Цитата:
|
Сообщение от Jericho
В этом случае, благородным американцам не пришлось бы уничтожать миллионы людей, в том числе женщин и детей.
|
Для начала там далеко не миллионы. Миллионы были бы выбери Трумэн второй вариант.
Ответ на твой вопрос содержится в документе, который положили на стол Трумэна соответствующий комитет и военный секретарь, плюс еще их послевоенный комментарий. Надеюсь перевод не нужен?
Цитата:
1) The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.
(2) It should be used on a dual target--that is, a military installation or war plant surrounded by or adjacent to houses and other buildings most susceptible to damage, and
(3) It should be used without prior warning [of the nature of the weapon]. One member of the committee, Mr. Bard,[1] later changed his view and dissented from recommendation....
In reaching these conclusions the Interim Committee carefully considered such alternatives as a detailed advance warning or a demonstration in some uninhabited area. Both of these suggestions were discarded as impractical. They were not regarded as likely to be effective in compelling a surrender of Japan, and both of them involved serious risks. Even the New Mexico test would not give final proof that any given bomb was certain to explode when dropped from an airplane. Quite apart from the generally unfamiliar nature of atomic explosives, there was the whole problem of exploding a bomb at a predetermined height in the air by a complicated mechanism which could not be tested in the static test of New Mexico. Nothing would have been more damaging to our effort to obtain surrender than a warning or a demonstration followed by a dud--and this was a real possibility. Furthermore, we had no bombs to waste. It was vital that a sufficient effect be quickly obtained with the few we had....
|