That's a straw-man debating point and you should know it. Unless, of course, you are saying that some of the Flight 93 passengers were four-square opposed to the fight to regain control of the craft.
Let's get back on point, shall we? It's really quite simple. The United States dropped two atomic weapons and killed tens of thousands of civilians. Our Joint Chiefs chair and the majority of his subordinates opposed the dropping of the A bombs. So did future President Eisenhower. The latter's words seem most applicable here:
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary ... I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Yes, I like Ike, and not just because of the interstate highway system.
That's a straw-man debating point and you should know it. Unless, of course, you are saying that some of the Flight 93 passengers were four-square opposed to the fight to regain control of the craft.
1. You were objecting to the loss of innocent lives, period. 2. Who is to say that the passengers were, in fact, unanimous? Were there any children aboard -- they couldn't give informed consent even if they'd wanted to. 3. How could they have known in advance that no one on the ground would have been killed? Anyone on the ground could not possibly have given consent. As long as we're indulging in sweeping moral condemnation of events we don't fully understand , why not toss in the people who tried maniacally to grab the plane back. It's up to them to prove what they did was moral, right?
Let's get back on point, shall we? It's really quite simple. The United States dropped two atomic weapons and killed tens of thousands of civilians.
Is your objection to the number of bombs or the number of civilians killed? We'd used more bombs in the past and killed more civilians.
Civilians are always killed during wars. We don't like it (unlike some of our opponents), but it happens. Hiroshima was a major military target that had, up to that point suffered the least war damage. We were hitting where we would inflict the most war damage. Nagasaki was less important militarily, but the primary target that day was obscured by clouds. It was the best they could do under the circumstances.
Do you prefer the Clinton approach: Blowing up a few vacant paint lockers and out-houses? It doesn't seem to have stopped Osama bin Laden and his jolly lads, and in fact may have encouraged them.
Some people have used the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to try to implicate the wartime U.S. in some sort of anti-Christian plot because those two cities had the highest concentration of Christians. There are threads right here on FR on the topic. Want to play with that notion?
In your zeal to hate the way we won the war, you forget we were fighting an a foe which at the time was the most ruthless and implacable we'd ever faced. If I had been president in 1945, I would much rather have explained to the American people why I used such a weapon to end the war and save millions of lives (on both sides, by the way), than try and explain why I had such a weapon and didn't use it.
By the way, do we get to count the Japanese civilians who weren't killed because we didn't invade, and we didn't carpet bomb their other cities, and who didn't starve to death because their military was commandeering all the food?
Our Joint Chiefs chair and the majority of his subordinates opposed the dropping of the A bombs. So did future President Eisenhower. The latter's words seem most applicable here:
"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary ... I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
Eisenhower fought the war in Europe, and was not familiar with the situation in the Pacific. As to why it was not "mandatory as a measure to save American lives," I'm curious ... how should we have won? Were we supposed to starve them out? Do you have evidence that the Japanese military, contrary to all history and experience, mysteriously planned on allowing civilians have all the food in time of war?
Were we supposed to let the Soviet Union take care of Japan? The Soviets hadn't even declared war when the first bomb was dropped.
Japan refused to surrender after the first atomic bombing. After Nagasaki, the emperor recorded a message of surrender to be played on the radio (he was precluded from appearing live by protocol), A cadre of officers mutinied and tried to steal the record so that Japan would not surrender.
Japanese school children were being taught to use sharpened sticks to kill invading Americans. Would it have been immoral to kill those kids to save the lives of American soldiers?
You are able to enjoy your moral preening at the expense of the very men who won the war and made continuing our way of life possible. Live it up.
Judging from your collection of cliches thus far in this thread, would you not have opposed it?
Anytime anywhere means...
Oh never mind.