posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:58 PM
reply to post by Danbones
"need it"? No, they didn't need it. They could have beaten Japan in two other ways... Blockade. Invasion.
How many starve to death, or die from related illnesses before Japan surrenders? More than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be my guess...
That's what the blockade brings...assuming it even works in the first place...
Invasion? Everytime I think about this I thank God it didn't happen. The most conservative estimates I've seen the death toll would have been in
the millions... Both sides would have been bled white...Japan moreso obviously, civilian causulties beyond count...
Three horrible choices: Use the atomic weapons in the hopes that the shock of it will force the Japanese to surrender... Several hundred thousand
die. Horrible choice, and a genie is out of the bottle.
Blockade. How many thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands die of starvation? How many others of diseases that always follow along with
famine? Even more horrific.
Invasion. How many hundreds of thousands would have died in this scenario? Or would it have been millions? What did invasion do to Europe, where
cousins were fighting each other... How much worse when there was a very real racial bias attached? There was genuine hatred going both ways in this
portion of WWII... The end result of this scenario is just as horrific as any atomic bomb, more so infact in my opinion.
Three horrible scenarios... In which hundreds of thousands die, or more. Hobson's choice. The PTB picked the least horrific of the three available
solutions... You are, of course, welcome to disagree.