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

Ron Paul and Foreign Entanglements

Ron Paul Photo from: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/about/ Sean Hannity photo from: http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/150507_ron_paul_debate.html I like Congressman and former multiple-election Libertarian party presidential candidate Ron Paul . I do. I admire him for his straight talk, and even more for the fact that he actually does walk it too. I had a conversation with a brother of mine (who I respect immensely and who has researched and thought through many of the aspects of his affiliation with Ron Paul's ideals) at our family reunion recently that helped me understand what appeal he might have in the Republican primary. So between that and a recent Michael Medved interview with him, where he answered so frankly and unapologetically that I almost had a hard time reminding myself that this was a politician, I think it's time I finally address his candidacy and policy positions. First, I espouse the fundamental libertarian ideals on most issues. I think Ron Paul is right on...
3 comments
Read more

Haitian Mormons not very Christian?

Article My response: I am a Mormon. To the extent the report on these local leaders is true, I condemn their lack of Christian spirit. The report is obviously not even close to even-handed, so I suspect there's a context we'll never get here. On the other hand, it IS obviously trying to make a point about MormonISM in general, and NOT just the local leaders. The Church in general has a good track record, and an especially good one in disaster areas, where local units are able to mobilize boots on the ground faster than the Red Cross in most cases. And even more importantly, I reject the premise that somehow prioritizing where to place one's charitable resources is somehow evil and un-Christian. It seems like these local leaders took the general rule a little too far, but it is NOT wrong to want to take care of one's family first, one's congregation next, and one's fellow community members after that if there's room/resources left to spare. In fact, it would ...
2 comments
Read more