Thursday, August 09, 2007

Calculating the cost of 9.11

In an effort to bring some perspective to the nuclear debate, Sun Bin takes a look at some numbers in The net effect of Little Boy and Fat Man

the rest of the presentation is a very interesting and seemingly solid attempt try to quantify the possible significance of the events of August 6 and 9, in terms of lives lost.Shisaku

The relevant focus of the debate is whether Atomic bomb ended the war.

The sun in the morning comes after the stars at night, but it does not mean the stars brought about the sun. Likewise the surrender came after the atomic bombs, it does not follow the the atomic bomb brought about the surrender.

Many historians say the Soviet entry rather than Atomic bomb ended the war.
If that is the case, atomic bombing has nothing to do with the lives that could be saved without bomb. The direct cause of the surrender is rather related to the leader's decision.

If the Japanese leaders had ended the war earlier, the more soldiers lives would have been saved for sure. Japanese leaders were to blame for this.
If Japanese leader at Nanjing had paid more attention to make the soldiers abide by the international law, the more POWs would have been saved; the Japanese leaders
were to blame;they were hanged dead for that.
If the U.S. leaders hadn't used indiscriminate bombing, the more innocent lives would
have been saved. They U.S. larders are to blame for this.

If we follow his logic, Chinese people have to remember how many innocent lives were sacrificed in Nanjing because Chinese leader's decision not to surrender, American people have to remember how many innocent lives were sacrificed and will be sacrificed after 9.11 because of American policy on the Middle East.
The people who are sympathetic to this logic would be the so-called Nanjing deniers.

If that is the way they want to remember each incident, so be it.

That said, might it be that they are not used to admit atrocities the military of their background cuntries committed? Is it an indication that people are apt to justify the
killing of civilians if itl saves soldiers, if it does do so in the name of ending the war, if it implies a political advantage?

No comments: