[ RadSafe ] "Countdown to Zero" disarmament movie

Shane Connor webmaster at ki4u.com
Thu Aug 12 18:46:13 CDT 2010

Interesting observation, Demetrios, though, as Mike Brennan said;

"Different situation, because there was already a hot war (as opposed
to a cold war) going on.  The existence of atomic weapons on the other
side would have likely lead to less deliberation before use, not more."

Personally, I don't regret Truman's decision to use nukes on Japan,
they'd of surely used them, and Hitler, too, if they'd gotten them first,
glad they did not.

Could we have gotten them to surrender with just one, or perhaps a
demo on a less populated area or island of Japan, most today would
certainly of preferred that, but I don't know if that'd work back then. I
also don't think we had many more then, ready-to-go, if it had failed to.

I am glad we got and used them first and won and ended the war,
that did save many lives, both Japanese and Americans, of that I
have no doubt, very likely my father included, who was with the 5th
Marine Div training in Hawaii, after having survived 36 days on Iwo
Jima, for the upcoming invasion of mainland Japan.

At his reunions, I'd seen the defensive plans of Japan, 'Operation
Ketsug', alongside our then invasion plan 'Operation Olympic' of
over 3,000 ships, utilizing 550,000 men, where we were intending 
going into southern Kyushu. The Japs correctly assumed that's
where we would invade first and put everything into defending it.

We had grossly underestimated the Japanese remaining air force
and military personnel committed there (790,000), as well as their
brilliant, though desperate, strategy to repel an invasion landing
upon their homeland.

They had 5X's more planes (12,725 army & navy combined) to be
deployed, some from 58 airfields out of Korea, than our intel knew
anything of, where they intended to first use waves to engage our
fighter escorts, to then later launch continuous Kamakaze wave
strikes from the air. This, along with a  fleet of 1,320 suicide Kairyu
2-man explosive ladened mini-subs and 600 Koryu 5-man mini-
subs that, all combined, was to focus in first on our troop ships,
which would have likely sunk most of them before getting close
enough to shore for troops to disembark into their landing crafts.

More, woefully underestimated by our mil intel, defenses awaited
any that that did manage to get through and onto the beach there.

So, 'yes', our nukes then did save many lives, no doubt about it,
and as a deterrent since then, probably even more, though with
proliferation and 'rogue nations' and terrorists eager to get nukes,
we need to also continue to be prepared here, if ever found on the
receiving end, too. (And, 'yes', of course, I'm all for trying to keep,
or get, them out of their hands, too.)

Bottom Line; Reality is, nukes will likely still be around for as long
as your children are, too, so for their sakes, we need to teach them
how to avoid ever needlessly becoming additional casualties, if
they ever get unleashed again. That's what Civil Defense training
is all about, saving 80% of the potential blast & fallout victims, that
the disarmament crowd consistently says is futile to ever try and
learn how to do. Their myths of nuclear un-survivability, to further
their own agenda, will someday be proven deadly, regardless any
of their good intentions to try and make the world safe from nukes.

Shane Connor

-----Original Message-----

Demetrios Okkalides 
at tlmq.com
Thu Aug 12 14:37:08 CDT 2010

Should we not include Truman? After all, he "unleashed" his weapons exactly
because he was not afraid of "the cosequenses of retaliation". This is a
prime example in favour of nuclear balance.

Medical Physics
THEAGENEIO Anticancer Hospital

More information about the RadSafe mailing list