Skip to main content

Why the second bomb?



Short post today.
Visits from supposedly anti-war Secretary John Kerry, and President Barack Obama to the Hiroshima memorial brought up a question I've entertained in my mind on different occasions over the years--one that others had posed for me: it's easy to understand that an overwhelming show of extreme superiority was necessary to prevent Emperor Hirohito from forcing his citizens to fight to the last even in a losing war, but why Nagasaki?  Why the second bomb?  Why did the US have to kill dozens of thousands of civilians AGAIN?
Beyond the explanation that cultural ideals of honor under which the society was operating at the time dictated that a warrior not submit even after the first devastatingly superior blow, I'm at a loss to understand why the Emperor didn't capitulate immediately.  Maybe it's even simpler than that: he was a tyrant dictator and was quite comfortable asking his citizens to commit suicide for him.  After all that is where we get the term kamikaze from.
Whatever the Emperor's thought process was, what's important to remember is the full context of the American decision.  The most concise and well argued summary I've ever come across comes from the Hoover Institute's Victor Davis Hansen.  It's well worth the read.  The long and the short of it is this: the victims didn't deserve to die, and didn't deserve to die the way they did, and those lives lost deserve to be remembered--and let's also celebrate the possibly hundreds of millions they saved, as they were needlessly sacrificed to the stubborn evil of a brutal dictator in denial of both his ignominy and his impotency.  America made a tough call, but ultimately the right one.  Lest we forget...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the term “identity”

I didn't want to become one of those grad students who takes forever to find out what he wants to study, so I entered the Masters program at PITT with an idea what I wanted to do as a dissertation: national identity in the Ivory Coast. It sounds like a straightforward enough concept, but I encountered an article while I was taking a history course which looked at several case studies of the construction of racial, ethnic, and gender identities over a variety of geographical locations and historical periods that made me radically re-think the entire concept of identity . It's a concept that makes intuitive sense to most people, I would imagine. It means who you are, right? The layperson could also probably understand quite readily that there seem to be many different levels at which our "identity" can be determined or constrained. A black person may feel more of a racial component to identity than a white person, for example. My religious identity takes primacy over my
Post a Comment
Read more

Objective Morality and Why Laws Against Prostitution Aren't Anti-Liberty

Adult topic coming up below... The first principle of morality is liberty (moral agency). The first principle of liberty is morality. Said another way, there are two fundamental truths connecting morality with liberty: 1. The degree to which people aren't free to determine right from wrong for themselves is the degree to which they are not free to choose the right, therefore all moral choices are premised on the free risk that they might choose wrong if left to; 2. While individuals must have the freedom to choose in order for any right option to be chosen, one of the consequences of choosing wrong is always a limiting of freedoms. Part of the extremely confusing problem of these principles intertwined in this way is that it's super easy to believe illusions about what's right and what's wrong, to be in denial about whether something's wrong, or about the consequences of choosing wrong.  And to further complicate things, we're living in a state of: 1. sus
Post a Comment
Read more

Gender and Astrophysics

  I generally love Star Talk.  I don't have tiktok because I limit my social media, but Facebook's creepy spy algorithm knows I'm interested in the sciences, astrophysics especially, and enjoy deepening my understanding of the vastness and marvels of God's creation by watching educational documentaries every now and then.  It's a genuine interest, but it also partially stems from a barely conscious need I have for a counterbalance to the constant stream of subjective, often barely coherent arguments to which I am constantly exposed in the literary, political, moral, and ideological realms in which my ideas almost constantly swim in my professional environment. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of my favorites.  He offers keen insights in his field, often with pedagogical panache, attention to current events, and doesn't just know how to make a point, but how to ground it in the history of ideas so that its impact has context.  He delivers epic smackdowns on flat-earthe
Post a Comment
Read more