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

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

Gas price "gouging"

Blogs are meant to be frequently updated, so I'm going to try to do a little (shorter) something every day even if it's not a complete treatment of the item in question. Today, I'm thinking that there's so much to get to with the PBS special that a radical shift of topic might be refreshing, so here goes… I recently had a liberal friend of mine forward me a canvassing email from www.moveon.org , a liberal political activist site, asking me to electronically sign a petition supporting an anti-price gouging bill that was in discussion in Congress at the time. The legislation, much to my dismay, was passed, but the email conversation with my friend would make a great cut and paste here. I have heavily edited the original email to refine my arguments, to take out elements that should remain personal, and continue to establish my own internet persona. If I decide to post his replies, I'll edit even more carefully so less personal and more generally useful arguments are m...
4 comments
Read more

Mountain Meadows and the Danger of Faith in Man

I've got to confess, with the Mountain Meadows Massacre I'm close to factless. I know the general context of the tragedy, and it wasn't too unfairly presented in the PBS series the Mormons. The upshot is that a group of Mormons responded to their local leader (I think he was a Stake President?) when he got spooked for no good reason about a caravan of peaceful settlers who were guilty by association from the accident of having come from Arkansas where a prominent church leader had been recently assassinated. The leader ordered an armed conflict that was apparently carefully premeditated to involve a local Indian population so as to make it seem like it wasn't his own barbarism attacking them. When it was revealed that it wasn't ONLY Indians attacking them, the LDS leaders devised a way to wipe out witnesses, won the skirmish, captured the settlers, and then ordered all but children younger than 8 years old to be massacred. Granted this was the wild, wild West at the...
2 comments
Read more