[Vision2020] Tony Simpsom Shills for Terrorists Yet Again!

[Paul Rumelhart]

Matt Decker wrote:

>Sure the same reason you can explain they would have surrendered. I would 
>love to carry this conversation on. If you can't realize what we "did" saved 
>lives, then I won't though.
>
>Matt
>
>  
>

Perhaps it saved many lives, I'm not a historian of WWII, but it also 
took them too.  Hundreds of thousands of them.  Men, women, and 
children.  Most of whom were non-combatant civilians.  According to 
Wikipedia, 140,000 at Hiroshima and approximately the same number at 
Nagasaki. 

Hiroshima was targeted based on three criteria: 1) an important target 
in an urban area of more than three miles in diameter, 2) capable of 
being damaged effectively by a blast, and 3) that it was unlikely to be 
attacked before they could drop the bomb on it.

There were five targets to choose from: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, 
Kokura Arsenal, and Niigata.  They wanted the greatest military effect 
with the greatest psychological impact.  Kyoto and Hiroshima were 
classified as AA targets, the rest A or B.  They even considered 
dropping it on the Emperor's palace.

If they wanted to minimize civilian casualties, then dropping it in an 
"urban area" would not have been their first criteria.

You can read the memo from the Target Committee at: 
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

Was it worth the cost?  And to  whom?

What would have happened had we not dropped the bombs?  Whose lives 
would have been lost because of it?

Paul