More than a decade ago, former Senator Fritz Hollings, angered by disparaging comments a Japanese official had made about American workers, got an idea for a t-shirt. "Made in America, Tested in Japan" the t-shirt would read. In the middle of the shirt, below the first phrase and above the second, would appear a mushroom cloud.

Sixty years ago today, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. The Enola Gay's 10,000-pound payload killed more than 80,000 Japanese civilians. The Japanese announced their surrender shortly thereafter.

Six decades later, the debate over Hiroshima rages. On the one hand, the United States government dropped an indiscriminant weapon of mass destruction on a civilian population. Do ethical principles change once war comes? Do the ends justify the means when the bad guys suffer the means? On the other hand, dropping the bomb saved lives, both American and Japanese. The Japanese surrender/survival rate at Iwo Jima and Tarawa was less than one percent. It took Hiroshima and Nagasaki to compel the Japanese to finally surrender.

You're Harry Truman. It's August 6, 1945. Do you drop the bomb?

"Do ethical principles change once war comes?" No, I don't think they do. The historic Christian Church, in enunciating the principles of jus in bello did not go about making a bunch of exceptions to the rules - particularly with regards to noncombatant immunity.

With regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the "bad guys" most definitely did not suffer the brunt of the blast, that went to innocent Japanese men, women, and children. This is confirmed by Gar Alperovitz in his important book The Decision to Use the Atomic bomb which also details the possibilities of the US and Japan coming to a negotiated peace settlement if we had dropped the demand for "unconditional surrender" and provided for the preservation of the Emperor as some sort of figurehead monarch.

Harry S. Truman was given opportunity after opportunity to alter the surrender formula and clarify the status of the Emperor. Many of his advisers urged him to do so, but he never made such an effort. I don't think it is a debatable point that Truman dropped the bomb before exhausting all other options first.

As far as the "military necessity" component of this argument, I'll have to say that I echo the views of Generals MacArthur and Eisenhower who both called the use of the bomb unneccesary. Admiral William D. Leahy, Truman's chief of staff, also dissented from the "military necessity" logic by denouncing Truman's decision in no uncertain terms as of "no material assistance" in our war with the Japanese. Admiral Leahy also denounced the bombings as incompatible with the way a supposedly Christian nation should wage war.

The argument from military necessity is further punctured by the conclusion of a US government sponsored study from 1946 - the US Strategic Bombing Survey - which found, after interviewing the relevant US and Japanese military personnel, found that Japan would have surrendered by late fall 1945 without a US invasion of mainland Japan. So much for the whole "bomb-or-boys" myth - the ridiculous claim that 500,000 American kids would die (more US combat fatalities than the whole of WWII in all its theatres) in an invasion.

Finally, on this question, I'd like to draw the attention of my fellow conservatives to what our intellectual forebears thought of Mr. Truman's decision. Felix Morley, co-founder of Human Events, denounced the bombings on the authority of traditional Christian morality as did David Lawrence. The great Southern conservative Richard Weaver was also horrified. Even National Review in its early days ran a piece by historian Harry Elmer Barnes critically examining Truman's decision. By contrast, it is interesting to note that the historic left - represented by the likes of The New Republic and others - rushed apologias for the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to print.

It is remarkable how 60 years changes things. While a good number of those on the left are amiable to arguments against the use of the bomb, the so-called American Right which once denounced the bombs, can't wait to rush to the defense of the honor of a liberal Democrat like Harry Truman.

In response to the scenario posed by Dan (I like these scenario things you've been doing btw Dan, keep 'em coming.)

Imperial Japan has already proven itself many a time throughout this war to be a cunning, ruthless, unpredictable enemy. The Japanese Imperial Guard is still a full division and quite an elite one at that. Not only that but the Japanese government has been training it's entire civilian populace to rise up against The Americans.

My Generals are telling me that millions of Americans are likely to die in a ground campaign to assault the Home Islands. I am not willing to make that sacrifice with a better option on the table.

I drop the bomb.

PS: Besides, as South Park tells us, "Everyone knows Japanese people don't have souls."

I’m with my favorite Democrat president. Drop the bomb!

This week’s events of 60 years ago should not go unnoticed, or unappreciated. On August 6th, 1945 and again on August 9th, the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan. Prior to that, on July 26, 1945, the Allies, in setting the conditions for ending a war that they did not start, called for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese and their military forces. Absolutely fanatical, with a declared fight to the death, the Japanese refused. Years of war, and still, they would not stop. Then the bomb fell.
President Harry S. Truman, sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution and expected to do all possible to “provide for the common defense”, made the decision. The first atomic bomb fell on Hiroshima, Japan August 6th, 1945. In his address to the nation, Truman spoke: “Sixteen hours ago an American airplane dropped one bomb on Hiroshima, an important Japanese Army base. That bomb had more power than 20,000 tons of TNT.” He also noted that, “The Japanese began the war from the air at Pearl Harbor. They have been repaid manyfold. And the end is not yet.” The bomb used in the attack, announced the President was “an atomic bomb. It is a harnessing of the basic power of the universe. The force from which the sun draws its power has been loosed against those who brought war to the Far East.”
Imagine yourself to be alive at that time. Perhaps you were. I cannot believe that every American, to a person, would not have wanted their leaders to do EVERYTHING possible to end the war, and to make everybody safe. Imagine yourself a young GI at the time- twenty-something years old, training for yet more warfare. Having survived through to the end of the war in Europe, would you ultimately join those less fortunate, living only to see a later death in the Japanese theater? Imagine a young wife back in America- perhaps with children. What will happen to her husband? Where is their father? Imagine a mother. What will happen to her son? What of America’s brave soldiers? Will any survive the coming battles in the Pacific? Will they die storming through hellfire on the beach on some Pacific island, facing an enemy that will not stop? When will this war end? Then the first bomb fell.
The Commander-in Chief, again, from his speech to the Nation (and the World): “We are now prepared to obliterate more rapidly and completely every productive enterprise the Japanese have above ground in any city. We shall destroy their docks, their factories, and their communications. Let there be no mistake; we shall completely destroy Japan’s power to make war. It was to spare the Japanese people from utter destruction that the ultimatum of July 26 was issued at Potsdam. Their leaders promptly rejected that ultimatum. If they do not now accept our terms they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never before been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware.”
And still the Japanese didn’t listen. On August 9th, 1945 another bomb fell. William L. Laurence was a writer for the New York Times who accompanied the mission that dropped the bomb on Nagasaki. He writes of an exchange with one of the airmen, Sgt. Curry: “‘Think this atomic bomb will end the war?’ he [Sgt. Curry] asks hopefully. ‘There is a very good chance that this one may do the trick,’ I assure him, ‘but if not, then the next one or two surely will. Its power is such that no nation can stand up against it very long.’” On August 10th, Japanese Premier Suzuki accepted the terms of the Potsdam ultimatum with the condition that the Emperor Hirohito retain his throne. On August 14th, they surrendered unconditionally. By August 15th- the war was over.
In the victory proclamation, President Truman thus spoke: “To all of us there comes first a sense of gratitude to Almighty God, Who sustained us and our allies in the dark days of grave danger, Who made us to grow from weakness into the strongest fighting force in history, and Who now has seen us overcome the forces of tyranny that sought to destroy His civilization.”
General William Tecumseh Sherman on war: “Its glory is all moonshine; even success most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the lamentations of distant families. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war.”
Harry Truman did just that: He got them to STOP THE WAR. Perhaps our current enemies might learn from this history- so that they will not be doomed to have history repeat itself...

If itis August of 45 I drop the bomb, without question. If it is August of 85 I drop the bomb too, the only caveat being that on the plane ride over I blare the Gap Band's YOU DROPPED A BOMB ON ME.

Ben-T: "My Generals are telling me that millions of Americans are likely to die in a ground campaign to assault the Home Islands."

First it's 250,000, then it's half million, now its "millions" - each one them utterly ahistorical. As Stanford historian Barton Bernstein has documented, the worst-case government estimate of American deaths in an invasion of Japan was 46,000 lives lost - the estimate Truman would have been provided with. When you destroy two cities and kill over 200,000 innocent people though, it's only natural that Truman and his partisans would try to go back an reconstruct a faux "bomb-or-boys" scenario to provide a grotesque moral "humanitarian" veneer to the act.

Doug: "President Harry S. Truman, sworn to protect and uphold the Constitution and expected to do all possible to “provide for the common defense”, made the decision."

How exactly did Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide for the "common defense" of the United States? Virtually no one disagrees that, circa the summer of 1945, Japanese power was rapidly fading, or in Eisenhower's words, they were beaten and ready to surrender. The United States was not under threat of an invasion from Japan when Truman made his decision.

You cite Truman's speech to the nation. I find it interesting that the first rationale the President posited for the bombings was not military necessity but for revenge for Pearl Harbor - an attack on a military target. But did the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - two cities - carry out Pearl Harbor? Did young school children bomb the U.S.S. Arizona? According to what standards of morality do we justify the slaughter of an entire people, based on the actions of a certain segment of the population? Is this the behavior of a supposed Christian nation?

"Imagine yourself to be alive at that time. Perhaps you were. I cannot believe that every American, to a person, would not have wanted their leaders to do EVERYTHING possible to end the war, and to make everybody safe"

Conservatives Felix Morely, David Lawrence, and Richard Weaver were all alive at the time and denounced the bombings in no uncertain terms.

"Imagine a young wife back in America- perhaps with children. What will happen to her husband? Where is their father? Imagine a mother. What will happen to her son? What of America’s brave soldiers? Will any survive the coming battles in the Pacific? Will they die storming through hellfire on the beach on some Pacific island, facing an enemy that will not stop? When will this war end? Then the first bomb fell."

This is more of the whole "bomb-or-boys" myth I refuted above, but while we're imagining things, let us imagine the horror felt by orphaned children who lost their entire family in the two atomic blasts. Imagine the sheer horror of having to live with the immense pain of the thermal burns from the bomb. Imagine the fate of parishoners of the Urakami Catholic Cathedral in Nagasaki, the center of Japanese Christianity, thousands of whom died in the bombing.

Now think about the fact that Harry S. Truman decided to attack civilian populations without completely exhausting all other options. Without altering the demand for "uncondtional surrender," without providing a compromise whereby the Emperor of Japan could be preserved as some sort of figurehead monarch (which he eventually was), and without assessing the effects of a Soviet declaration of war against Japan. Is Truman still your favorite Democratic President?

"On August 10th, Japanese Premier Suzuki accepted the terms of the Potsdam ultimatum with the condition that the Emperor Hirohito retain his throne. On August 14th, they surrendered unconditionally."

Does anyone else see the naked contradiction in this statement? If the Japanese surrenderd with the condition that Hirohito retain his throne, then by definition, they most definitely did not surrender unconditionally.

This is what makes Truman's decision all the more atrocious. As Gar Alperovitz studiously documents in his book, the Japanese were officially seeking a negotiated peace as early as April 1945. The major block was the fate of the Emperor. The Japanese wanted assurances that the man they considered divine would not be tried and hanged as a war criminal. Truman steadfastly refused to alter the terms of the surrender and bombed Japan anyway, presumably in the name of "unconditional surrender" which was ultimately not achieved.

With regards to your Sherman quote, forgive me if I'm unimpressed with your using a self-professed war criminal and Indian killer to prop up the ethics and morality of Truman's decision. One can only wonder what the reaction of a just God would be to Sherman's anemic defense for his crimes.

"Perhaps our current enemies might learn from this history- so that they will not be doomed to have history repeat itself..."

Some questions: When we countenance acts like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just how separate are we, morally-speaking, from our enemies? How can you condemn the atrocities of 9/11 and the slaughter of innocent people in London and Madrid without condemning the atomic bombings? Or is there a double standard being applied to our enemies and ourselves? Or are we allowed to slaughter and destroy because we're America and we're "democratic"?

"How exactly did Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide for the "common defense" of the United States? Virtually no one disagrees that, circa the summer of 1945, Japanese power was rapidly fading, or in Eisenhower's words, they were beaten and ready to surrender. The United States was not under threat of an invasion from Japan when Truman made his decision."

That's interesting, because the Japanese were called on to surrender before the first bomb was dropped and they refused to even respond.

So if by "Ready to surrender" you mean "ready to fight to the bitter end" it would seem that yes you are right.

As for troop casualties, you may be correct, I don't know, in the end it is irrelevant. In a total war scenario as World War II was, the lives of American soldiers are a far higher priority than the lives of Japanese civilians, plain and simple.

There is also the fact that the dropping of the bomb sent a clear message to the Soviets.

James,
your refutation of the "bomb-or-boys" myth admits that as many as 46,000 American troops may have been sacrificed had we simply invaded without the bomb. 46,000 men in 1945 still sounds like bomb-or-boys to me. Innocent people died, many horribly, yes. That is tragic and terrible. Truman's responsibility after 4 years of war and, what, 500,000? American deaths was to keep his citizens safe, not theirs, those of the country that attacked us. How is it better if we die? Is it the 46,000/200,000 ratio that makes it wrong? Throw in however many Japanese would have been killed in that invasion and that ratio gets significantly larger. It was war, and in war we commit horrific acts. War is a horrific act.

Also, you seem to suggest that the same surrender could have occurred in April. I cannot believe that the Japanese were negotiating the same surrender terms in April that they did in August.

I had never heard of that Fritz Hollins anecdote, but that absolutely sickens me. Even if we did drop need to drop the bomb, I can't see how in the world you can see it as such a lovely thing which we should rub in the Japanese's faces just because one of their politicians says something about our work ethic (which is probably true.)

Besides the moral problems with dropping the bomb, I think that Dan set up a few premises for the debate that I would question.

The first is why would we need to demand unconditional surrender upon Japan. This was unprecedented in military history, and the idea that we need to occupy the country, get rid of their emperor (who they had for well over a thousand years, and we didn't get rid of anyway) and completely disarm them whould not be taken as a given.

The fact that it took two atomic bombs to surrender is in part b/c it was not known exactly how destructive the bombs were until after the second was dropped. Those bombs were no more deadly than the firebombings of Dresden, Tokyo, or Hamburg. However, the firebombings were so bad, in part, because of weather conditions, so the fact that two bombs within a week caused such destruction is what made them surrender. They were certainly not given to surrender without a fight, but they weren't that crazy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html

Gentlemen, as the son a former Marine 2nd Lieutenant that was slated to hit the Home Islands in the first assault wave, I will never regret Truman's decision.

But given some of the Monday-morning quarterbacking taking place, perhaps a little historic perspective is in order.

It is an undeniable fact (not opinion, not what MacArthur, or Eisenhower, or Leahy THOUGHT after the fact!) that the closer U.S. forces got to the Home Islands during the campaign in the Pacific, the more fanatical the Japanese became in their defense, and the higher U.S. casualties grew as a result. Saipan, for example, saw about 29,000 out of almost 32,000 Japanese defenders killed, not to mention the ominous sight of hundreds of Japanese families throwing themselves off cliffs to avoid the shame of defeat.

Iwo Jima was in turn worse than Saipan, and Okinawa, the closest U.S. forces came to Japan itself, saw approx. 107,000 Japanese defenders die, while only about 11,000 surrendered or were captured. No one will ever know exactly how many civilians were killed, as tens of thousands were thought to be buried alive in the islands numerous caves; but most figures indicate about 100,000, or about 1/3 of the islands civilian population, perished during the conflict. Add this to the 12,000 U.S. military deaths, and about 219,000 lost their lives on and around Okinawa. I say "around" because it was at Okinawa that the Kamikazis made their true debut.

Can anyone really believe the Japanese would have been LESS fanatical in their defense of Honshu and Kyushu? Even assuming ten times the number of deaths would result in the invasion of the Home Islands (which I find somewhat conservative given the historic increase in fatalities the closer we came to Japan proper), it would mean well over 2,000,000 deaths. Compare that to the 200,000 killed by bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and tell me it wasn't worth the price, particularly since it didn't require our guys, who didn't really start the war in the first place, to continue dying so that Admiral Leahy could feel good about how we were conducting the war.

Also, before anyone tells me what MacArthur and Eisenhower thought, weren't these the two generals commanding U.S. forces when we got surprised by the Germans at the Bulge, and hammered by the ChiComs at the Yalu River? Hmm. I guess their "judgement" ain't what it's cracked up to be!

"The first is why would we need to demand unconditional surrender upon Japan. This was unprecedented in military history, and the idea that we need to occupy the country, get rid of their emperor (who they had for well over a thousand years, and we didn't get rid of anyway) and completely disarm them whould not be taken as a given" -Marcus

The lessons of World War I were the basis for not allowing a repeat of that in The Pacific.There are only two foreign wars in American history wherein we did not occupy, rebuild, and reconstitute the government of our enemies: The Vietnam War and World War I. Vietnam because we lost. In World War I, we were forced to return only a few decades later.

NOTE: Either our "enemies" or the people we liberated, one of the two.

Were I Harry Truman, would I have droped the bomb? Well, that would depend on whether I were also a utilitarian. I'm not, so "no." But the vast majority of people assume utilitarianism here, tending to think that if there is a net loss of life by not bombing then bombing is the right move.

I think the clear answer is: let the Japanese have their islands, and go home a gracious victor.

And then what? The Japanese are emboldened. Their fanatical war cabinent is still in power, they still have an armed forces four million strong.

We saw what happened from "Going home" after World War I. The enemy, emboldened, rises again.

It's incredibly naive, wishful thinking to believe that had Truman told Japan Hirohito could remain Emperor, but they would otherwise have to surrender unconditionally, the Japanese military rulers would have accepted. Very few if any of the ruling government had such thoughts, while any number of the Allies thought Hirhohito not only should have been removed as Emperor, but made to stand trial as the war criminal he in fact was.

It should also be noted that even as the bombs forced Japan's capitulation, their armed forces continued to hold thousands of POWs, and occupied huge portions of Southeast Asia and China. And given the incredibly barbaric treatment the Japanese afforded conquered civilians and POWs, the end of the war could not come fast enough for the millions living under their hellish rule, and yet another reason to drop the bombs.

As for Truman's requirement for the unconditional surrender of the Japanese being unusual or unprecedented, the Germans had been given (and accepted) the same option several months earlier. And a minimal amount of investigation will show you that while the term "unconditional surrender" was first coined by U.S. Grant at Fort Donelson in the American Civil War, history is replete with examples of such a requirement from a victorious opponent.

WW1..We pulled out with out "defeating" them. The enemy, emboldened, rises again. Stalemate.

WW2..We pounded them into the ground until they were demoralized and defeated. We Won.

Korea..We pulled back to the 38th parallel, therefore we did not "save" N Korea from Communism. Draw.

Vietnam..We withdrew our forces out of Saigan, and it got toppeled by Communism. Stalemate.

Desert Storm..We pulled out without taking Saddam out. Stalemate.

Desert Storm II..We took Saddam out and are currently restoring the Govt in Iraq. We need to keep pounding the terrorists to the ground to demoralize them and defeat them.

U-S-A..U-S-A..U-S-A!!

I disagree with a few of those James.

Korea: It was a victory though it was not a complete one. We achieved our primary objective of securing South Korean sovereignty, and failed in our secondary objective of toppling North Korea's government. Conversely, the Communists completed their secondary objective and failed in their primary.

The Vietnam war was not a stalemate but a total defeat. We achieved none of our objectives, our enemies achieved all of them. Vietnam was a rout.

Desert Storm was a total victory, we achieved both our objectives of Liberating Kuwait and preventing an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia. Saddam achieved none on his objectives, besides managing to survive the experiance.

Why the moral cringing because one bomb killed 80,000? Thousands of incindiary bombs killed over a hundred thousand at Tokyo. The fact is the one bomb (I know two) forced the capitulation where the thousands of bombs did not. The war ended at that point, thankfully, for both Japanese and Americans.

James, please forgive my ignorance, but exactly what point were you trying to make with the summary of your versions of the outcomes of international conflicts in the last 100 years?

Mr. McKee,

I believe James offered up poorly constructed mockery. He could have mocked us better by calling for the death of all foreigners to keep them from killing a single American. That would actually take the opponents' points and blow them out of all proportion to humorous effect. He has mistaken the other posters for mindless mad gung hosters, and so his attempt flies astray. Were it I who had no further argument to offer or point to make, I would just decline to post, agree to disagree, et cetera.

An American invasion of the Japanese mainland would have certainly resulted in more than 46,000 deaths, as any reader of history books can see the heavy American losses suffered during the much smaller island assaults on Iwo, Saipan, Tarawa, etc. Also, a message needed to be sent to the rampaging Red Army, as the Soviets needed to be put in check so as to set the stage for the post-war climate. There should be no debate in war when the decision comes down to your people or theirs; no matter how horrible it sounds, I'd gladly trade a few hundred thousand enemy civilians in order to save thousands of American troops. Any day.

"James, please forgive my ignorance, but exactly what point were you trying to make with the summary of your versions of the outcomes of international conflicts in the last 100 years?" -Thom

Well I interpreted it as him illustrating how, when the US stays in a country after war, the inevitable result is continued peace and prosperity, but when we decide to immediately pull out, it is rare indeed for anything good to come.

But Webster saw it differently, so maybe I am totally off, dunno.

Ben,

I am merely guessing based on his previous posts. The last seems entirely at odds with the previous so I assume he is employing sarcasm. Who knows?

Whatever James' intent, his understanding of history is somewhat deficient, beginning with his comments regardomg the results of WWI and the roots of WWII.

At the end of the "Great War", Germany was utterly and totally defeated, which as it turned out, was most unfortunate. For it enabled the French, still smarting from the total ass-whipping they received from the Hun in the Franco-Prussian War, and well aware they would have suffered the same fate absent the assistance of the British and the Americans, to impose the horribly oneruous reparations required under the Treaty of Versailles. As if this nose-rubbing were not enough, throw in the Great Depression and you have the seeds for the Nazis germination and eventual rise to power. Their defeat in WWI neither "emboldened them", nor did an Allied failure to occupy their country.

As for the Japs and Germans being "demoralized" and "pounded into the ground", at the time Berlin fell some 90% of the German people still supported Hitler. And while I don't have access to data regarding the percentage of the population who still idolized the Emperor after the Fat Man arrived at Nagasaki, one can assume similar if not higher numbers. The only reason we were able to enter and occupy Japan and Germany is because their governments surrendered unconditionally. Large segments of their population, particularly in Japan, fervently wanted to continue the struggle, but fortunately for the rest of Japan, and the U.S., could not go against the will of the Emperor. Incidentally, Hirohito's speech announcing the surrender was the first time his subjects had ever heard his voice.

As for Korea, the North was already Communist, and the U.N. effort there was only intended to remove the Communists from South Korea, which meant push them past the 38th Parallel. This incidentally was what Truman originally ordered MacArthur to do when he first committed U.S. forces to the defense of South Korea WITHOUT A U.N. MANDATE. Truman did this in recognition that (a) the U.N. moved would move too slow to prevent the total conquest of the South, and (b) the Soviet Representative would veto any resolution for a U.N. military response.

And by the way, here's a quote from the report to SecDef on the failure of U.S. intelligence to anticipate the North Korean invasion: "I believe that there are lessons to be learned from this situation which can point the way to better governmental operations and thus avoid costly mistakes in the future....I recommend that... a
clear-cut interagency standing operating procedure be established now to insure that if (in the opinion of any intelligence agency, particularly CIA) an attack, or other noteworthy event, is impending it is made a matter of special handling, to insure that officials vitally concerned...are promptly and personally informed thereof in order that appropriate measures may be taken. This will prevent a repetition of the Korean situation and will insure, if there has been vital intelligence data pointing to an imminent attack, that it will not be buried in a series of routine CIA intelligence reports." Sound familiar? I guess we never quite learned from that particular mistake.

I could go on, but of need must complete the work that pays the bills.

I can see it now! It will come to the US paying Japenese-Americans reperation checks for the pain their distant relatives felt during WW2.

"What was new about these bombs was the technology, not the morality. More people were killed with ordinary bombs in German cities or in Tokyo. Vastly more people were killed with ordinary bullets and cannon on the Russian front. Morality is about what you do to people, not the technology you use.

The guilt-mongers have twisted the facts of history beyond recognition in order to say that it was unnecessary to drop those atomic bombs. Japan was going to lose the war anyway, they say. What they don't say is -- at what price in American lives? Or even in Japanese lives?"
-Thomas Sowell
Your Damn right I drop the Bomb!

To respond to James's questions in an early post that I missed, "When we countenance acts like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just how separate are we, morally-speaking, from our enemies? How can you condemn the atrocities of 9/11 and the slaughter of innocent people in London and Madrid without condemning the atomic bombings? Or is there a double standard being applied to our enemies and ourselves? Or are we allowed to slaughter and destroy because we're America and we're "democratic"?:

In war we want to distinguish ourselves from our enemies principally by being more successful. Survival is the goal.

The people slaughtered in 9/11 were killed by murderers not warriors, however they chose to see themselves. We are not at war with Saudi Arabia, which is where they were mostly from. They were people acting on their own in defense of nobody representing nobody but themselves. There was no war, we were engaged with no enemy. In 1945 we were almost 4 years into a declared war with Japan who had attacked us without a declaration of war. If we blew up Hiroshima out of the blue because we wanted to upend their dominance in some endeavor or another, we would be horribly wrong despite the fact it would be "us" or that we are a democracy.

I would have dropped the bomb.

In general I'm nationalist enough to view the utter destruction of so-called fanatical enemies as a worthy means to the goal of national and perhaps world security.

Some fanatics only pursue violent means towards desird goals if they believe the goals can be satisfied. The atomic bomb drops proved that Japan cannot win. Sometimes it is best to deliver proof directly to the doorstep.