edX
mac shaman
well, i weighed real carefully whether i wanted to use could or should.
i guess the way the history was taught to me was that the second bomb was a bit of a rash decision. and probably one that would not have been made today under the same circustances given the state of communication. japan was just a little slow about folding but not really that far away given the effects of the 1st bomb. Having been born on aug. 9, i have paid just a little attention to this. i have done several class projects and papers on the atom bomb over the years.
one story most don't know, and i admit i heard it second hand. is that US troops were sent in to the atomic blast areas before all contamination had been dissipated. most of those soldiers developed cancers and other physical illnesses that either shortened their lives or made living an ordeal. this was related to me by a very well respected and famous prof. of mine who must remain nameless. This prof's father was one of those men.
my own father, again another ironic twist, worked in the army corps of engineers stationed in the phillipines that analyzed the destruction caused by the bombs. I have seen firsthand photos of the destruction. nothing was left but a few walls inside the heart of the blast area of the original ground zero. ground scorched barren as if it were a field in winter. the first to die never felt a thing i am sure.
i will never argue the points you presented as good reason for the dropping of the 1st bomb, as much as i would like to believe there could have been a better way. but i have never seen anything to convince me that those points hold up for the dropping of the second bomb. Just as i have never seen a good reason that held up for the war in vietnam.
and i would add in closing, that it is my belief that Japan rebuilt so quickly because of all the guilt money we supplied them with to aid in the rebuilding. which was a good thing. I will never envy the Japanese's success. nor resent them for having it.
i guess the way the history was taught to me was that the second bomb was a bit of a rash decision. and probably one that would not have been made today under the same circustances given the state of communication. japan was just a little slow about folding but not really that far away given the effects of the 1st bomb. Having been born on aug. 9, i have paid just a little attention to this. i have done several class projects and papers on the atom bomb over the years.
one story most don't know, and i admit i heard it second hand. is that US troops were sent in to the atomic blast areas before all contamination had been dissipated. most of those soldiers developed cancers and other physical illnesses that either shortened their lives or made living an ordeal. this was related to me by a very well respected and famous prof. of mine who must remain nameless. This prof's father was one of those men.
my own father, again another ironic twist, worked in the army corps of engineers stationed in the phillipines that analyzed the destruction caused by the bombs. I have seen firsthand photos of the destruction. nothing was left but a few walls inside the heart of the blast area of the original ground zero. ground scorched barren as if it were a field in winter. the first to die never felt a thing i am sure.
i will never argue the points you presented as good reason for the dropping of the 1st bomb, as much as i would like to believe there could have been a better way. but i have never seen anything to convince me that those points hold up for the dropping of the second bomb. Just as i have never seen a good reason that held up for the war in vietnam.
and i would add in closing, that it is my belief that Japan rebuilt so quickly because of all the guilt money we supplied them with to aid in the rebuilding. which was a good thing. I will never envy the Japanese's success. nor resent them for having it.