that I am working mostly from memory at the moment). The analysis was regarding the effectiveness of attacks of varying sophistication and technology in WW2 (Japan was just one the theaters reviewed). One thing that investigation did show was how much greater impact the fire bomb attacks had on the military industrial complex... not just the collateral aspects, but the critical workforce aspects needed to make it functional. Losses were much greater... 3-500k.
Essentially this is the backbone of terrorist strategy today around the world (not my paper, but similar analysis by others with a more diabolical intent). Net loss is not the plan, high visibility and high psychological impact opportunities are... iconic assaults that make compelling pictures for the evening news to stampede the herd. The A-bomb attacks of WW2 fit in that category. Yes, it is very easy to sit here and type such things in a very cold, dispassionate, and unconnected way. Again, my apologies if I offend anyone. There is no compassion in statistics or strategy. -john -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 4:11 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [OT] The myths of Hiroshima John Steck wrote: >In proper context, the atomic bombs were minor blows to the Japanese. >It was more a psychological attack. Only 140K are linked to the bombs >directly (from the event) and indirectly (from radiation poisoning). *ONLY* 140,000 people?!? Only? That's an outrageous choice of words. Furthermore, it is wrong. The damage was crippling. Two major cities were wiped out, including some of the largest factories and military bases. And the U.S. announced it would continue dropping bombs. That was no idle threat. Contrary to some of the history books from the 1960s and 70s, many more bombs were in the pipeline. The next bomb was ready in about two weeks, and a dozen more were scheduled to be "deployed" (dropped) by the end of the year. As soon as MacArthur's people found out the bomb existed, a few hours after Hiroshima, they began revising their invasion plans. They decided to drop three or four on the beaches of Shikoku just prior to the invasion. Some of the early firebomb attacks on Tokyo killed about as many people as the atomic bombs, but that was because the civilians did not know how to respond, and the government tried to keep them from fleeing. After two or three raids the fatality rate dropped from ~100,000 per attack to a few thousand. People quickly learned to get out of the way when the air raid sirens went off, an hour before the attack. Most Japanese cities were small, and an able-bodied person could flee to the surrounding mountains and rivers on foot within an hour. You cannot get out of the way of a nuclear bomb, and there could be no advanced air raid warnings. They could warn people when thousands of airplanes were approaching, but nuclear bombs were dropped by groups of three airplanes, and such small groups were coming over Japan in many places every day for one purpose or another (mainly surveillance and mapping). When the bombing began millions of people defied government orders and fled to the countryside, abandoning their houses, possessions, and jobs. This brought production to a halt, which was the whole idea of the bombing. The U.S. encouraged this by dropping leaflets warning people to leave. The Japanese government discouraged it by cutting off people's rations when they left their assigned jobs, and by torturing and beating people to death. Much of the population of Hiroshima had evacuated, fortunately. In my opinion, the conventional and nuclear bombs, and the property damage they wrought, was entirely the moral responsibility of the United States. I do not see how anyone can argue with that. It was possible to carry out war without direct attacks on civilians, by confining attacks to military targets and by blockading. When the conventional bombing attacks began, many prominent Americans, including some prominent military leaders, decried them as morally wrong and ineffective. It is difficult to judge whether they were necessary and effective. While I have no doubt the U.S. was morally responsible for the damage, the fact that these attacks killed civilians was entirely the fault of the Japanese government. Since the Japanese government could do nothing to prevent the attacks, it should have made every effort to evacuate the people. In England and Germany the governments organized evacuations and the casualty rate was lower. Full Disclosure: Some of my future relatives and in-laws were killed or wounded in Hiroshima, including one who was a soldier in the Hiroshima army base. (Contrary to some antiwar revisionist history, this military base was huge, and it was smack in the middle of the city.) Other relatives were on the American side and probably would have been killed in the invasion. - Jed
