|
|
|
Subject:
End of the Japanese Empire - The Use of Atomic Bombs On Japan
CJH
4/1/2005 7:50:19 PM
|
One thing that has bothered me for years is hearing the US accused, blamed or criticized for the use of atomic bombs on Japan to end the war. The premise of the criticisms seems to be that our use of the two atomic bombs constituted an inhumanity above and beyond that normal for modern warfare. I disagree.
There is a theory that the more efficient a particular technology is at dealing death in war, the fewer people actually suffer in war where that technology is used. From WWI we can surmise the principle that where both sides are evenly matched in a war large numbers of people suffer. In 1862, Indiana physician Dr. Gatling believed that if there were a really terrible weapon of war available to the army of the North, the shorter that terrible war would turn out to be. That was why he invented the Gatling gun.
I think it is fairly evident from the conditions prevailing in August 1945 that it is quite probable that the Japanese people would have suffered much more if the atomic bombs had not been used than they did from their use. One need only observe the allied estimate of a million allied military casualties and then surmise the number of Japanese killed and wounded in proportion to this estimate. One may also observe that conventional bombing which devastated 66 Japanese cities would continue and deprive the population of food production heat, clean water sanitation, etc.
Death and injury from direct causes alone would surely be in the millions. In a prolonged campaign on Japanese soil the population surely would have suffered from indirect causes such as malnutrition, exposure and disease.
As terrible as the local death and destruction was at Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese people were less worse off for their use because of the rapidity with which these bombs ended the war. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
