Close to what? Recovery?
This is the same song and dance Bush fed us about Saddam.
I do not think that the Japanese regime was entirely evil. Metaphysically, it is impossible for anything to be entirely evil. Certainly the Nazi regime was so horribly warped and devoid of moral sense that an unconditional surrender demand was more justifiable there–though even then I wonder if lives mightn’t have been spared with a different approach. (For instance, what if at some point in late 1944 the Allies had offered an armistice on condition of the immediate release of every prisoner held in a Nazi concentration camp?) But who knows? In the Japanese case, though, your claim is even less tenable. They were aggressive, militant, militaristic human beings. But they were not entirely evil.
Or demand immediate withdrawal from China as a condition of peace.
Edwin
Isn’t this fun? It’s always so self-gratifying to look back and sneer at what people did way back when, because we always know more about how to handle the situation than the actual people who were there on the spot at the time, isn’t it?
Killing and torturing civilian children by dropping an abomb on them is not the ethical or moral way to accomplish the good end of bringing peace to the world. Peace is accomplished by love for our fellow man, not by the ruthless killing of thousands of civilian children. You people don’t seem to recognise the horrific genocidal nature of these horrible and murderous nuclear bombs.
The pacifist rhetoric in this post is so thick it’s hard to know where to begin. Let’s dissect it and take it one by one:
"Killing and torturing civilian children".
As stated before, those civilian children were making rifles for the Japanese army and torpedoes for the Japnese navy. The system of dispersed industry in Japan at the time included children operating drill presses or what have you in their own homes for hours a day. Everyone was involved. “Total war”, remember? “Total war” means there are no non-combatants. This business about “you don’t target factories where children are working, you don’t target residential areas, you don’t target food supplies, you don’t target water supplies” is all post-World War II stuff. At the time, it was standard operating procedure.
"Dropping an a-bomb on them is not the ethical or moral way to accomplish the good end of bringing peace to the world."
Deliberate destruction of other human beings is not ethical or moral, period. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference if you’re using an atomic bomb or a rock and a sling. Unfortunately, it still has to be done from time to time, unless, of course, you want to do what the Russians did in the 13th century: when the enemy attacks (in this case the Mongols), you all gather inside the church to pray for deliverance. The Mongols burn down the church around your ears, smash the village, kill the men, rape the women, enslave the children, and brutally occupy the country for 200 years.
If that’s what pacifism accomplishes for you, I’d rather go down fighting.
"Peace is accomplished by love for our fellow man"
No. Peace is accomplished by defeating your enemy and depriving him of the means to wage aggressive war. Love has nothing to do with it. Yes, you can do the Russian thing as above for 200 years, and love the Mongols for it if you so desire, I suppose, but count me out.
"…not by the ruthless killing of thousands of civilian children."
Who were making arms to kill Americans. Are you aware that every Japanese schoolkid was being trained in school to skewer American troops with sharpened wooden stakes? Every child was expected to be a soldier and to give his life for the Emperor.
"You people don’t seem to recognise the horrific genocidal nature of these horrible and murderous nuclear bombs."
Like hell I don’t. I know better than
you do what a nuclear weapon does. The first thing the captain who taught our NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) Warfare class said to us was, “The primary and immediate effects of a nuclear weapons detonation include heat, blast, and prompt radiation.” He then went on to tell us that the only things which would survive a nuclear war would be houseflies, cockroaches, earwigs, and certain species of beetles.
That having been said, you tell me: what’s the diference if you destroy a city with an atomic bomb, or if you saturate it with incendiary bombing until nothing moves in it, or if you blockade it while you destroy the food and water supply and the inhabitants die of starvation or dehydration? You still kill just as many people and it’s still just as inclusive and genocidal as an atomic bomb.
That’s what we were prepared to do to Japan in 1945. So what’s the difference?
Wolseley, SSGT, CE, USAF, 1980-'88.
