Hiroshima+Nagasaki casualties

Tom tomwhore@slack.net
Sat, 4 May 2002 15:10:32 -0400 (EDT)


On Sat, 4 May 2002, Robert Harley wrote:

--]Hi Bill.  Please tone it down a bit.

Translation...You bring up some good poitns and thats a threat to me. So
now I will try toplay off as the clam rational one and make you seem the
wildly yelling boob.

--]>available at the time.  Do you people know NOTHING of the facts here?
--]
--]Yes we do.

Ahh, We. There is always a WE in there somewhere/

--]Actually, the uranium bomb (Little Boy) was very simple:

Historicaly at that time it was this simple? Or is this just Bob Harley
master of hindsight supposing folks back inthe 40's should have been as
smart as he thinks he is now?

--]What you term "my" stupid demo idea was actually put forward by the
--]Target Committee in April 1945.  Their initial suggestion was to drop
--]a bomb over Tokyo Bay.  Very few casualties, massive audience and
--]psychological impact.


Even after the first bomb went off on live targets the enemy was not
willing to surrender. Do you think a demo over a non civi target would
have been MORE effective?

--]BK:
--]>Go do some research about what facts existed AT THAT time before
--]>making such inane suggestions.
--]
--]Whatever.


Comeon BK, be calm.:)-

--]No.  Japan was already on its last legs.  Plus the US knew that the
--]USSR was about to denounce its neutrality pact with Japan and declare
--]war (which they did).  But that's almost irrelevant.  Once the bomb
--]was functional, it was almost certain to bring about an easy US
--]victory without an invasion.  If it didn't, then the atomic bombings
--]just added to the casualties and if it did, as was likely, then no
--]invasion was necessary.  In either case the onus was on the US to get
--]maximum mileage out of the atomic bomb while minimizing civilian
--]casualties.  I'm not opposed to the fact that the used it.  I'm
--]opposed to the fact that, right out of gate, they threw everything
--]they had at civilian targets.  I think Truman took the decision he did
--]with insufficient care and with some of the wrong priorities, in a way
--]that Roosevelt might well not have...


OF course all the DATA you suppose to know would be great in hypothesising
an alternative outcome, but you dont do simulations so I guese its all
jawflapping and half baked conjecture.

I wonder if you do science this way. 

"I suppose that this quark should spin that way if I tweek this one the
other way...there I have said it so now it is true. I dont do sims, I
dont need to prove anything. I say it and it is..."

Great, Crash Harley sets back the Scientific method of testing an idea
back a few hundred years..

--]The tone of discourse is just fantastic these days.

Yep, folks wont take your word on things and that just about peeves you
off yor rocker:)-