|
The article's 5th paragraph says it all. From today's perspective, Japan's defeat in the war is obvious. But Japan's leaders still needed an eye-opener then. One bomb obliterated an entire city, and they were still deliberating about the possibility of surrender? About the bomb, it's not a question of necessity, but of economics. That was a time of war. American forces beat the enemy every step of the way in the Pacific. The Allies may have enough power to bring Japan down to its knees during the war in the long run, but how tempting is a weapon that wreaks destruction unseen yet on the planet, but gives zero casualties, instead of sending your fellow soldiers to their deaths on a foreign land? Who wouldn't get sick of a long war and not seek to end it as soon as possible? Of course, someone may argue that since it's a question of economics, then it is unnecessary, and therefore, the bombings were wrong. But surely, if there is something you wouldn't want to give to your enemy, one of those is time. The author mentioned a Japanese nuclear research program, and that really deserved a red flag. It took 6 more days after the Soviet invasion and Nagasaki bombing, before Emperor Hirohito publicly announced their unconditional surrender. If the emperor made the public announcement before the Nagasaki bombing, then the second bombing may be wrong. If there is something I would admire of the Japanese people, it would be their sense of patriotism. Stalin did not beat Japan. What kept the country from surrendering and hold that long was Japanese Pride. Little Boy and Fat Man are very weak compared to today's nuclear weaponry. Historians and article writers should be discreet when discussing sensitive issues like this, as they can fuel hatred. Focus should be on preventing nuclear war, or there would be no more history left to discuss. |