>If that is truth, why did not use the bomb in the Vietnam?
>
>They do not try to convince me. They speak on statisticians with the ones that had died. They speak with the multisides
>
>If a son its was in Hiroshima or Nakasaki, taking a walk in that day?
>
>It would be a hero of War?
>
>I am a Man of Peace. For this, I desired to remember deceased in the past, therefore still we have a great atomic armory.
>
>
To mourn the dead and wish for peace is something we can both agree on. To wish war had never happened and never happens again is something we can both agree on.

What I think you are saying, though, is that the decision to use the bomb was wrong, as opposed to a terrible necessity. Am I correct in that assumption?

If so, are you saying that the estimates on the number of military and civilian casulties are inaccurate?

Or are you saying that NO number of military and civilian casulties would have justified use of the bomb?


As far as Vietnam is concerned........

On a completely pragmatic basis, the cost of using the bomb were markedly higher since there was the possibility (probability????) of starting a total nuclear war.

Looking at lives lost vs lives saved, there is no doubt that the use of atomic weapons in Vietnam would have cost many more lives than would have been saved, even if its use did lead to the end of the war.

Even so, the feeling among some segments of American society that we should just "bomb N. Vietnam back into the stone age" and get the whole thing over with was a fringe opinion and a tactic that (at least as far as I know) was never seriously considered.