[thechat] West v. East (was: civilized vs. uncivilized)

[Ron White]

<snip>
>I certainly have issues with US conduct during WWII.  Hiroshima.
>Nagasaki.

While I recognise (albeit disagree with) the PoV that says that
Hiroshima was a necessary evil, I really do not think that Nagasaki
was necessary for the Japanese to get the point.
<snip>

So, you think it would have been better for the Allies to invade Japan at a
cost of untold millions of Japanese lives, not to mention a million Allied
casualties instead of dropping the bombs? The Japanese were given a
surrender ultimatum on July 25th
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/1945/450726-potsdam.html which they
rejected...
After the first bomb was dropped, Truman again called for them to surrender,
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/1945/450808a-pr-war.html, which they again
rejected, then and ONLY then did he give the Ok to drop the second. Even
then the War Council didn't want to surrender, Hirohito had to order them to
accept the terms. So Yes, Nagasaki WAS necessary for the Japanese to get the
point.

With the amount of indoctrination of Bushido that pervaded the Japanese at
the time, it is very likely that the scale of suicides and suicide attacks
against the Allied armies would very likely have killed almost every
Japanese above the age of 14 and the attendant destruction of cities with
the Japanese Army fighting for every square inch of ground would have more
than likely destroyed the Japanese culture. They were committing suicide
defending outlying islands, what would have happened on the Home Islands?


<snip>
Do you think that the likely sponsorship of the Afghan Northern Alliance
is storing up future problems?
</snip>

Probably... I don't think they like the West all that much either...

Thanks,
Ron White