Joined: Dec. 2008
|Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 22 2009,12:06)|
|Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 21 2009,18:57)|
|Quote (Hermagoras @ Mar. 21 2009,18:48)|
|Gil Dodgen's praising his father. (The real one, not the one in the sky.) Out of curiosity, I Googled "Dodgen Manhattan project" -- it's true, he's an impressive fellow. My guess is he doesn't share Gil's love of IDC. |
I was struck by this sentence in Harold Dodgen's bio page:
What an odd sentence! People think differently about the Manhattan Project. You can think it saved your life, as many who fought in the Pacific theater did. Or you can think it was a war crime, as I do. The "peaceful end" thing, though. Don't all wars end peacefully, in the sense that one side gives up and they stop fighting? Was the Enola Gay carrying a love letter?
|After helping to bring about the peaceful end of World War Two working on the Manhattan Project, Dr. Dodgen was appointed to the Chemistry Department at WSU in 1948.|
Well as Japan almost didn't surrender even AFTER the two bombs, we don't know what it would have taken short of taking out the entire island. After the blood bath that was Okinawa, the deaths on the main islands of Japan could have benn in the 10s of millions.
For war crimes, look at the Baatan Death march, the Rape of Nanking, the "Comfort Women" and more.
Then there's the fire bombing of Dresden. Where the USAA lit the city up during the day and the RAF continued at night. OVer 200,000 people died there. War is a nasty business but there are more than just "peace" as the alternative.
Subjugation and slavery are others.
Well, as I said, views differ on the bombing itself. I'm just wondering about the notion of a "peaceful end." It's either redundant (all wars end peacefully) or nonsensical (no wars end by peaceful means -- that's why they're wars).
To the war weary people who had found the horrors of Hitler, I think at the time, that it was seen as a peaceful and quick end to the war.
I'm just thankful that I don't need to make such decisions.