On Wed, 25 Jan 1995, Susan Fatemi wrote:
 
> RE: Kobe earthquake
>
> Regarding the thread on WWII, atomic bomb, etc. I probably shouldn't
> add to an emotionally-charged thread and I do not mean to fan any flames.
> But as appalling as the Bombing was and the horrifying loss of civilian
> life, ending the War this way instead of invasion probably saved a great
> many Japanese lives, too. (This came up in a discussion here at work with
> people slightly older than myself)  There may very well have
> been mass suicides if the US had invaded. ... And the govt. would probably
never > have surrendered if it hadn't been for the bomb.
Were other options available?  Could the US have tested the bomb and then
invitedJapanese representatives to witness a bombing and its effect?
 
 The issue also gets to be much more insidious when you ask about the
reasons for the SECOND bomb.  Word is that the Japanese began to seek
opp'y for peace negotiations after the first bomb, but we pointedly
ignored the overtures.  On this point I am certainly ready to be
corrected, but if my understandings are correct, how did the bomb on
Nagasaki do more than prove that both kinds of "nuclear devices" would work?
 
Richard Perry
University of California, San Diego
[log in to unmask]