tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post2737652138578655639..comments2023-10-31T05:37:16.659-07:00Comments on A Guy in the Pew: Nora Gallagher on HiroshimaChuck Blanchardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01417638725063186710noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-48998196848303876282008-02-28T16:36:00.000-08:002008-02-28T16:36:00.000-08:00My dad was one of 76,000 Americans wounded at Okin...My dad was one of 76,000 Americans wounded at Okinawa, the costliest military encounter in U.S history (yes, even costlier than Iwo Jima and the Battle of the Ardennes). The battle for that island cost the lives of nearly 400,000 human beings [see: George Feifer], a toll far surmounting that of the Hiroshima's and Nagasaki's dead combined. Neither of those bombings surmount the death toll of the March 1945 Tokyo firebombings, as well. You not only know very little about why we dropped "Fat Man," you similarly know very little about why an isolated demonstration of them wouldn't have worked, nor the nature of the war we were fighting with the Japanese. Stick with what you do know, counselor--and allow the men who understand such things work them out as best they can. Read Richard Frank's "Downfall" when you've time. It'll pretty much tune you in to reality rather quickly, unless you're simply a diehard liberal who can't see the forest through the trees--and I strongly suspect that you are, judging by your proclivity for tepidly attempting to defend the sin of homosexuality. Best of luck with whatever it is that you're trying to prove to yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-63072870768167306272007-08-08T11:17:00.000-07:002007-08-08T11:17:00.000-07:00To answer your last question: I think basically t...To answer your last question: I think basically that everything we've done ever since has been based in trying to avoid retaliation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I think most everything that has happened since then, worldwide, is a reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Large powers can't go to war with each other any longer, for instance, so they have to fight proxy wars like the Cold War. And of course, the worry about nuclear weapons getting into the wrong hands is what has driven foreign policy since 9/11.<BR/><BR/>I think as time goes on we will see more clearly that we should not have dropped the bombs on civilians, but used them as demonstrations elsewhere and forced Japan to surrender. I don't know why we had to drop the second one, either.<BR/><BR/>But of course, nobody knew any of this beforehand.blshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07627725321531151309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3931579729864611467.post-11161817495367701502007-08-08T08:50:00.000-07:002007-08-08T08:50:00.000-07:00Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasak...Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were horrible sins. However, they were the lesser sins than the sin of invasion (with several hundred thousand, if not a million American GIs KIA and more Japanese soldiers and civilians KIA). The atomic bombs prevented a further degredation of the Japanese homelands and allowed for a rather gentle occupation and quicker forgiveness than an armed invasion and sever occupation would have.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, there is the Soviet Union to take into account. Do you remember Easter Europe? How would you like to see half of Japan being controlled by a communist regiem where we fought a police action similar to Korea in the 50s and Vietnam in the 60s and 70s. <BR/><BR/>Were the atomic bombs bad? Yes. I think, however, that they were the least bad option available. It would have been better if Japan surrendered after Okinawa or never attacked Pearl Harbor at all.<BR/><BR/>YBIC,<BR/>Phil SnyderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com