[extropy-chat] How to bring down repressive regimes...

[paul.bridger]

Chris Phoenix wrote:
> Michael "Matus" <matus at matus1976.com> wrote:
>> While I am no utilitarian and don't endorse Robert's suggestion, his
>> motivation is to prevent as many deaths as possible (or more accurately
>> prevent as many human-year losses as possible) while everyone else's
>> motivation appears to be to avoiding having to make tough decisions
>> about things which may have drastic consequences.  What would his
>> critics have suggested Eisenhower do to end WWII?  Let the Japanese
>> mainland alone?

> Perhaps a military historian can explain what would have happened if we 
> had tried just that.  Blockade the island, maybe with some bombing, then 
> wait until their economy collapsed.  Granted, it hasn't worked on Cuba, 
> and it didn't work on Iraq, and North Korea is still defiant.  So maybe 
> it wouldn't have resulted in a modernized and cooperative Japan.  But 
> would it have been an unworkable strategy from a military point of view? 
>   Could we have implemented such a plan back in the 40's?

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Slaughter_WBlum.html

This article asserts that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nukings were not 
anything to do with the end of WWII, but were actually the first phase of the 
cold war.

In other words, Japan was defeated (and had actively attempted to capitulate) 
well before the nukes were dropped.

Paul Bridger