Quote:
And I also suppose those atomic strikes at the tail of WW2 weren't pre-emptive either...


OK, everyone else has ignored this because it is somewhat off of the main topic, but I don't think I want to leave this comment hanging out there.

One could perhaps argue that those two atomic bombs were unnecessary or uncalled for. In fact many people have done exactly that and it is very much in fashion now to say "the US knew the war was very nearly over anyway and didn't really need to use those bombs." Well, I believe that point has been argued here before and we could take this back to those threads if people want to argue it again.

HOWEVER, my point is that dropping atomic bombs on a country with which you have been at war for YEARS and have recently been firebombing their major cities on a nearly daily basis hardly constitutes a pre-emptive act.

Perhaps a gratuitous act, perhaps an inhumane act, perhaps a political act of saber-rattling for the benefit of the Soviets, but NOT a pre-emptive act.

The war was well past the point of pre-emption at that point.



...and while I'm off on this tangent I'll point out that the brutal firebombing of Tokyo, a city composed mostly of bamboo and paper at that time, was responsible for much more death and suffering than that caused later by the two relatively low yield A-bombs. [I need a citation for this to make sure that I am not mistaken on this point! Done: See below.]

Edit: According to Wikipedia, the firebombing of Tokyo on Feb. 23, 1945 resulted in 100,000 dead and 16 square miles of the city destroyed. This was possibly the most devastating single raid by aircraft in any war. In retrospect, this was almost certainly a war crime.
The ensuing firebombings on following nights killed yet more.
Also, the earlier firebombings in Kobe killed around 9,000 people but damaged the homes of around 1 million people.

In contrast, the Hiroshima atomic bomb destroyed "only" about 4.5 square miles and may have killed "only" 80,000 people during the explosion. Another 60,000 died later due to aftereffects over the next four or so months. The Nagasaki atomic bomb killed about half as many as the Hiroshima one. Probably 74,000 total.

Anyway, my point is: war is brutal. A large amount of death and inhumanity can be, has been, and will unfortunately continue to be inflicted even without nuclear weapons.

And my other (original) point is, those two bombs were not "pre-emptive." Whether or not they were justified is a completely different question.


Edited by music (12/10/2006 05:37)