08/06/2003 Entry: ""
Posted by Maynard @ 03:20 PM MST
Nuking Hiroshima
58 years ago today we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. There was a memorial service there today marking the event. Although a more effective way of ending war has not yet been realized, people still complain that we shouldn't have dropped the bomb. Since this is my blog, I'll put in my 2 cents here.
Nuking Hiroshima was no different in function than firebombing Dresden, and it was pursued for the same reason. It was believed that dropping the bomb (or bombs, in Dresden's case) would help end the war. It did. Spiritually speaking (and no, you can't separate the spiritual consequences from the physical actions) the two actions were identical in that they killed large numbers of civilians indiscriminately. The Biblical term for this is "shedding innocent blood". The consequences God delivers for doing this are particularly destructive, so as to discourage future generations from committing the same deeds.
That being said, anyone ever hear of a place called Nanking? How about Auschwitz? Treblinka? Get the picture? The Axis powers constantly and consistently murdered noncombatants throughout the war, and in doing so exercised another Biblical concept, "sowing and reaping". If you sow something, you reap something.
No, the United States is not guiltless in dropping the bomb, nor are we guiltless in the slaughter of innocents throughout our history (Ft. Pillow and abortion, for two examples). I think the best way that we could have dropped the bomb on Japan would have been to give a demonstration to a Japanese envoy of our new weapon at White Sands. The bomb could have been exploded, then an ultimatum delivered: surrender or we will drop one of these suckers on one of your cities. If, at that point, they did not surrender, their people's blood would have been on their hands.
Now we come to The Bush Doctrine: if you threaten us, we reserve the right to kick your A before you have a chance to hit us. He has not ruled out the possibility of a nuclear first strike, and at the same time, he has encouraged the development of miniature nuclear bombs designed to kill bunkers. I say, go for it! Civilians do not burrow into bunkers, and the best way to destroy a bunker complex is to use a nuclear weapon exploded directly in the center of said bunker. In effect, this would have the same effect (and contamination, by the way) as an underground nuclear test. You've seen the videos, where there is a rapidly expanding crater that undermines the foundation of everything on the surface. That would be the same result, but with one fewer dictator or terrorist in the world.
Actually, make that several.
This policy would allow us to use our most powerful weapons against our enemies while refraining from their use against civilians. In other words, it would allow us to give more assurance that it is only our enemies we kill and not their enslaved masses.
I like it, even if they don't like the concept in Hiroshima.
Replies: 
(2)
you haven't mentioned all of the reasons why they dropped the bombs plus the consequences of dropping the bomb. For example the fact that many people 50 odd years on are still being born deformed from the effects of radiation. i could go on about the fact that the japanese were ready to surrender before they dropped it
Posted by hal munton @ 01/21/2004 01:14 PM MST
Starting a discussion about the reasons for the bomb was not my intention. My intention was to advocate the judicious use of precision weaponry against embedded targets and condemn the intentional slaughter of innocent life. The use of a bunker busting nuke is fundamentally different than the airburst method used against Japan, a point you conveniently ignore. Further, the use of precision-delivered nuclear weaponry that detonates beneath the surface of the earth limits to a great extent the amount of civilian casualties, another point you conveniently ignore.
Finally, claiming the Japanese were ready to surrender before the Bomb is disingenuous at best. Their ability to fight was extremely limited, but their will to fight was not. Their culture highly disapproved of surrender, as even a cursory study of their culture would have revealed. Had you taken such a study you would surely have noticed this fact, yet you ignore it. The only conclusion I can come to is that you are ignoring their culture at the risk of drawing bad conclusions from history. A poor showing on your part.
Posted by Maynard @ 01/21/2004 02:53 PM MST
Add A New Comment
