Hiroshima, Nagasaki And Christian Morality

The Post Chronicle ^ | 08\10\2005 | Patrick J Buchanan

[HiTech RedNeck]

Some siege, when Mexico and Canada aren't participating.

[Alberta's Child]

But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, "You know nothing at all, nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish."

Using a quotation like this from Scripture to support your position is ridiculous, when you consider that "the whole nation" in question (Israel) actually did perish despite Caiaphas' statement that it would be expedient for one man to die so that the whole nation would not. One generation did not pass before Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans (in 70 AD), and the Israelites scattered throughout the world at the time.

[Alberta's Child]

Cuba's standard of living is comparable to a Third World country right now, yet nobody there is starving to death as far as I know.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It's communism that's keeping it that way, in this siege-by-sieve.

[Manic_Episode]

Scripture is multi-demensional, and it was a simple math equation.

[95 Bravo]

Really? Gee whiz! Tell that to the Chinese, Vietnamese, French, Dutch, & British citizens they managed to put under the Greater East Asia Co_prospertiy Sphere. They fielded a pretty vital & effective military for 8 years. In fact, didn't they manage to kick British & Commonwealth ass all over SE Asia well before they bombed Pearl Harbor? Does the conquest of Hong Kong, Singapore, the sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales
ring a bell? Wasn't there a sizable Canadian contingent captured at Hong Kong? Pretty good for what the Brits dismissed as a "bunch of backward runts with poor eyesight."
The Japs had every intention of defending the home islands to the last man woman and child. They armed their civilians with bamboo spears in anticipation of launching mass banzai charges against American units. Fanatics don't care about tin, rubber, steel or petroleum reserves. They'll use rocks to kill their enemies if they have to.

[A.A. Cunningham]

I would venture to guess that most military experts would tell you that invading Japan was not necessary at all.

Your guess would be incorrect.

[Alberta's Child]

Tell that to the Chinese, Vietnamese, French, Dutch, & British citizens they managed to put under the Greater East Asia Co_prospertiy Sphere. They fielded a pretty vital & effective military for 8 years. In fact, didn't they manage to kick British & Commonwealth ass all over SE Asia well before they bombed Pearl Harbor? Does the conquest of Hong Kong, Singapore, the sinking of Repulse and Prince of Wales ring a bell? Wasn't there a sizable Canadian contingent captured at Hong Kong?

When was the last time any of these things occurred -- 1942? Was the Japanese military capable of doing any of these things by mid-1945?

The Japs had every intention of defending the home islands to the last man woman and child. They armed their civilians with bamboo spears in anticipation of launching mass banzai charges against American units. Fanatics don't care about tin, rubber, steel or petroleum reserves. They'll use rocks to kill their enemies if they have to.

We know all about that. Solitary fanatical Japanese soldiers have been found on islands all over the South Pacific for decades after the war ended -- they never got the word that the war was over, so they simply assumed that they still had to fight on for the Empire.

I think most of us would agree that these dedicated soldiers with such an awesome sense of duty were among the most harmless and inconsequential people to inhabit this planet over the last 60 years.

[hgro]

The only threat to Buchanans' life was drinking too much scotch.

This guy is a loser who thinks he won when he crossed the finish line. Problem was, the race was over an hour before.

[95 Bravo]

By mid-1945 the Japanese strategy was simply to inflict as many casualties on the Allies as possible before dying. There was no thought of survival or surrender. The warlords had mobilized the entire population to fight an invasion. There were still airplanes and ships and boats to crash into Allied warships. There were plenty of volunteers ready to crawl beneath American tanks with pole charges or land mines and detonate themselves.
That constitutes a military that was still very much a threat, although much diminshed in offensive capability. They were defending their home islands, and would have gladly sacrificed the entire population if necessary.
Fortunately, 2 A-bombs convinced the Emperor of the wisdom of surrender.
Thankfully, that event has never had to be repeated. But there is no doubt in my mind that it was both a viable and necessary option at the time. No regrets here.

[Alberta's Child]

Now imagine if that invasion never came. That's one of the basic points of contention here.

[95 Bravo]

Doesn't matter. America was the only combatant with the power to bring the war to a decisive conclusion. The Japanese were given opportunities to surrender prior to the bombing. They adamantly refused. We used the power and brought six years of horror to a final end.
What could be more moral and just than ending the most savage and horrific war in history?
I fail to see the reason for all the namby-pamby hand-wringing.

[Les_Miserables]

I wonder how many bleeding hearts are aware that Japan had their own Nuclear Programs underway and are reported to have exploded a test weapon of the coast of North Korea days before Hiroshima? Had they or Germany won the race to develop the A-bomb we can be sure they would have used that weapon on us. The discussion of "atomic morality" is irrelevant. As it turns out it was a matter of survival. Ours.