Also, they only had the two bombs. To make more would take months of refining the ore and building the bombs. To use one in an ineffective way would have been a waste of precious resources that could finish the war quickly and with fewer casualties.
K'aya K'ama, Gerald/gary Smith gszion1 @juno.com http://www .geocities.com/rameumptom/index.html "No one is as hopelessly enslaved as the person who thinks he's free." - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe At 05:33 AM 11/9/2002 -0700, Steven wrote: >Stephen, > >Perhaps you're right, but I still fail to see how the United States >maintained the moral high ground by bombing civilians. I think a >"demonstration" about 5 miles offshore might have accomplished the same >purpose. This is an excellent question. The rationale at the time was that a "demonstration" of nuclear power would also demonstrate an unwillingness to use that power against people - thus negating its effectiveness. It was obviously a difficult decision either way. I find it hard to support second quessing the men who had to make it without our 50 years of hindsight. Rick Mathis ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at /// /// http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html /// ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: archive@jab.org EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
