Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
    	We dropped the bomb, lots of civilians died, the war ended. War in
    general twists my guts, but the thought of an entire city going up in
    one gigantic poof makes me nauseas. I'd say we need to leave it in the
    past and learn from it, not celebrate it....
    
    
    IMHO,
    
    jim

    
    
    I've spoken to a guy on several occasions who was in a Japanese POW
    camp.  He says the people were savages and that the bomb had to be
    dropped so as what these people were peddling wouldn't spread any
    further.  From what I see, we are now trying to rewrite history, there
    were many atrocities done by Japan back then, just because they have 
    changed now, doesn't mean we have to rewrite history and make them 
    less evil than they were.
    
    Disclaimer: I know that there are many generalizations in the above
    note and that not all of the people were committing the atrocities. 
    When I say Japan, I am referring to the actions of the country. 
    
    Mike

    Two wrongs just make two wrongs.

Countries don't take actions, people take actions.

    
    How many additional people would have died if the bomb was not dropped?

I guess we'll never know.  I'm just glad the pilot
was a male, that's all.

    
      Celebrating ?  No, I wouldn't be celebrating any of the horrific
     events of WWII, even its end.  50 years is a bit soon for any
     definitive history - some of the people involved are still alive.
     100 would be better.  But this was a big thing at the time, and
     one worth a bit of understanding now.  Say, a book or long article,
     seeing a documentary or commentary.  It really wasn't a very dramatic
     thing like Stalingrad or D-Day or the Phillipines, so I doubt there
     will be much fiction in print or movies.  But then again, there's
     Oliver Stone around.  I hear he's making a "NIXON" movie ?  Who got
     the top billing ?
    
      bb

Anthony Hopkins.

    The bomb ended the war in the Pacific; it achieved its goal.  As
    someone said, we can't judge the Japanese people today by actions
    taken over 50 years ago.  However, let's not re-write history and
    forget who attacked first and started the war.
    

    
    > How many additional people would have died if the bomb was not dropped?
    
    Heard an interesting new (to me) theory on this on NPR.  Apparently, 
    some elements in the US Gov't were convinced that Japan was ready
    to capitulate a while before the bomb was ready.
    
    So much money and effort had gone in to the Manhattan project that
    the pro-bomb lobby persuaded the Gov't not to send a demand for
    surrender until they were certain that the bomb was ready.
    
    The interviewee argued that it is equally plausible that waiting for
    the bomb resulted in more US casualties, rather than less. 
    
    Colin
    
     
      

     >> I hear he's making a "NIXON" movie ?  Who got
     >> the top billing ?
    
    Looked like Anthony Hopkins, but they'd only show you an ultra
    closeup of his eye in the coming attractions, probably so you
    wouldn't get bummed out by the lack of resemblance.  Maybe
    they'll do the whole movie that way, and then they can get
    David Frye to do the voice-over.
    
    Chris

    
    
    A program that I had watched indicated that the massive death with
    regards to the radiation wasn't expected by those involved.  With the
    limited research done with this type of weapon, the effects were not
    fully understood until after the fact.
    
    Mike

    Just to toss a curve into the bomb thing, I've always wondered
    if the Hiroshima/Nagasaki experience served as a deterrent to
    bigger, nastier nuclear wars over the years.  If there was no
    widespread awareness of what these beasties could do, it might
    have been that much easier to use them in, say, 1962.
    
    Chris

       <<< Note 504.15 by DECWIN::RALTO "Stay in bed, float upstream" >>>

>    Just to toss a curve into the bomb thing,

	A different curve.....

	I wonder what the people of present day Dresden think about
	all the debate about Hiroshima.

	When you wipe out a city and kill tens of thousands, does it 
	really matter if if was a single bomb, or 10,000 bombs?

Jim

Excerpts from a letter by +Michael Ingham, Bishop of New Westminster,
Vancouver, British Columbia.

Dear Friends in Christ:

Sunday August 6, is the 50th anniversary of the dropping of the
first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. On that day in 1945 over 100,000 people
were killed instantly, and thousands more later died from injuries and
radiation poisoning.

It may well be that this action, and the attack on Nagasaki three days
later, hastened the end of the war in the Pacific. But on that day the
world entered a new and dark period of its history. A dreadful page was
turned for humanity. As human beings we came into possession of the
technology which can end all life on this planet, yet even now, 50 years
later, we have still not developed the moral or spiritual maturity to use
this knowledge responsibly.

Sunday is also the Feast of the Transfiguration of Christ, as it was then.
Sunday Christians around the world rejoice with the transfigured Christ in
glory, the light and hope of the world, and we pray for the coming reign of
God's truth and peace throughout the earth.

In Hiroshima in 1945, ground zero - the deadly point of impact of the
atomic bomb - was a Christian church. On that morning Japanese Christians
were celebrating the Transfiguration as we are now. But the light they saw
in the sky was not the light of Christ. It was the flash of death.

Therefore, I ask you to observe a moment of silence in church to remember
those who died in the world's first nuclear attack. I ask you to pray for
the peace of the world and for an end to war.

    
    well Japan ought to be thankful that the US didn't drop one on Tokyo,
    then they really would have lost civilians, big time.

    .17
    
    > On that day in 1945 over 100,000 people
    > were killed instantly
    
    A lie.  The instantaneous death toll was approximately 70,000.

re .18:

>    well Japan ought to be thankful that the US didn't drop one on Tokyo,
>    then they really would have lost civilians, big time.

More people died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died in Hiroshima.

    .11
    
    > two days later, on Nagasaki
    
    Three days later.  Hiroshima was bombed by Enola Gay on 6 August,
    Nagasaki was bombed by Bock's Car on 9 August.
    
    NNTTM.

    
    Watched an interesting 2 hour documentary last night on the History
    Channel about the bomb and all that led up to it and the drop(s).
    
    Just an FYI about Nagasaki...
    
    It was the alternate target that day as the main target was socked in
    by weather (don't remember the main target by name).
    
     They were going to do a radar drop and at the last minute, the weather
    cleared over Nagasaki long enough to drop the bomb. As later recon
    photos showed, the bomb hit 3 miles from it's intended aim point and in
    a more industrial area rather than a residential area. It exploded in a
    valley flanked by hills and even though it was supposedly 20 times
    stronger than "Little Boy", "Fat Man" caused less deaths and
    destruction.
    
      This does not negate the horror of what happened, only re-telling
    what I saw and heard last night...

    You all have heard of the horras of the civilians at ground zero. 
    What of the heinous war crimes the Japaneese did to other civilians of 
    other lands? China? The Pacific rim as a whole? I think that the whole 
    issue about dropping the bomb is a beyond words of insult. 
    We dropped it and we saved many thousands of our lives, and of other 
    nations lives! And if it was me at the bomb sights in the Enola Gay, 
    I would think nothing of squeezing the trigger again. War is war. Death
    to civilians is going to happen. And if its not them it will be us.
    
    Its a same that world peace is not a reality. And the money we pay our
    goverment to keep us all safe and warm. Yet, there are people who have
    some sort of kick out of wadging war.
     

    
    Another interesting tidbit...
    
    The first bomb (Little Boy) was armed in flight enroute...
    
    Ths second (Fat Man) was, because of the nature of the shaped charge,
    armed before the plane took off...
    
     The "man" in charge of the arming, ordered every available
    fire-fighting device to position themselves at the end of the run-way
    in case anything went wrong. He went there too as the flight was
    leaving because, as he stated later..."If it was gonna blow up, I might
    as well go up with it.. this way I won't have to answer any questions
    afterwards.."

    
    re: .24
    
    You wouldn't have to do a thing George...
    
    The drop was automatic...
    

    .23
    
    Actually, Fat Man wasn't significantly more powerful than Little Boy. 
    The yield of each bomb was that of between 10,000 and 20,000 tons of
    TNT.  (Little Boy had been computed to yield 20,000 tons but in actual
    fact, based on measurements and on-the-ground assessment of damage, is
    recorded as having delivered only 13,000 tons.)

    .26
    
    If there was, or if there was a failure of the auto part. I know there
    was a manual over ride. I would have gladly glowed them to hell. Many
    people of our age forget this part. Loosing an uncle, a father, a
    brother... Many forget some real bad lessons in life and call it a
    higher intelect level of thought. Go discuss this with our dead. Go
    tell those who lost a loved one about this discussion? Tell them that
    we were wrong in dropping the bomb. Rub salt into the wound. To tell
    our dead former president that we were wrong. Maybe he will either
    stick his hand out of the grave around your necks or he will roll over
    with the stupidity of it all.
    

    
    If we didn't use those bombs, thousands of our troops would have died
    invading Japan.
    
    We used the bombs, and saved many of our own.
    
    That is what war is about. You kill the enemy or they kill you.
    If Japan had the A bombs, I am sure they would have used them
    on us.
    
    My dad was a Marine in the South Pacific. And I am sure he was glad
    he didn't have to set foot on the mainland of Japan.
    
             

    
    
    Right Don, Tokyo wasn't one of the major cities in Japan at that time, if I
    recall correctly.
    
    
    Mike
    

    People are trying to re-write history.  People feel bad because we
    nuked the enemy.  Nobody said "boo" about the 800K+ folks who
    perished in firestorms of tokyo, or in Germany.  I guess that's ok
    cause they weren't nuked.
    
    Judging from the fanatical resistance of the japanese in the
    island hoping campaign, and the treatment of prisoners (and the
    fact that we WERE at war btw), I think it's safe to say that an
    invasion of japan itself would have been very costly.
    
    If it can be proven that japan was actively trying to surrender when
    we nuked 'em, I'd say that's cheezy on our part, but war is hell.
    Next time don't bomb pearl harbor.  
    
    MadMike

    Madman is correct.  More people died in Tokyo bombings than Hiroshima.
    
    I for one would not be here had it not been for the dropping of the
    bomb!
    
    Too bad, you're stuck with me!
    
    -Jack

    Not only did we save the lives of an estimated million-plus military
    personnel (ours and theirs), we also saved the lives of an estimated
    five-million-plus civilians (mostly theirs).  The individual deaths and
    woundings wrought by the bombs were neither more nor less personal
    tragedies than the deaths and woundings of any other people regardless
    of the weapon of war involved.  But in the grand cold-blooded scheme of
    war, the loss of a quarter million lives is more than outweighed by the
    saving of five or six million.
    
    The idea that Japan was ready to roll over before we dropped the bombs
    sounds like just more of the revisionist crap we've been seeing all
    along.  When the decision to drop was made, it was made after Truman
    ahd been shown the full decrypted text of an intercepted Japanese
    communication indicating that Japan was ready and willing to make a
    deal with the Soviet Union, then not at war with Japan.  Give up?  Not
    bloody likely.

    
    Well said, Dick.
    
    This theory that Japan was almost ready to surrender, anyone know where
    it came from?  The program that I had seen addressed this issue and the
    conclusion was that there wasn't any evidence at all that Japan was
    considering surrendering.
    
    Mike

    Let us not forget the recent statements of one of the Japanese
    scientists working on their bomb, who stated they would have had no
    reservations about using a Japanese A-bomb against the U.S. mainland.
    
    Bob

    Re: .27
    
    The reason that not much was left of Tokyo - and the reason it wasn't a
    major city on August 6...is that earlier in the summer (I think around
    July 20, but no guarantees) it had been firebombed exactly as Dresden
    had. Casulty estimates were around 120,000 - more than Hiroshima or
    Nagasaki. Also, the Tokyo bombing was one night - Dresden was spread
    out over 2 nights.
    
    The predominantly wooden construction of Tokyo at that time is the
    reason that there is almost nothing in Tokyo today that came from
    before the war.

    Maybe the japan surrendering crap is an invention of PBS.  I don't
    know.
    
    The 1st bomb was armed in flight because it detonated at a certain
    altitude.  If the bomb was armed prior to flight it would have blown
    up passing through that altitude.
    
    All I know is this ain't my GD fault.  I was born in the 60's.
    Sounds like sour grapes to me.
    
    I'd be more interested in the fact that yeltsin ain't got his finger
    on the Russian bombs anymore.  Nevermind 50 years ago, what about
    tomorrow?

    .36
    
    The scientist's opinion notwithstanding, believing that the Japanese
    could have delivered an A-bomb to the U.S. is, I think, more than a
    little na�ve.  The Japanese never had even one type of aircraft that
    could serve as a long-range bombing platform, and after Midway they had
    no significant carrier strength to support a Doolittle-style raid.

    .39
    
    Aircraft, schmaircraft.
    
    Suicide mission in a sub.
    Quite a realistic possibility.

    The Tokyo raid was on March 9-10 1945. It involved about 500 B29's. I
    have a book "Flames over Tokyo" about survivors stories and witness to
    the destruction. It is quite a story...
    
    More people were killed than on either A-bomb raid. Also, an
    anti-aircraft crew 1/4 mile from ground zero at Hiroshima survived for a few
    days. 
    
    Japan almost sabotaged the surrender AFTER the A-bombs, so this crap
    about being ready to surrender before is PC revisionist BS! 
    
    What convinced them to surrender was the fact that it took ~500 B29's
    to destroy 16 sq miles of Tokyo and only one each for Hiroshima and
    Nagasaki. It was math, pure and simple. They did not know we did not
    have another bomb(s). They only knew that when we started with a new
    weapon (B29, Carriers, etc) that we kept building them in greater and
    greater quanities. Like I said, math.
    
    There was a typhon that hit Japan about the time of the planne
    dinvasion. It could have been the 'Devine wind' in their eyes. It
    would have done massive damage to out ships etc. Remember, we lost 4
    destroyers that capsized in a typhon with virtually all hands the year
    before.
    
    RE missing Nagaski:
    
    The old USAF arrorgance. At Bikini in 1946, we had all the ships
    arranged in neat circles at various distances so we could observe the
    damage in great detail. The (ground) Army/Navy wanted to have the bomb
    suspended under a balloon. The AF (US Army Air Corp) [the arrorgant
    jerks] overruled them and dropped the bomb accurately? 1/4 mile off
    target. So much for the neet arrangment of ships...
    
    Steve

Here is what the Soviet historian N. N. Yakovlev (U. Moscow) has to say on
the matter:  (this is long but worth reading, even if you find, as I do,
the Soviet point of view to be twisted.)

	During the days when the world was celebrating the victory
	over the European Axis powers, Under Secretary of State
	Joseph Grew was convinced that "A future war with Soviet
	Russia is as certain as anything in this world can be certain.
	It may come within a very few years."  Secretary of the Navy
	James Forrestal considered that it would be better to fight
	the Soviets then than later.  President Truman gave considerable
	weight to this kind of advice.

	But the President had to take into consideration the fact that
	the conclusion of the war with Japan remained to be faced.
	The invasion of the Japanese islands, in the estimation of
	the American staffs, would have cost a million men, and the
	war in the Pacific would have continued for at least eighteen
	months after the V-Day in Europe.  The command of the American
	armed forces considered the participation of the USSR in the
	war absolutely necessary and informed the government accordingly.

	There was an additional consideration known only to the highest
	leaders in Washington -- work on an atomic weapon was being
	completed in the United States.  Henry Stimson adjured the
	President to postpone an "engagement" with the USSR until the
	moment when the atomic bomb, or, as the secretary called it,
	the "trump card," would be in the hands of the United States.
	And finally, an openly hostile policy toward the USSR at that
	time would not have had the support of the people of the United
***	States either.  It was no secret that is was precisely the Soviet
	Union that had rid the world of the Fascist plague.

	Also, the war in the Pacific was continuing.  Despite the loss of
	almost their entire fleet and grave losses of aircraft, Japanese
	resistance was not weakening.  The Japanese command used thousands
	of "kamikaze" suicide-pilots, who inflicted serious damage.  And
	on the Japanese islands in Asia there was an army of seven million
	that was taking almost no part in the Pacific war, which was being
	conducted mainly by the fleet and the air force.  The combat actions
	in the Pacific were being conducted and lost by the admirals, while
	the generals were burning with the desire to show what the emperor's
	army was capable of doing in the defense of its native islands.
	Under these circumstances an invasion would have taken the form of
	a monstrous slaughter on both sides.

***	The Soviet armed forces saved the peoples of Japan and the United
	States from a bloody epilogue.  On 8 August, faithful to its obli-
	gations as an ally, the Soviet Union entered the war against Japan.
	The operations unfolded in Manchuria, where the Kwantung Army,
	numbering 1,200,000 men, was positioned behind strongly fortified
	regions.  Although the Japanese forces were inferior to the Soviet
	army in both numbers and in the quality of their armament, smashing
	them was a difficult problem, for the crack divisions of the Japanese
	army were drawn up in Manchuria.

	The Soviet command brought into action against the Kwantung Army a
	formation totalling 1,500,000 men, with 5,500 tanks, 3,800 planes,
	and 26,000 pieces of ordnance.  In a lightning campaign, the Soviet
	troops broke the backbone of the Japanese forces.  The prisoners
	alone numbered 594,000 of the enemy soldiers and officers.  The utter
	defeat in Manchuria brought to nought Tokyo's plans to conduct a
	protracted war.  Despite the frenzied appeals of fanatics, the
	Japanese government was forced to proceed to unconditional surrender.

	During the days when the fate of Japan was decided, it was known in
	Washington that the USSR was entering the war in the Far East.  On
	Truman's orders, atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima on 6 August
	and on Nagasaki three days later.  The use of the atomic weapon was
***	of no military significance; it had a different purpose -- to demon-
	strate it, and to try to intimidate the Soviet Union.  That is how
	American atomic blackmail had its start.

	Although Tokyo had alread declared its willingness to surrender
	unconditionally on 14 August and the Japanese troops had begun to
	give themselves up to the Americans, the Soviet armed forces had to
	continue fighting until the end of August, eliminating the last
	centers of resistance.  On 2 September 1945, on the deck of the
	Missouri, which had entered Tokyo Bay, the act of unconditional
	surrender by Japan was signed.  The Second World War had come to
	an end.

    Interesting reading!

    My father served in the South Pacific and was stationed in Pearl
    Harbor.  He arrived there not long after the attack.  His ship went to
    Nagasaki less than a week after the bomb was dropped to deliver
    supplies and give support to the efforts that were underway.  He's
    never talked about it much, however he showed me pictures that he had
    taken of Nagasaki about a month ago. Unbelievable destruction. He said
    there were areas that had what appeared to be "globs of glass" or
    materials that were melted from the extreme heat.  My question is, how
    many military personnel like my father were unknowingly exposed to
    radiation?  My father is convinced that the Japanese were not going to 
    surrender anytime soon. 

Re: .44 - wrt your question about how many servicemen were exposed to
radiation, I'd say tens of thousands, probably more.

I'm Secretary of a naval reunion organization, and I correspond with
about 2,000 members. About 1/3 of the membership served aboard the USS
BOSTON CA69, which made port in Japan just days after the bombs were
dropped. About 2/3 of the crew of 1400 became sick within days of pulling
into port; they were told that the cause was "bad water" and "bad food."
Today we'd probably call it radiation sickness. 

My correspondence includes numerous phone calls and letters explaining
why Joe or Bill [...] won't be at the reunion this year. Over the past
nine years (we're talking about several hundred instances) in all cases
but one, the cause is cancer.

After much resistance the Government enacted the Irradiated Veteran Act
some years ago (during Reagan's administration). However, it was not
widely publicized, _and_ they've made it difficult for any of the affected
people (most now in their 70's and 80's) to do anything about it. 

It's sad.

Art

    
> I'd say tens of thousands, probably more.
  
    Make you wonder how that figure compares to the estimated number
    of casualties "prevented" by dropping the bomb.      

I've read once that the Japanese government wanted to surrender but
the military (which had the real power) wanted to fight on.

re .41:

>    Japan almost sabotaged the surrender AFTER the A-bombs, so this crap
>    about being ready to surrender before is PC revisionist BS! 

Could you expand on this?


I saw an article in (I think) US News and World Report.  They described
the planned invasion of the southernmost main island (Kyushu?) in Nov.
1945 and the main invasion (operation Coronet) planned for March 1946,
this involved over a million invasion troops.

They also stated the Japanese people largely don't really associate the
A-bombing with the war, I guess they thought of it as unrelated agression.

Also some American POWs were the first Americans to see the effects.  They
were rather close to ground zero but protected by their cell walls.  Some
were killed by the blast, some by Japanese as retaliation and the other
2(?) were shown the city with "See what your people did to us!".
They died shortly thereafter from radiation.

    The Emperor (sp) had trandscribed (recorded on a record) the message to
    be broadcastto the people about the surrender. Militants were going to
    seize the recording and attack the US ships as they entered the harbor.
    Members of the royal family were sent out to various potential
    rebellious bases to ensure that the Emperors wishes were carried out.
    Many in the military wanted one last battle (knowing full well that
    they would lose) for the honor of the Japanese.
    
    The POW's is another issue. A demo of the bomb was ruled out because it
    was feared that the Japanese would evacuate the area or city and move
    in POW's. The POW's being released earlier from their brutal captivity
    probably saved some lives too.
    
    The typhoon struck two days before the planned 1st invasion.
    
    300 US ships were sunk or out of action for 30 days or more as a result
    of the okinowa (sp) invasion, including as I recall 32 sunk.

	Some general, who was very closely associated with the first bomb
was the guest of Brudnoy (WBZ talk show) the other day. 

He blasted this 'Japanese were anyway ready to surrender' theory. He said, 
that the very fact that the Japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb, 
show they were a bunch of suicidal fanatics (his words) who rather would 
inflict as much pain as possible on the enemy and die, rather than surrender. 
This attitude was very much evident throughout the war. Kamakazis (sp?) is just 
one example. In fact back in the US they were surprised that Japan didn't show 
any signs of surrendering after the Hiroshima blast which prompted them to go 
ahead as planned for the next one.

	If it's not Hiroshima, it would have been SF.

    The way I heard it there was not enough time between Hiroshima and
    Nagasaki for the japanese leaders to really understand the significance
    of the weapon.
    
    If you put yourselves into their situation that's fairly easy to
    understand - suddenly communications with Hiroshima cease.  OK so it's
    trouble with the telephone, maybe there has been a major US bombing
    raid, maybe there has been an earthquake.  Then garbled reports come
    in about casualties, but there is no one in authority to confirm that. 
    Then someone actually goes to look, that takes time etc. etc.  It would
    take a few days just to believe that the event had taken place. 

    
    <---

    Well the Japanese allegedly had time to show the devastation to POW's,
    But didn't have time to asses it for themselves?

    Dan

Revisionists say Smithsonian's Enola Gay exhibit
distorts history


(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

WASHINGTON (Aug 2, 1995 - 18:18 EDT) -- The Smithsonian
Institution's exhibition of the B-29 that bombed Hiroshima distorts
history with a discredited "postwar justification of the atomic
bombings," 52 opponents said Wednesday.

In a letter, they called the scaled-down Enola Gay exhibit
unbalanced and asked Smithsonian Secretary Michael I. Heyman
"either to eliminate the highly contentious interpretations, or at the
very least, balance them with other interpretations."

David Umansky, director of communications, said the Smithsonian
had just received the letter and was preparing a response.

One of the letter's complaints concerned a wall label saying that
when the decision was made to drop the bomb it was thought
unlikely that Japan otherwise would have surrendered
unconditionally without an American invasion.

"Nowhere in the exhibit is this interpretation balanced by other
views," their letter said.

"Visitors to the exhibit will not learn that many U.S. leaders --
including Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, Admiral William D. Leahy,
War Secretary Henry L. Stimson, Acting Secretary of State Joseph
C. Grew and Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy --
thought it highly probable that the Japanese would surrender well
before the earliest possible invasion, scheduled for November
1945.

"It is spurious to assert as fact that obliterating Hiroshima in
August was needed to obviate an invasion in November."

The exhibit, showing the fuselage of the plane with wall legends
and a 16-minute film of comments by the Enola Gay crew, opened
June 28 and has drawn large crowds.

Sunday is the 50th anniversary of Hiroshima's bombing.

A more extensive exhibit, telling the story of the last year of World
War II in the Pacific, was planned but canceled by Heyman after
veterans groups called it unbalanced.

Unsatisfied by changes made by the Smithsonian, 81 members of
Congress demanded the resignation of Martin Harwit, director of
the National Air and Space Museum. He subsequently resigned.

In the controversy, the Historians Committee for Open Debate on
Hiroshima took the other side. The committee sponsored
Wednesday's letter.

"The few words in the exhibit that attempt to provide some
historical context for viewing the Enola Gay amount to a highly
unbalanced and one-sided presentation of a largely discredited
postwar justification of the atomic bombings," it said.

Among those signing it was Gar Alperovitz, a historian who for 30
years has advanced the theory that neither an invasion nor the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki -- together
responsible for more than 210,000 deaths -- were required to bring
about Japan's capitulation. His new book, "The Decision to Use
the Atomic Bomb," was published last week.

Others who signed included professors from Harvard, Yale,
Stanford, Cornell, Rutgers, Duke, Vanderbilt, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Dartmouth and the Universities of
California, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, Iowa, Hawaii,
Massachusetts and Houston and four from schools in Japan.

The letter also rejected as "highly contentious" the exhibit's
assertion that the use of the atomic bombs "led to the immediate
surrender of Japan."

The writers noted a 1946 War Department study that said the
entry of the Soviet Union, which occurred two days after the
Hiroshima bombing, alone "almost certainly" would have brought
about Japan's surrender.

The letter said the exhibit wrongly implied that airdropped leaflets
warned the people of Hiroshima before the bomb was dropped.

And it complained that on the film, Paul Tibbits, the Enola Gay
pilot, was permitted to make a "false assertion" that Hiroshima
was "definitely a military objective."

"Defining Hiroshima as a 'military' target is analogous to calling
San Francisco a 'military' target because it has a port and contains
the Presidio," the letter asserted.

    re: .52
    
    About the Soviet Union coming in 2 days after the bombing...
    
    It is highly UNLIKELY that they would have sided with us if we had not
    dropped the bomb. 
    They were just out for a territory grab. (just like eastern
    europe...)

    
    
    Yeah it was okay for the kamikazis to fly into hospital ships and all,
    but not okay for the US to end the war with the bomb.  
    
    Martin Sheen was arrested yesterday for protesting the dropping of the
    bomb.  I hope he rots in jail.  Here he is saying that we shouldn't be
    spending money on the military when there are homeless and all.  I
    wonder how many millions that hypocrite has socked away in the bank....
    
    
    

    
> history with a discredited "postwar justification of the atomic
> bombings," 52 opponents said Wednesday.

    52, I'm impressed.....

> David Umansky, director of communications, said the Smithsonian
> had just received the letter and was preparing a response.

    Trying to do it with a straight face sounds more likely....

> when the decision was made to drop the bomb it was thought
> unlikely that Japan otherwise would have surrendered
> unconditionally without an American invasion.

    They were just pounding down our doors to surrender....

> unbalanced and one-sided presentation of a largely discredited
> postwar justification of the atomic bombings," it said.

    Largely discredited by whom....?

> His new book, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," was published last week.

    He is obviously completely unbiased... looks like he's trying to
    increase sales of his book.... Oh, my mistake, only a conservative would
    do something like that....

> The letter also rejected as "highly contentious" the exhibit's
> assertion that the use of the atomic bombs "led to the immediate
> surrender of Japan."

    Excuse me, I thought the Japanese surrendered right after the second
    bombing, gee, you learn something new everyday....

> "Defining Hiroshima as a 'military' target is analogous to calling
> San Francisco a 'military' target because it has a port and contains
> the Presidio," the letter asserted.

    Gee, I would have classified San Francisco as a valid military target. 
    I'm learning soooo much today !

    :-P
    Dan

    
    Not to mention how many innocent Chinese civilians the Japanese used
    chemical and biological weapons to kill.
    
    

    Maybe some folks should read about Bataan and Corregidor (sp) some
    time; the Japanese were real princes to troops (and nurses) there.
    Wonder what the toll would have been in a ground invasion of Japan
    (assuming we had enough soldiers fit enough to embark on such an
    undertaking).
    
    I don't think many Americans rejoice at what we see as the results
    of dropping the bombs; I'm just sick and tired of some trying to
    re-write history and make us the aggressors in a war the US didn't
    want.  We dropped the bombs, the war ended very quickly afterward;
    that's good enough for me.
    
    

Doing research for a speech last month, I learned that in June of 1945
Japan ordered all able citizens over the age of SIX into military service.
IMHO that does not sound like they were ready to surrender.

Art 

    
    
    I saw the clip with Martin Sheen being arrested.. what a loser...
    
    Maybe someone should take him over to where the "for hire" NOW bimbos
    are picketing at the Packwood hearings. Perhaps he can pick up a 
    few bucks there too!

    
    Actors should stay out of politics.
    
    HAR!
    

    
    martin sheen or charlie sheen, andy???
    
    

    
    
    Martin... Charlie's dad...

    I feel that 50 years has washed away alot of the hate between the
    2 countries.  I also believe that it is to easy to concentrate on
    the fact that an Abomb was dropped and ignoring the fact that we
    were fighting a war to win it.   
    
    Talk to a Vet about Pearl Harbor, or the Pacific Theater to get a
    feeling about the war.   They started it with Pearl and we ended it.
    Things could have been different.   A dead body is a dead body whether
    it was nuked or firebombed.   
     

    In talking about the bomb,
    
    	This morning Paul Harvy (News) suprised me pointing out that in
    1943, a project was initiated in Japan to build an Atomic Bomb.  This
    project was two years old when we dropped the bomb.   If this is true,
    do you think they were ready to give up ?
    
    Given the source of information about other things used by Japan in the
    war (The Howard Hughes Zero for instance, that our Navy turned down as
    unusable from an air craft carrier) what is the possibility that they
    had at least some amount of information about what was going on with
    "Manhattan" that they could use to accelerate their program?
    
    

    What's the Howard Huges Zero?

    
    One of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project was also passing
    vital information to the Soviets. They were able to duplicate the
    A-bomb used to end the war within two years of getting those secrets...
    

>    	This morning Paul Harvy (News) suprised me pointing out that in
>    1943, a project was initiated in Japan to build an Atomic Bomb.  This
>    project was two years old when we dropped the bomb.   If this is true,
>    do you think they were ready to give up ?

I believe Germany was also working on the bomb.  Fortunately, neither Japan
nor Germany got close enough for it to influence their decisions regarding
surrender.

        Re .66

    Toward Hughes design a light, fast fighter plane/ torpedo bomber for the
    Navy to use off the decks of Aircraft Carriers.   This plane was turned
    down by the war department as being too light, and basically who would
    want to drop torpedos from an airplane anyhow.

    These plans were stolen sometime (I believe) in the late 1930s.  Guess
    what was used to bomb Pearl Harbor.

    The P-38 (Is my number right? the dual fuselage plane) was also a Hughes
    Aircraft plane, as was the Spruce Goose.

    I know the plane you're talking about...
    It was a derivative of the Hughes racer. But it's not the same as the
    Zero. (The zero was a fighter, not a torpedo bomber. Their torpedo
    bomber was the Kate - a fixed-gear aircraft.)
    The Mistubishi Zero and the Hughes racer derivative did share some
    things in common, but they're not the same plane. The easiest way to
    tell them apart is the cockpit configuration. The Hughes plane also has
    a tighter cowling.

    .69
    
    The P-38 was not a Hughes plane.  It was a Lockheed design.

    re: P-38
    
    Designed by...
    can't remember his name!
    
    Ah, yes...Kelly Johnson.

    The P-38 lightning was my first ever model...

    Re back a ways:
    
    The Japanese learned how to fit wooden fins to the front of their
    torpedoes to prevent them from diving in the mud at Pearl from the
    British who invented them. The British used them to cripple the Italian
    Navy in Tarranto harbor with Swordfish (biplanes) fitted with torpedoes
    so eqiupped.

    Reading a long article in July 31 New Yorker on this issue.
    
    Fire-bombing of Japanese cities had been going on for months.  Many
    cities had been hit, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, on
    model of "area bombing" pioneered in Europe by the British under
    "Bomber" Harris.
    
    Author of the article looks at interaction of Japanese government,
    military, and the Emperor in making the decision to surrender.  I
    haven't finished the article, but he seems to be suggesting that the
    most important factor in forcing the decision was entry of Soviet Union
    into the war.  
    
    -Stephen

    
    Another history snippet.
    
    Leo Szilard, a Hungarian pliving in London first conceived of nuclear
    chain reactions.  He was awarded a patent which he assigned to the
    Royal Navy.  No-one is sure quite what happened, but some historians
    suspect that all the British atomic research information was traded as
    part of the lease/lend deal.  Britain did not have the resources to run
    a development program.  Others claim that the Admiralty was shocked at
    the potential consequences of the weapon.  (It wouldn't be the first
    time. The Sea Lords refused to adopt Holland's submarine at firrst
    because they considered it an "ungentlemanly" form of warfare.)
    
    Szilard helped Einstein to write his famous letter to the Prez,
    but he also only wanted to demonstrate the bomb rather than use it.
    After it's use he gave up physics and joind the Salk institute
    as a research biologist.
    
    I noticed during a recent trip to Long Island that the US navy had it's
    first Holland boat station there at Suffolk.  Not too far from where
    Einstein was living when he wrtoe the letter to Roosevelt.  Odd
    coincidence.
    
    
    Colin
    

                      <<< Note 504.50 by POWDML::DOUGAN >>>

>   The way I heard it there was not enough time between Hiroshima and
>   Nagasaki for the japanese leaders to really understand the significance
>   of the weapon.

I think that they understood the significance within a few hours: one plane,
one bomb, one city destroyed.  The threat is: we have lots of these bombs, 
surrender or else.  Now, that threat was a bluff.  It would take weeks to 
build another one, but they didn't know that.  Two bombs dropped quickly 
adds to illusion that we have a stockpile of these bombs.

There was also a critical time factor.  If we could get Japan to given up
quickly, the USSR would not have time to acquire territory and divide up 
the far east into spheres of influence as it did in Europe.

    .77  I saw this on some TV program some years ago and it made sense to
    me - one has to remember that communications were a lot less robust
    than today and that the Japanese system was very hierarchical.  The
    whole point that the whole city went made things worse.  Very few
    people on the ground understood what happened, very few of those had
    any way of communicating and even fewer had any sort of authority.
    
    This is from memory, but I think it was a fairly junior officer from
    some outfit on the outskirts of Hiroshima who made the first report and
    he was soundly blasted for his outrageous exaggerations.  (Then as now
    - shoot the messenger first).
    
    Also the mindset to accept siuch a calamity simply is was not there,
    people wanted "proof", reports and analysis from senior people and
    those certainly did not come in hours.  
    
    Axel

    
    
    This subject touches home with me, having remembered my grandmothers
    nightmares 20 years after her eldest son was killed in the South
    Pacific.
    
    A recent poll of Americans cites that over 70% of Americans believe
    that we should not apologize to Japan.  Even in this ahistoric 
    culture, I think the poll speaks well of our unwillingness to pass
    judgement on a generation of leaders whose problems pale those
    currently facing Washington.
    
    What I think is disturbing about Hiroshima is it reveals how
    unwilling Japan is in looking at their own history preceeding
    August 6th (specifically their conduct towards prisoners, and
    civilian populations in Manchuria and Korea.)
    
     
    
    
    

    PRIVATE PARTS IS THAT YOU!!!!!!!!!?????????

                      <<< Note 504.78 by POWDML::DOUGAN >>>

    RE: Getting the news after Hiroshima

    The Hiroshima "calamity" was not that much different than a 
    fire-bombing.  According to Hershey's [sp?] book, that's what people 
    on the ground thought it was.  I find it a little difficult to believe 
    that if a person told his superior that the city was wrecked and the 
    ruins were in flames, I doubt that his report would be tossed that 
    quickly.  I imagine that they would have assumed that the US had 
    fire-bombed the city and reacted accordingly.  I also believe that 
    Hershey's book indicated that the government/military had observers 
    there the following morning.  Those people may not have understood 
    what the weapon was, but they would have readily understood what it
    meant to the people on the ground.

    Many people seem to get so bent out of shape because we used a nuclear
    device on a city but don't seem to even notice that our side killed 
    just as many people, if not more, with jellied gasoline, incendiaries,
    and old-fashioned high explosives.  I don't think that those who 
    suffered and died care very much one way or the other.

    On the other hand, the bombings are a critical reminder of how 
    important it is to avoid starting any new wars.  We can look at the 
    those who suffered and died, and we can imagine how many more would
    be killed if a modern weapon was used, one where the explosive power 
    and the fallout would be much greater.

    Hiroshima and Nagasaki are horrible lessons, but even the leaders of
    the day got the message.  Gen MacArthur [sp?] said at the surrender:
    "New advances in science and technology have made it imperative that
    we find some other way to settle our disputes [other than war]. ...
    If we do not, Armageddon will be at our door."  [from memory: could
    be wrong]

    It's been 50 years, and we have avoided World War III.
    Let's hope that trend continues.

    <------
    
    >Let's hope that trend continues.
    
    Tell that to the Muslims in Bosnia... Dead is dead [WW (n)
    non-withstanding...]

    So 50 years later are there still traces of the nuclear
    explosion at either site?    
    
    	Radiation in the earth ?
    	
    	Documented birth defects in population?
    
    

                     <<< Note 504.84 by CSC32::C_BENNETT >>>

>    So 50 years later are there still traces of the nuclear
>    explosion at either site?    
 
	Yes (but deliberately so)
   
>    	Radiation in the earth ?

	Apparently not.
    	
>    	Documented birth defects in population?
 
	Yes.

Jim   
    

    
    I was watching the news last night and the co-anchor, or whatever she
    calls herself stated after the report on events and up-coming
    anniversaries... with a very stoic and serious expression and ever so
    slowly...
    
    "The United States of America is STILL the only country in the world to
    have ever used a nucleur bomb.."
    
    
      DUH!!!! No <r.o.> Sherlock!!!
    

    
      On one of the networks last night there was a two hour special
     on the war in the Pacific. An interview with a WWII Japanese
     veteran put the whole "bomb" thing in perspective for me.
    
      He said that both Germany and Japan had been working on developing
     an atomic bomb, and that either one of those countries would not have
     hesitated to use the bomb had they developed it first.

 <<< Note 504.83 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Been complimented by a toady lately?" >>>
                  -< and Slick continues to lay politics... >-

>   Tell that to the Muslims in Bosnia... Dead is dead [WW (n)
>   non-withstanding...]

Yes, dead is dead, but we have avoided a major (world-wide) conflict
between the superpowers, and thus avoided killing every living thing
on the planet.

And, yes, I feel sorry for the Muslims in Bosnia, and I would like to 
something about it.  The UN can't do it.  The US can, but the US should 
maintain a policy of only getting involved if her interests are at stake.
Of course, I personally would like to make a exception to prevent "ethnic
cleansing", but my solution would give pacifists nightmares.

    
    >> PRIVATE PARTS IS THAT YOU!!!!
    
    Whoops.  Looks like I forged out into soapbox without my cape
    and mask.  
    

re: dead is dead..

At groung zero, people vaporized.  Bodies simply vanished in temperatures
that topped 5,000 degrees.

80,000 people died as a direct result of Little Boy, and 60,000 more died
by the end of the year.  (More than 2,000 of the 20,000-plus Koreans in
Hiroshima at that time died in the bombing -- many of them were brought
to Japan for forced laber.)  

The toll from Fat Man was 74,000 by the end of the year.

There are about 330,000 people who have been officially recognized as 
"hibakusha".  Their number peaked in 1981 when 372,000 people were 
recognized.  During the past year, about 8,000 hibakusha have died and
their names are added to the official lists of victims of the A-bombings
that are kept at cenotaphs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    Why is everyone who was in the city at the time of the bombing listed
    as a casualty of the bombing?

Because they were, even if they're still alive.

/john

    
    re: .86
    
    > "The United States of America is STILL the only country in the world to
    > have ever used a nucleur bomb.."
    
    set mode/sarcasm=HIGH
    
    Well, we started the party, but nobody came!  Is it our fault that the
    rest of the world are a bunch of wussies ?!?!
    
    re: .91
    
    > Why is everyone who was in the city at the time of the bombing listed
    > as a casualty of the bombing?
    
    Because it makes better copy....
    
    Dan

    I think everyone in those cities were listed as victims because
    most who survived the initial blast suffered from radiation sickness
    (many dying within days/weeks).  I believe the surrounding areas
    produced larger than average percentages of people suffering from
    leukemia and other blood cancers.
    
    

    Another "thought experiment":
    
    Imagine that the nuclear bomb had never been invented by anyone.
    
    How and when was the war in the Pacific going to end?  How many
    more years would it have lasted?  Who would have "won"?  How many
    more people would have died by more "conventional" means?
    
    By the way, I believe that it's absurd for us (i.e., all of "us",
    especially the media, educators, government, etc.) to sit in judgment
    of those times and those people.  We can learn from them, but I refuse
    to condemn them, not having been in their shoes.
    
    Chris

I condemn what was done to J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Consolidated B-32 Dominator

B-29 competitor

The Consolidated B-32 Dominator four-engined heavy bomber was
ordered at the same time as the Boeing B-29 Superfortress. It
was definitely the USAAF's second choice, and was intended
primarily as insurance in case the favored Boeing design failed.
Since the B-29 turned out to be an outstanding success, the B-32....
    .
    .
    .
    
>Following the dropping of the atomic bombs, in August of 1945,
>the unit was ordered to move to Okinawa before the conversion
>could be carried out. Six more B-32s joined the squadron on
>Okinawa a few days later. Combat operations continued in spite of
>the de-facto cease-fire that had been called following the
>bombing of Nagasaki. During this time, the B-32s flew mainly
>photographic reconnaissance missions, most of which were
>unopposed. However, on August 17 a group of 4 B-32s flying over
>Tokyo were fired on by radar-directed flak and were attacked by
>Japanese fighters. The American aircraft escaped with only minor
>damage, claiming one confirmed fighter kill and two probables.
>During a reconnaissance mission over Tokyo on August 18,
>42-108532 and 42-108578 were attacked by Japanese fighters. The
>American gunners claimed two kills and one probable, but -578
>was badly shot up and one of her crew was killed with two being
>injured. This was to prove to be the last combat action of World
>War 2. 


    So much for wanting to give up EVEN AFTER the 2 A-bombs...
    
    
    
    
Sources:

   General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John
   Wegg, Naval Institute Press, 1990. 
   Flying Terminated Inventory, Stephen Harding, Wings, April
   1993, p. 40. 

   United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon
   Swanborough and Peter M. Bowers, Smithsonian Institution
   Press, 1989. 


Joe Baugher 
[email protected] 

 ZZ   I condemn what was done to J. Robert Oppenheimer.
    
    Did somebody give him a wedgee?

    
    re: .96
    
    >I condemn what was done to J. Robert Oppenheimer.
    
    Me too!!!
    
    Just because he was a replacement player at the start of the season,
    does't mean he shouldn't be given another shot to come up to the
    majors!!
    

 Atomic Snarf!

Obviously, Jack and Andy choose to learn from McCarthy (Joseph or Charlie, it
matters not).

    
    when in doubt invoke mccarthy..

    
    re: .101
    
    Was that YOU sitting on Charlie's lap????
    

I'm too big for that Andy. In every sense.

BTW - Edgar Bergen pulled Charlie's string...

re:.102 (rah)

I thought it was revealed (thru USSR dissolution - documents etc.) that a Soviet
agent named "Hans Krol"(?) was the informer on the Manhattan project. I may have
the name wrong but it certainly was not Oppenheimer.

He was railroaded.

    
    >BTW - Edgar Bergen pulled Charlie's string...
    
    
    No!!!!!!
    
    I'm shocked!!!!!!!

    
      Um, Robert Oppenheimer, the project leader on the Manhattan Project,
     declined to help build the hydrogen bomb, and spoke out publicly
     against the project.  In a private hearing, at which he testified,
     it was decided to revoke his security clearance.  He went back to
     teaching, and never worked on nuclear energy again.  Part of this
     was political infighting with Dr. Ed Teller.  While it did indeed
     happen at a time  in which the McCarthy hearings set the public
     mood, McCarthy's committee had nothing to do with it.  Oppenheimer's
     reaction to the effect of the two bombs was an exaggeration of two
     stages reported by many othe Manhattan Project scientists - relief
     that the bomb had worked, followed by horror of the future they had
     created.  For the rest of his life, he spoke out against the bombs.
    
      bb

 Just a short excerpt from an article in today's Boston Globe... (Battle rages 
over WWII revisionism)

  Paul Fussell, who has taught English at Rutgers and the University of 
Pennsylvania and is the author of "The Great War and Modern Memory" and "Thank 
God for the Atom Bomb and Other Essays," says:

  "The war was awful. There's no way to make it moral or to make it 
acceptable. But we won, and that's important. That needs to be said. Think how 
awful it would be if we lost. Hitler Jugend," the Hitler Youth battalions, 
"would be marching around New York. The Japanese would control the West Coast,
from Denver over. The Italians would probably have been given Louisiana."

  Making Hiroshima more important than V-J Day, he adds, results from "the 
American trait of sentimentality, the same way Americans feel about baby 
whales, baby seals and saving trees. That retroactive sentimentality has 
colored their memory of the war. Many of these academics aren't good enough 
thinkers to know they live because I killed people on their behalf. They're 
implicated in the behavior of soldiers fighting for them. They cannot imagine 
themselves as wicked and culpable, so they play this game of guessing about 
the past. The great thing about self-righteousness is that it requires no 
thinking.

  Fussell has argued with critics about the morality of the bomb, but "it 
became such a numbers game, guessing about how many casualties here or there. 
I refuse to play that game any more. I use one statistic, one life saved: 
mine."

    Did anyone else notice the lead story in (forgot the name of the paper)
    this morning?
    
    Apparently, Japan officially apologized for the war, both in general
    and in specific terms.
    
    Mentioned were the attack on Pearl Harbor, the treatment of POWS, and
    the use of Asian women as sex slaves (I hadn't heard this one before.)
    
    Anyone care to type it in? I didn't buy the paper.

(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service


TOKYO (Aug 15, 1995 - 08:42 EDT) - In a landmark statement, Prime
Minister Tomiichi Murayama on Tuesday made Japan's first clear cut
apology for its World War Two actions but he firmly ruled out reopening
discussions on compensation for victims.

Murayama delivered the historic apology in somber tones on national
television, reading a statement that had the weight of the Japanese
government behind it because the wording was cleared by all three
partners in his ruling coalition.

Speaking on the 50th anniversary of Japan's defeat in World War two,
Murayama did not hold back in admitting wrongdoing and in apologising
for it.

"During a certain period in the not too distant past, Japan, following a
mistaken national policy, advanced along the road to war, only to ensnare
the Japanese people in a fateful crisis and through its colonial rule and
aggression caused tremendous damage and suffering to people of many
countries, particularly to those of Asian nations," he said.

"In the hope that no such mistake be made in the future, I regard, in a
spirit of humility, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once
again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology,"
Murayama said.

Murayama's statement made him the first prime minister to use the
sensitive word "apology," instead of words like "remorse" and "regret," in
a public speech about the war.

But at a later press conference, Murayama dashed hopes of former allied
prisoners of war that the change of mood might also lead to discussions
about compensation for victims.

"All individual compensation has been dealt with in the 1952 San
Francisco Peace Treaty and other bilateral treaties," he said. "We have
faithfully met terms of those agreements."

Former prisoners of war from Britain, Australia, the United States and
other Allied nations have stepped up demands for compensation this
anniversary year. Tokyo courts are considering several suits filed by
POW groups in which they demand individual compensation of about
$22,000 each.

Many former "comfort women" -- women from Korea, China, the
Philippines and the Netherlands forced to serve at battlefront brothels --
are also demanding compensation.

There appeared no immediate groundswell of anger against Murayama
from rightwing groups. His statement coincided with a newspaper poll
which said more than 50 per cent of Japanese do not believe enough has
been done to atone for the past.

But in a sign of the divisions that still exist in Japanese society, 10 of the
prime minister's 20-man cabinet attended unofficial ceremonies at
Tokyo's Yasukuni Shrine, site of the country's biggest shrine for war
dead.

The dead include Class A war criminals like executed wartime prime
minister Hideki Tojo.

"Remorse and apology is just what the government says," said Tadashi
Yamada, 75, who prayed at the shrine. "It's a big mistake to think this is
what Japanese people think."

The apology followed a parliamentary resolution in July which only
expressed "deep reflection" about Japan's history of aggression and
brutal colonial rule.

The focus of Tuesday's commemorative services had been on whether
the country's first Socialist prime minister would be bolder and utter the
word "apology" in a public speech.

Ministers at a cabinet meeting where the wording of the statement was
cleared only hours before its delivery, said the conservative Liberal
Democratic Party (LDP), senior partner in the coalition, did not fight the
use of the word.

The LDP, in power almost exclusively since World War Two, had forced
Murayama to tone down the parliamentary resolution.

Economic Planning Minister Isamu Miyazaki told a news conference
Murayama read the statement and asked cabinet members if there were
any objections to the wording.

"Nobody objected to the prime mininster's wording," Miyazaki said.

Murayama reverted to more muted language in a later speech to relatives
of Japan's three million war dead, using the traditional terms "deep
reflection and sincere condolences."

Emperor Akihito, son of Japan's wartime Emperor Hirohito, stuck to
traditionally vague wording in his speech at the memorial event for the
war dead.

"I earnestly wish that the pains of war will never be repeated and with all
citizens, I would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to those who fell in
battle or were killed in the war and pray for world peace and the
prosperity of our nation," the emperor said.



(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Aug 16, 1995 - 09:24 EDT) -- Nearly lost amid the
World War II retrospectives is a postwar prank that literally had Japan's
vanquished military leader chewing on the words: "Remember Pearl Harbor."

A draftee dentist drilled the message in Morse code inside Gen. Hideki Tojo's
dentures while the general was imprisoned in occupied Japan. The dots and
dashes remained for three months before the secret got out and they had to be
removed.

"It wasn't anything done in anger," recalled E.J. "Jack" Mallory, who made full
upper and lower dentures for Tojo in 1946. "It's just that not many people had
the chance to get those words into his mouth."

Tojo, who had approved the surprise attack that drew the United States into
the war, asked for the dentures so he could speak better at his war crimes
trial. He was convicted and executed in 1948.

Mallory, then 22, knew that writing out the words "Remember Pearl Harbor"
could get him court martialed. An amateur radio operator, he decided to
inscribe the letters in Morse code instead.

Also in on the secret was George Foster, who died in 1990. He was assigned
to provide dental services at Sugama Prison near Tokyo, where he extracted
Tojo's teeth and sought Mallory's help in making the dentures.

"I figured it was my duty to carry out the assignment," Foster wrote in 1988.
"But that didn't mean I couldn't have fun with it."

When the dentures were done, Mallory said he and Foster told other buddies in
the dental service.

"We took them on an excursion to the prison to show them our masterpiece,"
Mallory said. "The only ones in on this were my dentist roommates and myself,
all sworn to secrecy."

But the secret was just too juicy to hold. One of the men wrote about the
escapade to his parents in Texas, they passed it to a brother, who broadcast it
on a local radio station. Suddenly, the tale of Tojo's teeth was broadcast all
over the world.

Mallory confessed to his commanding officer, who told him to hide while the
story was denied. Late that night, Mallory and Foster drove to the prison and
woke a bewildered Tojo in the middle of the night to "borrow" his dentures.

Using a crude grinding stone, Mallory removed the dots and dashes.

The erasure came just in time. The next morning, a furious colonel called
Mallory and his roommate.

"Is there any truth in this report that 'Remember Pearl Harbor' is inscribed in
the dentures?"' the colonel barked.

"No, sir!" the men were able to answer truthfully.

Mallory said he never learned if Tojo found out about the trick, which was not
publicized in the Japanese press. But a dentist who succeeded Mallory in
Japan told him that the general began complaining about the dentures' looser
fit.

Mallory, now 71, retired a decade ago from his dental practice in Chico, 90
miles north of Sacramento. Since his military service ended, he has talked
openly about the prank. There is even a display about it in the Navy Dental
Corps Historical Museum in Bethesda, Md.

In 1969, Mallory returned to Japan for a reunion with several Japanese
dentists. Over dinner, he told them the tale of Tojo.

"They thought it was the funniest thing," Mallory said. "They all said, 'Why
didn't you tell us this?'

"I said, 'well, the timing just didn't seem right."

> 
> Yes, dead is dead, but we have avoided a major (world-wide) conflict
> between the superpowers, and thus avoided killing every living thing
> on the planet.

	We're not that powerfull.  There was life on this planet long
before us and there will be life on this planet long after we're gone.


mc

    -1
    
    I disagree...we are indeed that powerful, just counting the nifty
    weapons we know about.  What about the neato super-secret stuff that
    we have not been told about.  It's been 40 years or so since we
    exploded the first hydrogen bomb, you know, and our technological
    advancements have accellerated dramatically in the last 40 years.
    
    I think that we could turn this planet into a wasteland if we really
    tried.
    
    
    -steve

    
    Lucky Jack...
    
    See Phil Hays
    
    NNTTM...
    

I disagree oppositely. The worst thing mankind could possibly unleash would
still leave vast amounts of the atmosphere intact and millions of species
of invertebrate life forms, including many plants, which would put Terra
b/millions of years ahead of where it was after coagulating following the
Big Bang. It's even quite likely that breeding populations of many vertebrate
species would be left unharmed. Presuming that mankind is capable of destroying
life on the planet is the height of arrogance (and ignorance). If you think
there can be a true Armageddon/Apocolypse, you'll really need to depend upon
your deities to bring it forth.

Actually, I believe Phil would agree with me on this, Andy. Or was
that your point?

    
    
    Jack, you're not only lucky, but quick too!!!!!!
    
    
     :) :) :) :)
    

Well, actually, I reposted .115 about half a dozen times before I got
all the typos worked out.

The point is, that there are huge numbers of species of marine life
that thrive at depths of over a mile (over two and three, even) which
would continue to get along just fine regardless of what might happen
on the planet's surface. There are life forms which exist solely inside
caverns and the like which would be totally unaffected by anything
happening on the surface for years before the tainted atmosphere or
water supply could affect them (and by which time the air and water
would have undergone significant cleansing). The vermin of today are
recognizably older as species than most "acceptable" species (e.g.
rats, cockroaches, bacteria, etc.), and their adaptability has been
proven to be capable of withstanding untold hardship. No matter how
you look at it, recombinant DNA in the form of chromosomes posessed
by life forms capable of independent reproduction will not be wiped
off the face of the earth short of a solar nova or similar event, the
likes of which mankind couldn't even hold a candle to. [Sorry, Mz_Deb.]

    You just have to look at the things that can live in the HOT (in more
    ways than one) reactor water. 
    Also the undersea ones that live in sulphurous vents in extremely nasty
    conditions to apprecite that life would go on albeit a lot different
    from present.

    
    
    So Jack.... you're saying we'll come back as cockroaches???
    

I don't personally expect anyone to come back, Andy, but I'd be more
than willing to lay astronomical odds that cockroaches and similar
life forms will still be crawling around the planet far after mankind
is forgotten history.

    Mankind is a speed bump (there's that word again!) on the evolutionary
    scale of time.

>    
>    I disagree...we are indeed that powerful, just counting the nifty
>    weapons we know about.  What about the neato super-secret stuff that
>    we have not been told about.  It's been 40 years or so since we
>    exploded the first hydrogen bomb, you know, and our technological
>    advancements have accellerated dramatically in the last 40 years.
>    
>    I think that we could turn this planet into a wasteland if we really
>    tried.


	If the energy produced by objects that have hit the earth in the 
past could not turn turn this planet into a wasteland then our weapons
don't stand a chance of doing it.  We might be able to kill ourselves
and many other creatures off but life would go on.  

Mc

    Remember that N weapons are volumetric. A 1000 MT weapon is only 10
    time more powerful than a 10 MT weapon. It goes by the cube of the
    number. This is one of the big Kennedy lies from the 70's and 80's: 
    
    'We have enought weapons to kill everyone xx times!'
    
    BTW there are NO 1000 MT weapons, and there are no 100 MT weapons. The
    US found years ago that more small ones are better and more
    destructive.
    
    We cound not do it; kill off everything, ourselves, maybe...

    We could certainly gove it the old college try though.

    
    > ... by life forms capable of independent reproduction will not be wiped
    > off the face of the earth short of a solar nova or similar event, ...

    hhhhmmmmmm.... I wonder if we could design a weapon that would trigger
    a solar nova... If we could design such a weapon, then we most
    certainly could destroy ALL life on this planet, $#!+ we could
    vaporize the better part of the solar system.... what a coool idea!  I
    wonder if we started developing such a weapon yet?  It shouldn't be too
    hard, after all we aren't building a "bomb" per se, just the triggering
    device, and utilize the energy in the sun as the actual bomb......hhhmmmm

RE: killing all life on the planet

Yes, my statement was incorrect.  Not all life would be destroyed.
Some would clearly survive.


RE: energy release

It's not just the energy released by these weapons; it's the fallout.  
The United States adds depleted Uranium to its warheads.  The fission by-
products are really nasty.  I believe that other countries do this, too.

    I wonder if enough nukes were detonated on the side of the earth that
    is at that moment in line with our orbit, if we could eventually cause
    our orbit to decay and end up falling into the sun.
    
    Or what about detonating them deep in the earth and triggering
    devastating volcanic or seismic activity that would burn, flood, or
    otherwise destroy most life.  
    
    Yeah, from a practical point of view it does seem pretty nearly
    impossible to really put an end to all human life, let alone all life
    on earth, especially given that they've found bacteria living in
    extremely high temps beneath the earth's crust.

    Ask the French, they may know.  

    .126
    
    > BTW there are NO 1000 MT weapons, and there are no 100 MT weapons.
    
    The Chinese have detonated a warhead whose yield was measured at 65
    megatons.  It is clear that 100-megaton yields are possible.
    
    The volumetric effect is meaningful in terms of the distance from the
    point of explosion; i.e., a 1000-megaton bomb will destroy things only
    to a radius 10 times as great as a 1-megaton device.  BUT, and this is
    a very BIG difference, if such a weapon is detonated at or below the
    surface, the volume of fallout it will produce is indeed 1000 times as
    great as that produced by the smaller weapon.
    
    The amount of fallout produced by an aerial burst of a 13-kiloton
    fission device (Hiroshima) is nothing to sneeze at, so to speak.  The
    amount produced bu a ground burst of the Chinese monster, borne on the
    wind, would add up to a major case of radiation sickness pretty well
    anywhere within an area 150 miles wide and 1000 miles long eastward.
    
    Set off all 20,000 of the 1-megaton or larger devices in existence, and
    we can pretty much say goodbye to vertebrate life on the surface or in
    the shallow seas.

    Re .131:
    
    > I wonder if enough nukes were detonated on the side of the earth that
    > is at that moment in line with our orbit, if we could eventually cause
    > our orbit to decay and end up falling into the sun.

    a) Very little of the Earth's momentum is lost in a surface nuclear
       explosion.  To make any change at all, you have to blast something
       away from the Earth and have it not fall back.  The mushroom cloud
       may seem big to us, but it's pretty small compared to the size of
       the atmosphere.
    
    b) Orbits do not decay, Star Trek notwithstanding.  If you move
       through a planet's atmosphere, you can lose momentum due to air
       resistance, but the density of material further away from large
       bodies is insigificant for most orbital calculations.  So if the
       Earth's momentum were changed significantly, its orbit would
       change by a fixed amount -- it might orbit closer to the Sun, but
       it would not continue to fall in by itself, without more pushing.
    
    > Or what about detonating them deep in the earth and triggering
    > devastating volcanic or seismic activity that would burn, flood, or
    > otherwise destroy most life.
    
    We think nuclear explosions are a big deal, but a good thunderstorm
    puts out more energy than the bombs dropped on Japan, and a volcanic
    eruption puts them to shame.  

    > . . . especially given that they've found bacteria living in
    > extremely high temps beneath the earth's crust.
    
    Don't forget micrococcus radiodurans, a bacterium that lives in nuclear
    reactors.  It aggressively repairs errors in its DNA.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

re .131:

In addition to .133:

>    I wonder if enough nukes were detonated on the side of the earth that
>    is at that moment in line with our orbit, if we could eventually cause
>    our orbit to decay and end up falling into the sun.

The energy equivalent of the Earth's orbital motion is so huge compared
to all our nukes they wouldn't even look like a wet firecracker in
comparison.
    
>    Or what about detonating them deep in the earth and triggering
>    devastating volcanic or seismic activity that would burn, flood, or
>    otherwise destroy most life.  


About all you could hope for is to trigger an earthquake that would have
happened anyway.

    line 'em up on the san andreas..

    > Don't forget micrococcus radiodurans, a bacterium that lives in nuclear
    > reactors.  It aggressively repairs errors in its DNA.
    
    Woof!   Now if we could splice that mechanism into our own genes...
    

    
    Ah, but you've forgotten the "Doomsday Weapon" (World Book
    Encyclopedia, 1968).  This is a large-yield nuclear fission bomb
    with a cobalt encasement.  This would clearly put a dent in the
    life-form count.
    
    Go look it up.

    Most ICBM/IRBM n weapons are designed for air burst. This gives maximum
    blast effect and physical destruction. Silo busters go off in the
    ground or right on to of the silo.
    
    The ruskies mad a 100+ MT weapon, but learned from us, more smaller
    ones are better + more survivalability.
    
    Most N weapons are quite small, down to 58# land mines...

    
      Actually, nukes would be a bad choice.  You could do better with
     Tesla's invention - the feedback amplified shock waves.  Tesla was
     the guy who developed AC, that's alternating current, for George
     Westinghouse.  In WWI, he recommended seizing the place on earth
     directly opposite Germany, setting up a station, and with perfectly
     timed reverberating waves of the right amplitude/wavelength, the
     violence would theoretically amplify without limit till Germany was
     turned into a fluid.  His plan was rejected as wacko and inhuman,
     but recent research indicates he was correct.
    
      Another promising approach is poisons.
    
      bb

re: Dan

.128> I wonder if we could design a weapon that would trigger
.128> a solar nova...

Designing the weapon/trigger might be easy enough. Designing a
delivery system that could make it there intact would be the more
difficult task.

    -1 they could wait until night...

I hadn't thought of that approach ....

RE: 504.115 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> I disagree oppositely. The worst thing mankind could possibly unleash would
> still leave vast amounts of the atmosphere intact and millions of species
> of invertebrate life forms, including many plants, which would put Terra
> b/millions of years ahead of where it was after coagulating following the
> Big Bang. 

Nuclear weapons currently in existence could not wipe out mankind,  much less 
invertebrates.  100% fatal direct effects of nuclear weapons only reach out 
a few km at most,  and the direct kill effects of all nuclear weapons would
cover much less than .001% of the Earth's land surface.  Indirect effects 
such as radiation,  nuclear climate effects,  etc will not kill 100%
anywhere,  however,  without doing some serious pre-planning,  see below.  

I'm not saying that an all out nuclear war is in any way "nice":  it could 
quite easily kill 99% or more of humanity.

Even if there were enough nuclear warheads to directly kill everyone (and
my cousin and his family would need one targeted on their house:  they live a 
long ways from anyone else!),  not all of warheads will work:  US estimates 
are that US ICBMs are about 80% reliable.  Also counter measures such as 
ABM systems will protect some,  even if grossly overwhelmed.

Chemical toxic weapons are even less likely to kill everyone for much the
same reason:  how could enough land area be covered with enough toxin?  How
could enough toxin be manufactured to poison the oceans?  And even that
wouldn't wipe out all life:  there are many microbes that live deep
underground.

So far,  I agree with Jack.

Produce and release enough artificial greenhouse gases to trigger a runaway
(moist) greenhouse.  This has a real possible practical use,  unlike most of 
these crazy calculations.  When humanity gets to Mars,  a much warmer Mars 
would be a requirement for a large scale colony.  Mars is some 2 to 4 degrees
from a runaway (water) greenhouse,  while the Earth is some forty degrees
away from a runaway (moist) greenhouse.  To warm a planet by twice a much
takes about four times the effort,  so warming Mars to "chilly" from
"frozen" would require only 1/1000th or so of the effort of warming Earth
from "cozy" to "baked".  The amount of effort needed to warm Mars by the 
4 C amount is about 1 gigawatt for about fifty years.

Such artificial greenhouse gases are thousands of times better at warming as
is carbon dioxide,  and there are quite a few such gases known with 
atmospheric lifetimes greater than a thousand years.  To kill every last
microbe at the bottom of the ocean,  the surface would need to be over the
breakdown temperature of DNA for long enough to warm the deep oceans to
that temperature: several thousands of years.

Of course,  some of these greenhouse gases have never been made in quantity:  
the chemistry of producing them in quantity might be more difficult,  their 
real lifetime might not be as long as predicted,  and the response of the 
climate system would be somewhat different than predicted.  Still.  If we 
really wanted to wipe out all life on Earth,  this might just do it.  I
can't think of another "reasonable" way to wipe out all life on Earth.


Phil

	Oh! I am too disappointed, by some of the notes which shatter by belief
that life on earth will be extinct n times over, by the no. of nukes we have
now. Much to my dismay some even point out that, even mankind can't be destroyed
100%. Too bad. I am depressed.

	Why don't we all go, do some more research in this area and find out
a technology to acheive this before the Russians and the French do. Remember if 
the Russians get it first, we are all doomed!! The 'greenhouse effect' theory 
looks quite promising and gives me some ray of hope. It should relentlessly 
persued and tested. I salute the French who are only ones now who have the 
quest to know the unknown.

	Go for it guys.. and make us all happy.