[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Victims
Have you ever wondered were the alternatives to the use of the atomic bombs
in WWII? During one of their first meetings, Churchill and Roosevelt
determined that the war would only conclude with the total surrender and
defeat to the Axis forces. With the final defeat of Germany, the Allies
were going to put all of their resources into the defeat of Japan, and the
invasion of the home islands, beginning with Kyushu, in November 1945.
Since the battles for Guadalcanal and through Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the
Japanese had demonstrated a fanatical resistance. Consequently, the Allied
forces expected more when they came ashore on the home islands. Resistance
was expected not only from regular troops, but from the general population
who were expect to resist the invaders and die for their Emperor. To the
ensure the success of the invasion, the Allies intended to use poison gas.
My guess is that gas would have been used prior to entering cities to
suppress civilian resistance also.
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
E-mail: jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
-----Original Message-----
From: Franz Schoenhofer [mailto:franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT]
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2002 5:05 PM
To: Sandy Perle; William V Lipton
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: Re: Victims
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Sandy Perle <sandyfl@EARTHLINK.NET>
An: William V Lipton <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Datum: Dienstag, 06. August 2002 19:53
Betreff: Re: Victims
On 6 Aug 2002 at 12:43, William V Lipton wrote:
> What is the purpose of this argument over the "body count"? If the bomb
> killed "only" 140,000 rather than 226,870 persons, does that make it
> acceptable?
The answer of course is, that it does not make it acceptable.
I surmise that the debate is over the number of deaths attributable
to the dose received. It is important to provide for correct numbers,
attributable to the exposure. Suppose the number quoted, for all
deaths attributable to direct exposure as well as long-term effects
of the exposure, was said to be 750,000. Should someone not speak out
to question those numbers, and provide a more accurate assessment?
It's not a question of whether or not the bomb should have been
dropped. The question is on accuracy in reporting, and not using an
individual's tragic events to facilitate another's agenda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
As far as I understood from the news posted on RADSAFE, this is the number
of by the Hiroshima authorities officially acknowledged victims . Couldn't
we leave it at this point and this definition and not argue about whether
somebody really was killed by radiation or heart stroke? I would go so far,
that people have suffered from the bombing both physically and without any
doubt also psychically - or are there any hardliners who regard the bombing
as "fun" for the ones who survived????? Is a victim only one, who has a limb
missing or has cancer developed which is acknowledged by American scientists
as having originated from the radiation of the bomb? I have a collegue in
her early sixties, who still has nightmares about the bombing - with
conventional bombs! - of Vienna, though she was a very small girl then. I
myself remember the ruins of Nuremberg on a visit to an aunt, when I was 10
years old in 1954. Has anyone of the "body counters" posting to RADSAFE ever
been in Hiroshima and the atomic bomb museum? Or to Nagasaki? Has anybody of
those ever recognized, how much has been destroyed - not only property but
cultural heritage, especially in Nagasaki? Probably not. I have been in
Hiroshima twice and in Nagasaki once.
Shame to those who discuss whether somebody was a "victim" of the bomb or
not. 140 000 deaths is a number I cannot imagine, 226 870 I cannot imagine
either - so for me personally the difference is against all my scientific
knowledge simply not existent!
One more thing is, that one posting mentioned as negative of the bombing
that also US prisoners of war were killed. I know of course that an American
life is much more worth than a life from any other country - and before
anybody starts to flame me on that comment, please look, how much a
manSievert is worth for citizens of different countries! There were both in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki POW's from Australia, Netherlands and there were
especially a large number of "slaves" from Korea, who had to work in the war
industry. In Nagasaki they were working in the warfs and thousands, if not
tens of thousands were killed. These are facts. Whether the deaths of 2001
can be attributed to radiation - this is only speculation.
I think that the bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was such a tragedy,
that the question raised is of no importance at all.
Franz
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/