Player2 said:
Don't look at me, the others are the ones supporting the idea that nuclear bombing reduced war casualties in WW II and that USA did it for that reason. If we assume that as true then two questions arise: Why USA didn't apply the same strategy in other conflicts? What happened to the country that cared so much about civilian deaths? It didn't take long for USA to support military coup d'etats that overthrown democratic governments (with obvious consequences to civilians opposed to them), do napalm bombing, agent orange or support terrorists like the contras. |
A. Yep and since Napalm in Vietnam, more recently White Phosphorus attack on Fallujah.
B. On the topic of reducing casualties by use of devastating weapons
Hasegawa’s scholarship disturbs this simple logic. If the atomic bomb alone could not compel the Japanese to submit, then perhaps the nuclear deterrent is not as strong as it seems. In fact, Wilson argues, history suggests that leveling population centers, by whatever method, does not force surrender. The Allied firebombing of Dresden in February of 1945 killed many people, but the Germans did not capitulate. The long-range German bombing of London did not push Churchill towards acquiescence. And it is nearly impossible to imagine that a bomb detonated on American soil, even one that immolated a large city, would prompt the nation to bow in surrender.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2011/08/07/why_did_japan_surrender/?page=full
