<html> <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Paul: I know this is difficult for any humane person to even contemplate, but my point is that "conventional" war (e.g. fire bombing, famine, epidemic etc) can be far more horrible than any nuclear attack. Do I need to illustrate this further? </blockquote> Hi Grant, no further illustration needed, your point is well taken. Dresden and East London speak for themselves. My first point was that I think the decision to use the 2 bombs was already made and scheduled so, unless the Japanese surrendered within hours of the first bomb, the second was inevitable. The point being that given the nature of the bomb and the destruction engendered by it the Japanese were in no position to provide a comprehensive response of surrender or otherwise. I suspect the Japanese high command wasn't unanimous on what had happened in Hiroshima, let alone what to do next. I think we agree here <blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Grant. Paul said: If the point of departure is that weapons of mass destruction targeted at civilians (or at least with willful ignorance of their presence) are immoral, then the calculation of death differentials in different models is dancing on the graves of the victims. </blockquote> This was just a personal axe grinding session, historical revisionism through a moral filter that uses body counts as intellectual currency is, ironically enough, morally bankrupt. Immoral shit happens in war on both sides and on different scales, wrong is wrong and no calculus of death can wash that away. <x-sigsep></x-sigsep> N Paul Childs 5967-157 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5Y 2P3 e-fax 413-683-9725 _______________________________________________________ 'Gee thanks, your validation means oh, so much to me'. -Art 'Bones' MacDesalavo</html>