Comments on: Days that Shook the World http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/ Deities. Dogma. Dating. Diapers. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:34:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Mike http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/#comment-79 Tue, 09 Aug 2005 21:45:55 +0000 http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/#comment-79 My father, who was an expert at WW2 (having a library with more than 300 volumes on the subject) and a Canadian (which gave some distant perspective on the American's use of the Bomb) always felt it was moderately justified. His assertions, backed up by many experts, is that the Japanese Army still had over 1,000,000 men who would staunchly defend the island against attacks at the time of the bombing. Also remember, this is the country that showed their absolute disdain for the rest of the world by attacking us without any provocation whatsoever. And, they killed 350,000 women and children in Nanking, raping at will (see "The Rape of Nanking" by Iris Chang). They were an army known for fighting to the death against unsuperable odds and for living in shame from their ancestors if they did not. The U. S. Army's estimate at the time was that the loss of American life over the next year of fighting would be upwards of 400,000 men to end the war in Japan. If they did not end it, there would have been more Nankings. For every Hiroshima that we are "vilified" for, there is a Nanking that Japan has never acknowledged or apologized for. When history really is revealed, we see the energy behind the statement, "War is Hell". But it is a difficult question: End the war with drastic means and loss of life, or prolong the war and see massive loss of life. My father, who was an expert at WW2 (having a library with more than 300 volumes on the subject) and a Canadian (which gave some distant perspective on the American’s use of the Bomb) always felt it was moderately justified. His assertions, backed up by many experts, is that the Japanese Army still had over 1,000,000 men who would staunchly defend the island against attacks at the time of the bombing. Also remember, this is the country that showed their absolute disdain for the rest of the world by attacking us without any provocation whatsoever. And, they killed 350,000 women and children in Nanking, raping at will (see “The Rape of Nanking” by Iris Chang). They were an army known for fighting to the death against unsuperable odds and for living in shame from their ancestors if they did not. The U. S. Army’s estimate at the time was that the loss of American life over the next year of fighting would be upwards of 400,000 men to end the war in Japan. If they did not end it, there would have been more Nankings. For every Hiroshima that we are “vilified” for, there is a Nanking that Japan has never acknowledged or apologized for. When history really is revealed, we see the energy behind the statement, “War is Hell”. But it is a difficult question: End the war with drastic means and loss of life, or prolong the war and see massive loss of life.

]]> by: e! http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/#comment-78 Tue, 09 Aug 2005 09:52:03 +0000 http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/#comment-78 Mea culpa... I didn't mean to imply that you wouldn't understand or refuse to... slip of the keys... I just meant that many people disagree with the reasoning and that's understandable. I don't think the reason "because they did it first" is acceptable either. I think the first three reasons I stated above are better, if not at least reasonable. Then again, reasonable men/women don't promote war as a viable alternative to diplomacy. Me? I somewhere between might makes right and give peace a chance I guess. But as far as the Atom Bombs are concerned, they served a purpose that hopefully they'll never have to serve again. Mea culpa… I didn’t mean to imply that you wouldn’t understand or refuse to… slip of the keys… I just meant that many people disagree with the reasoning and that’s understandable.

I don’t think the reason “because they did it first” is acceptable either. I think the first three reasons I stated above are better, if not at least reasonable. Then again, reasonable men/women don’t promote war as a viable alternative to diplomacy.

Me? I somewhere between might makes right and give peace a chance I guess. But as far as the Atom Bombs are concerned, they served a purpose that hopefully they’ll never have to serve again.

]]> by: Alli http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/#comment-77 Tue, 09 Aug 2005 04:28:59 +0000 http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/#comment-77 <blockquote>While you may not care to understand, nor wish to see it the way many people do</blockquote> Mighty presumptuous about how open- or closed-minded I am, aren't you? If you read more than a few posts on my blog, I think you'll find that an openness to learning -- for life -- is very important to me. I haven't cornered the market on "right", nor do I ever expect to do so. <blockquote>Is war horrible? Definitely. Is it necessary? Rarely. Was the US justified in dropping those bombs? Keep in mind that Japan attacked the US without provocation not for ideological differences, but for economic and strategic necessity. The same reasons why one could argue the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.</blockquote> "But, but, he did it FIRST!" is no excuse for bad behavior, whether in a six-year-old or in a sovereign nation. Great, so we had the same rationale as Japan for attacking. That doesn't make it right or justified. It's possible (likely, even) that you and I won't see eye-to-eye on the wisdom (or lack) of deploying WMD. That's okay -- you have a right to your opinion, as I do to mine. Thanks for the comments!

While you may not care to understand, nor wish to see it the way many people do

Mighty presumptuous about how open- or closed-minded I am, aren’t you? If you read more than a few posts on my blog, I think you’ll find that an openness to learning — for life — is very important to me. I haven’t cornered the market on “right”, nor do I ever expect to do so.

Is war horrible? Definitely. Is it necessary? Rarely. Was the US justified in dropping those bombs? Keep in mind that Japan attacked the US without provocation not for ideological differences, but for economic and strategic necessity. The same reasons why one could argue the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

“But, but, he did it FIRST!” is no excuse for bad behavior, whether in a six-year-old or in a sovereign nation. Great, so we had the same rationale as Japan for attacking. That doesn’t make it right or justified.

It’s possible (likely, even) that you and I won’t see eye-to-eye on the wisdom (or lack) of deploying WMD. That’s okay — you have a right to your opinion, as I do to mine.

Thanks for the comments!

]]> by: e! http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/#comment-75 Mon, 08 Aug 2005 19:51:59 +0000 http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2005/08/days-that-shook-the-world/#comment-75 I can't claim to be an expert, but do suggest you explore the history of WWII. By the time we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, Japan already had been defeated militarily. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble. Why then did the United States choose to drop the bombs? While you may not care to understand, nor wish to see it the way many people do, especially those who where alive on December 7, 1941, dropping those bombs did much for the world. First, it showed the world what future wars that extended beyond their own borders would be like. Secondly, it assured that war would never range across the world and diplomacy would again be the first solution to settle differences. Thirdly, it pretty much put an end to expansion by agression and war for economic gain. Is war horrible? Definitely. Is it necessary? Rarely. Was the US justified in dropping those bombs? Keep in mind that Japan attacked the US without provocation not for ideological differences, but for economic and strategic necessity. The same reasons why one could argue the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I can’t claim to be an expert, but do suggest you explore the history of WWII. By the time we dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, Japan already had been defeated militarily. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan’s air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble. Why then did the United States choose to drop the bombs?

While you may not care to understand, nor wish to see it the way many people do, especially those who where alive on December 7, 1941, dropping those bombs did much for the world. First, it showed the world what future wars that extended beyond their own borders would be like. Secondly, it assured that war would never range across the world and diplomacy would again be the first solution to settle differences. Thirdly, it pretty much put an end to expansion by agression and war for economic gain.

Is war horrible? Definitely. Is it necessary? Rarely. Was the US justified in dropping those bombs? Keep in mind that Japan attacked the US without provocation not for ideological differences, but for economic and strategic necessity. The same reasons why one could argue the bombs were dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

]]>