If you opposed the Hiroshima bombing then you should answer this question

[bluestateguy]

How would you have ended the war?

Like it or not, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did what they needed to do, which was to end a war started by an imperialist foe that attacked us.

I'm listening.

[thereismore]

1. Get a load of this

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/12289078.htm

Was bombing Hiroshima really needed?

New research suggests surrender, war's end imminent without it

GAR ALPEROVITZ KNIGHT RIDDER/TRIBUNE

Sixty years ago, on Aug. 6 and 9, atomic bombs destroyed the cities of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Most Americans think the bombings forced Japan to
surrender. Further, most believe that they were necessary as the only way
to end World War II without a costly invasion.

But new research findings suggest both judgments are wrong.

A just-published Harvard University Press volume by Professor Tsuyoshi
Hasegawa of the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the most
comprehensive study yet undertaken of Japanese documentary sources. The
highly praised study argues that the atomic bomb played only a secondary
role in Japan's decision to surrender. By far the most important factor,
Hasegawa finds, was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against
Japan on Aug. 8, 1945, two days after the Hiroshima bombing.

Japanese military leaders had long been willing to sacrifice civilians and
cities to American conventional bombing. What they really feared, Hasegawa
points out, was the Red Army, a force that would directly challenge what
was left of Japan's dwindling military capacity both on the home islands
and in Manchuria. The traditional myth that the atomic bomb ended the war,
he writes, "cannot be supported by historical facts."



More...

[no_hypocrisy]

16. A caller named Dan said same thing on Lionel's program last night.

Said the Soviet entry into Manchuria changed the whole equation and that was the tipping point, not the bombs. Plus Dan alleged that all the military bigwigs like MacArthur and Eisenhower didn't want Truman to use the bomb but Truman was new in the job. He was surrounded by a coterie similar to * who advocated using the bomb to send a message to Russia that the U.S. was the biggest, baddest brother on the planet. Plus, all this money had been spent developing atom bombs,, and it would be a shame not to try them out big time.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

24. But the Soviets entered the war AFTER the first bomb.

They probably figured they'd take the opportunity to declare war so that they might have some say in the postwar settlement, as they thought it was close to over after the bomb.

[Maple]

26. The Soviets defeated the Third Reich

and lost 20 million people doing so

[SemiCharmedQuark]

32. No, the US KNEW that the USSR was going to enter the war.

The bombs were placed purposely before the time the soviets were to enter. It was the soviet decision to enter the war that happened first, not the other way round.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

48. A decision by Stalin to enter the war

is a lot different than actually ENTERING the war. Since Truman didn't know when they'd declare war, and the US had means to end the war, he chose to use it. The ethics of using the bomb are a separate issue.

Besides, even after the first bomb, then the Soviets entering the war, they didn't surrender until after the second bomb. And they surrendered to the US, not the Soviets. I don't see how losing Manchuria and Korea would mean the end when our steady progression toward the home islands didn't result in surrender - they fought to the last man on each island. I don't think they would have given up that easily.

There was even an attempted military coup when the Emperor decided to surrender - the military wanted to keep fighting until the very end.

[pnorman]

62. The decision to abrogate that Non-Aggression Treaty with Japan

and declare war on Japan, was something that the allies were pressing for all during the war. That (a two-front war) was clearly impossible for Russia until early 1945. That she did so in response to the Aug. 6 Hiroshima bomb, was logisticaly IMPOSSIBLE. It would have taken MONTHS to build up that to that overwhelming attack on Siberia and Korea. That Russia knew of the development of the bomb is common knowledge ... probably so did Germany and others. But it wasn't until July 16th, that ANYONE knew that it might work. ie: Russia agreed to abrogate that Treaty and plan for the invasion of Japan on the basis of known military technology, and pretty early that year.

pnorman

[Rufus T. Firefly]

50. A decision by Stalin to enter the war at some point

is a lot different than actually ENTERING the war. Since Truman didn't know when they'd declare war, and the US had means to end the war, he chose to use it. The ethics of using the bomb are a separate issue.

Besides, even after the first bomb, then the Soviets entering the war, they didn't surrender until after the second bomb. And they surrendered to the US, not the Soviets. I don't see how losing Manchuria and Korea would mean the end when our steady progression toward the home islands didn't result in surrender - they fought to the last man on each island. I don't think they would have given up that easily.

There was even an attempted military coup when the Emperor decided to surrender - the military wanted to keep fighting until the very end. Millions of Japanese would have died if they had succeeded.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

35. Maybe the bomb was the reason for the Soviets entering the war.

"By far the most important factor, Hasegawa finds, was the entry of the Soviet Union into the war against Japan on Aug. 8, 1945, two days after the Hiroshima bombing." But that the bomb ended the war "cannot be supported by historical facts."

But did the Soviets enter the war BECAUSE of the Hiroshima bombing? If so, then the second quote is wrong. But they don't answer that obvious question. I don't like that the article says specifically that the Soviets entered the war after the first bomb, then pretends that they are unrelated. I understand the idea that the Soviets were eventually going to enter the war anyway, but that's not the issue.

The Soviets still wanted to be in on a partition of Japan, most likely, but we didn't allow that, giving them only Sakhalin Island. And I'm guessing North Korea, but I don't know the whole history of that issue.

[Maple]

2. Japan is a few small islands

BLOCKADE

How hard was that to figure out?

[The Magistrate]

11. One Small Point, Comrade

Blockade of a land incapable of supplying its own food requirements, as Japan was, and still is, works by starvation, and in a land at war, selectively by starvation of civilians, particularly the very young and the very old, and always takes a worse toll on the less prosperous. It can hardly be referenced as a humane thing....

[Maple]

14. I'm not your comrade

and the US had already cut off Japanese oil and other raw materials...which led directly to Pearl Harbor.

So kindly don't try to peddle Hiroshima and Nagasaki as 'more humane'

[The Magistrate]

19. One Chooses Between Evils, Fellow

The number of deaths would likely have been close to the same. Of course, if you want to re-hash the commencement of direct U.S. involvement in the Pacific War, that would be another matter. Are you of the view Japan's imperial and atrocious program in China ought to have continued unchecked?

[tabasco]

57. Why was Japan so desperate for oil?

I don't suppose they needed it to conquer China and the Pacific?

Yep, the peace-loving Japanese forced into war by the evil Americans.

Nice revisionism. Ask the people of Nanking how much the Japanese revered peace and cooperation in the 1930's and 1940's.

[pnorman]

70. Do you want to talk about OIL, or atrocities?

In the Spring of 1941, the oil-producing countries (US, GB, and Holland) cut Japan OFF oil ... TOTALLY. Japan had some oil wells in Sakhalin, and (surprisingly) a tiny few in northern Japan ... ie: essentially none. The country was fairly well industrialized by then, and the estimates were that by early 1942, there would be NO oil at all. That would be essentially the end of Japan as a modern nation, and cabinet changes and contingency plans were on the basis of that threat.

Japan's southward move in August, occupation of French Indo China (by treaty with Vichy France), caused the US to freeze all Japanese assets. That is the diplomatic step just short of war, and Japan acted accordingly. The militarist hot-heads were now FULLY in control by then. Another cabinet change, and the plan to attack Pearl Harbor, already well prepared as a "contingency", went in full gear.

pnorman

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

23. Who Has Called Anyone Anything, Sir?

[Maple]

25. You called me a comrade

and in Canada only another member of the Canadian Legion gets to do that.

It refers to a comrade-in-arms. You are not one of mine.

And if you were infering any other meaning....

[The Magistrate]

29. Just So Long As You Do Not Call Me Late For Dinner, Fellow

It is about my only sticking point.

[Maple]

30. I choose pistols at dawn

and I'm not a 'fellow'

but I am a damned good shot.

[The Magistrate]

34. In Such Formal Instances, Sir

It is my custom to arrive a little early, and take up coverts with the sunrise at my back...

"A fair fight is a thing to be avoided at all costs."

[Maple]

41. LOL no doubt

but then Canucks have dealt with Yankees for over a century.

And you sir will be dealt with. :D

[tabasco]

55. Sure, let's sit on ships and let the Japanese kamikaze us.

Sounds like a plan.

A few small islands almost 400,000 sq. kilometers.

[vogonjiltz]

3. I'm fine with it,

But then again, my Grandpa was in that theater at the time.

[DemBones DemBones]

20. My father was in the Pacific Theater, too, but

I think using the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong. My father thought so in his later years, too.

They should have found another way. I don't think they had any idea how bad it was going to be.

[tabasco]

4. I'm not opposed to the decision ...

but the only other way to end the war was a massive invasion of the home islands. The invasion would have been supported with thousands of sorties of conventional bombers. The casualties on both sides would have been obscene. The invasion of the home islands would have made Tarawa look like a cakewalk.

[Jara sang]

5. We had taken Okinawa

It was only time before the main islands of Japan fell.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Based on Okinawa and Iwo Jima

Do you really think they wouldn't fight to the last person for the home islands? Civilians were being trained to use spears to attack invading troops.

It wasn't "only time" before Japan fell - it was hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of deaths too.

[Jara sang]

68. Doubtful, the islands could have been choked out with a blockade

and surgical strikes.

[KittyWampus]

6. how about dropping the bomb on an uninhabited atoll or something NEAR

Japan?

or the old fashion method of containment?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

39. I don't think we could have gotten Japanese officials...

to go with our guys to observe. We were at war, after all.

Besides, one argument against Japan ending the war was "Maybe they don't have any more bombs" after Hiroshima.

[lastknowngood]

7. You can argue that for the first one. But there was no need at all

for the second. The first made the point.

[Son of California]

8. Has anyone considered that Nuclean Weapons

were an inevitable product of human evolution. That no matter how the chips fell, someone was going to invent it and use it -shouldn't we be glad it wasn't the Nazis or Japan for that matter?

of coarse it was a human tragedy. So was the carpet bombing of civilian locations in Germany. But maybe if you are lucky, you can find an old Pacific Islander who was alive when their country was being invaded by the Japanese, who can tell you some of the atrocities committed by the Japanese Army on behalf of the people of Japan, and understand that this is a complicated world and sometimes good people are forced to do fucked up things, to stop even more fucked up things from happening.

[cssmall]

9. How many understand Boshido?

The Japanese children would have even fought to their deaths. They, like us now, indoctrinated their people with the conquests and samurai of the past. The bomb, unfortunately, probably was necessity, unless you advocate the complete distruction of Japanese culture and the people.

[bpilgrim]

12. BUSHIDO - and the man responsible for the Meiji restoration was a samurai

who also understood negotiation.


Ryoma Sakamoto

the japanese had one condition and when it was met they surrendered.

look at what our leaders thought at the time...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

peace

[ochazuke]

22. The "unconditional surrender" lie

You wrote "the japanese had one condition and when it was met they surrendered".

Americans are taught that we held out for unconditional surrender and we got it.

The conditional surrender deal we agreed to could have been reached earlier.

[cssmall]

58. I apologize for the typing error.

I was in duress of a thunderstorm at the moment.

However, as I said at the end of the post, I feel that this was only a political manuever.

And, what was the condition, was it listed on that page?

[bpilgrim]

10. I would have opted to accept my military leaders advice to SAVE LIVES

by accepting japans 1 condition - which we did in the end - in order to SAVE LIVES.

~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the (retention of the) dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the (Japanese) Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the (Pacific) war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

psst... pass the word :hi:

peace

[malaise]

13. The use of the atomic bomb was

an offense to humanity. Nothing justified the anhilation and long term suffering of those people. Nothing that the US has done since can be seen as a surprise. It set up a dangerous and nasty precedent.

[miss_kitty]

15. I think they could have showed them the effects of the bomb

and certainly #2 was overkill. But IMHO, #1 was overkill as well. There is so much that is kept secret by our govt, they just release info that backs up their decisions. So of course, the conclusion everyone reaches is "It was the only way," because we draw conclusions based on information available.

I thought that's about the most transparent thing about governments' raison d'être. To wage war and keep secrets. And bolster big business.

[Mizmoon]

17. Even Einstien was ashamed

That's why he worked on peace for the rest of his life ... it's not easy to sleep with the blood of hundreds of thousands on your hands.

[Erika]

18. The decision to attack 2 population centers was insane

These were cities where most of the able bodied men were away fighting the war.

Yes, the Japanese attacked us, a military base. Japan was stunted in comparison to Hitler and the Nazis. The Japanese did not kill 6 million Jews.

Supposedly, we dropped the bombs because Germany was about to develop them first. Why didn't we attack Germany's military/weapons bases instead of going after Japanese population centers?

My grandfather who served said our government had an agreement with the German government, because of joint corporate interests, to leave Germany alone. Kind of like why we went into Iraq and destroying it while we leave Saudi Arabia alone.

[VADem11]

28. Well

the Japanese were just as bad as Hitler in killing civillians and in forced labor. Look at Wikipedia for examples. It hasn't garnered as much attention as the horrific concentration camps. I believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki had some military signifigance but I think we should have tried to avoid using the bomb.

[Gabi Hayes]

42. The REASON they bombed those two cities is very very simple

according to Richard Rhodes, who wrote perhaps the definitive book on the making of the ABomb, General Curtis LeMay, who was in charge of the bombing of Japan, held H and N off the bomb lists precisely so they'd be available for the Abomb

ALL Japanese cities down to a population of fifty thousand had been firebombed to ash.

you can check it out

neither H nor N had ANY strategic/economic significance, otherwise they WOULD have been leveled...that was the point of saving them for last

[VADem11]

59. It had some importance

but not like Tokyo or Kobe which was probably why they saved it for the a bomb. Nagasaki was actually bombed on August 1 but not nearly as badly as other cities. Nagasaki was a major sea port and Hiroshima was a communications center so it's inaccurate to say that they had absoultely NO importance. Yokohama had been firebombed but was still a potential target for the bomb. I do see your point however.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

43. Germany was already out of the war by the time the bomb was tested.

Besides, have you heard of the firebombings of Germany? Just as much civilian slaughter, only not with just one bomb. Dresden was an atrocity - first bombers destroyed water mains, then incendiary bombings designed to create a firestorm and obliterate the city. Strong enough fire to actually suck people into it.

[Schema Thing]

27. We should have asked them to surrender, with

a guarantee that the Emporer would be allowed to continue in a figurehead role.

Y'know, about like we did after we dropped two horrific bombs on civilian targets.

The Japanese had already made surrender overtures before the bombs. And almost all of the best military minds of the time believed they were finished, and that there was no need to use the bombs.

The history we learned in school, is feel good history. Actually, just feel good stories.

[getmeouttahere]

31. Watch "The Fog of War" to understand my answer...

we had already killed millions of civilians in virtually every Japanese city.

[Violet_Crumble]

33. What I wouldn't have done...

...is drop a bomb which even the makers weren't sure would go off, or if it did what the extent of the destruction would be, on cities full of civilians. Dropping the bomb turned the aggressor into the victim, and the result of that was that unlike the Germans, Japan long resisted apologising for its actions during the war...

I also wouldn't have ignored the fact that mainland Japan was on its knees and the likelihood of a savage defence of Japan wouldn't have happened. The image of a crazed and barbaric Japanese attitude of fighting to the death was in part caused by the tendency of US troops (and even more so when it came to Australians) to take no prisoners. There is no reason to believe that a weak and scared Japanese civilian population would have put up much of a fight, if any...

The bombings were something that should not be celebrated, and the habit of some Americans to do so is absolutely sickening, imo...

Violet...

[neverforget]

36. Everyone now has the opportunity to play what if and that is way

different than living the times. Read the Magic intelligence that Truman was reading when he decided to drop the bombs. This is what he knew not what we know now with hindsight.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/

[bpilgrim]

38. that ain't the whole story...

~~~JOSEPH GREW
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the (retention of the) dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the (Japanese) Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the (Pacific) war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

Grew quoted in Barton Bernstein, ed.,The Atomic Bomb, pg. 29-32.

more...
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

peace

[neverforget]

40. Look at what you posted: a guy looking back 2 years after the fact

coulda, woulda, shoulda.

[jonnyblitz]

45. what does that have to do with anything...

so everything ever done in history was always the right thing because you can't challenge the prevailing spin that was going on at the time of occurance according to you. we are not allowed to learn from the mistakes of the past after new information is made known. that makes no sense to me.

[neverforget]

49. Thanks for putting words into my mouth that i never said. We can learn

from our mistakes like to never use nuclear weapons ever again.

[jonnyblitz]

53. the words were implied by your comment.

what is your problem with criticism two years later then?!?!

[neverforget]

63. I'm citing the information that they had at the time while you and others

are citing people looking back at the event with the benefit of hindsight. I have no problem with criticism of the decision because it is healthy for us to discuss this.

[bpilgrim]

46. the undersecretary of state who lived it, hello...

i can understand you not wanting to accept how evil our own gov can be at times it is hard but necessary.

peace

[jonnyblitz]

47. unbelievable.

i can't believe we have to argue this on a progressive discussion board.

[neverforget]

51. And you can't recognize how decisions were made based on the

available evidence.

[Schema Thing]

61. Oh Please!!!

The available evidence was ALL against dropping the bombs.

People who look back on the two bombs favourably NOW, do it because they've been inundated with feel good excuses for using the bombs, not because they've got evidence that the bombs were necessary. The evidence said just the opposite.

[neverforget]

65. Really? Have you read the Magic intercepts of what the Japanese

were trying to accomplish with their one condition? Here's the link to the intercepts that were declassified in 1995.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/

[Schema Thing]

69. lol, funny you should mention that

Considering the following quote:

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs." Brigadier General Carter Clarke (The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors)

[Vasmosn]

60. I see no Magic...

but I see many references to the one condition that the Japanese wanted, which understanding their culture, was understandable. The mere fact that the conditions were being discussed leads one to believe that negotiation was possible. Now, if the US had wanted to "save American lives" it could have allowed the Russians to invade as they were willing to do. Of course, then THEY not the US would have been the shapers of the Japanese future...couldn't have that. Plus, I'm sure we didn't want those Russians bragging abut how they ended the war. No, it seems to me that there were alternatives that were not used. In any case, whether or not it was seen as the "right" thing to do at the time, with the knowledge of hindsight, it cannot and should not be defended. There was a time when many Americans, perhaps even a majority thought the slavery, or at least segregation was right. Hopefully, we know better than that too. Just as it is sad if we have to even argue over that (and there are people that will and do), I feel it's depressingly sad that we are not agreed in our condemnation of dropping two nuclear weapons on civilian populations.

[walldude]

37. Can't say how I would have ended the war..

I'm not well enough informed. I do know this though. All you people who are using the excuse:
"Like it or not, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings did what they needed to do, which was to end a war started by an imperialist foe that attacked us."
Are basically saying that if Iraq dropped a nuke on us it would be justified because an imperialist foe attacked them. Yes Iraq is not Japan and this is 2005 not the 1940's but the comparison fits. Now while I don't know enough about history to make an accurate judgment on whether dropping the bomb was necessary I can tell you that one should have been enough. I think after the first bomb Japan, and the rest of the world got the picture. And I can't believe I got myself involved in this ridiculous debate.
:crazy:

[Cleita]

44. The ends justify the means is not a good argument and

that is what this is. By this argument, we are now raiders, torturers, mass murderers and many other things. It only starts atrocities. It doesn't end them.

The war was ending, like most wars do, bending under it's own weight. Because it was in its last throes, the bombings didn't change that. This didn't end the war.

If it had happened while Germany and Japan were still strong, there would have been a terrible backlash to these bombings and we probably would have witnessed even worse annihilation than we did.

[DistressedAmerican]

52. The War Was Already Over.

They were broken and Russia was coming. This whole the bomb ended the war theory is pure crap. It was nothing more than posturing for the Russians. That could have been accomplished with a simple invite of the Russian ambassador to a bomb test.

It was the first salvo in the cold war and had NOTHING to do with Japan. Defend Regan's cold war hysteria much?

No Nukes Needed EVER!!!

WMD! Remember? We should be invaded and Liberated since our fascist government harbors the largest arsenal of WMD in the worlds and a proven track record of using it. Those are the new rules right?

Answered.

You and anyone that defends that massacre are WRONG. Period.

Seriously. Are you really deluded enough (on this issue) to post this. I usually respect and like what you post.

This not at all...

[cssmall]

54. I have changed my mind about the bomb and am in accord with this post.

I understand completely where DistressedAmerican is coming from, because of evidence of a potential formal surrender accord that Hirohito had sent to the USA.

Roosevelt did not tell Truman about the bombs; it was told to him on the day he became president. And, Truman made a political manuever to show Russia and the world that America could do something that others could now.

It was a massacre on two cities that did not deserve it. What did Hiroshima and Nagasaki contribute to the war effort of Japan? Especially when they were all ready embargoed.

I cannot stand by on this anymore, I cannot say that this would have saved more lives because it was a fucking political ploy.

[pnorman]

56. Japan was desperately looking for a way to end the war.

Their diplomatic code had been broken and that fact was known to the white House. The ONLY real sticking point was retention of the emperor system. Through the mistranslation (deliberate?) of a word in a Japanese reply ("mokusatsu"), it didn't come to pass at that time.

From 1940, Russia was at "peace" with Japan by treaty. All during the war, the Allies were trying hard to convince her to revoke that treaty and declare war on Japan. Russia finally agreed, but to do so 90 days after VE Day. Recall that until the Trinity Test on July 16 1945, there was no proof that the bomb would even work ... even under controlled conditions. The Hiroshima bomb was dropped on Aug. 6, Russia invaded Japanese held territories (Siberia, Korea, and Sakhalin) on Aug. 7, and the Nagasaki bomb was dropped the following day. The thesis that the bombs had little to do with ending the war and much to do with drawing a line in the sand with Russia, is pretty strong. I think it's essentially proved.

In the end, that "sticking point" regarding the Emperor disappeared, and the (exclusively US) Occupation was clearly aimed at Russia. But in the process, MUCH valuable "nation-building" was accomplished. But much of that interfered with the primary purpose, and was systematicaly stymied or even undone. I hope NOBODY here is going to compare that to Iraq ... or Iran, if that should come to pass.

pnorman
PS: All my adult life, I've been what would would be described as a "left-libertarian" (aka: Chomskyite). Knee-jerk "defense of the Workers Fatherland" is alien to my spirit. ie: I'm writing what I sincerely believe to be true.

[Postman]

64. Japan is made up islands. Blockade the islands.

Their empire, as it were, was gone already. They were seeking a way to surrender.

In fact, one of the hurdles preventing the war from ending earlier was the US insistence on "unconditional surrender"

The Japanese were only concerned with keeping the Emperor in place within a political structure, which the US refused to do earlier yet, allowed eventually after the A-Bombs were dropped and after the Soviets entered the war.

[Junkdrawer]

66. If you supported the Hiroshima bombing, you should answer this question..

When the weapons of Big Science are released on the world, how will you justify the fact that it was America who set the precedent for their use?

[Swede]

67. Send in the Marines in the south and the Soviets in the north.

Should only be 4 or 5 million more deaths.