Actually, I believe that we had six bombs. But that is beside the point, I
think. Two seemed to be enough.
Gary Smith wrote:
> Also, they only had the two bombs. To make more would take months of
> refining the ore and building the bombs. To use one in an ineffective way
> would have been a waste of precious resources that could finish the war
> quickly and with fewer casualties.
> K'aya K'ama,
> Gerald/gary Smith gszion1 @juno.com http://www
> "No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." -
> Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
> At 05:33 AM 11/9/2002 -0700, Steven wrote:
> >Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States
> >maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a
> >"demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same
> This is an excellent question. The rationale at the time was that a
> "demonstration" of nuclear power would also demonstrate an unwillingness
> use that power against people - thus negating its effectiveness. It was
> obviously a difficult decision either way. I find it hard to support
> second quessing the men who had to make it without our 50 years of
> Rick Mathis
> Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
> Only $9.95 per month!
> Visit www.juno.com
> /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
> /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html ///
This email was sent to: firstname.lastname@example.org
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!