Connect with us

Everything

Defending our bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Published

on

Today being the 72nd anniversary of our dropping an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, three days after the first one on Hiroshima, we get the renewed calls for America to “apologize” for its actions which finally succeeded in getting the Japanese Emperor, Hirohito, to surrender.

These criticisms, if taken at face value, are either ill-informed given the evidence that existed at the time, or willingly ignore the lack of a suitable alternative course of action. Those explanations assume, of course, that blatant anti-Americanism isn’t the cause.

The horrors of the atomic bomb, no matter its target, are manifest. But medieval warfare wasn’t pretty, either. Can you think of a “nice” way to die? Me neither.

For those readers feeling pressured to “understand” or “apologize” for what were necessary military actions, here are some reminders of the way things were in 1945. Stuff you and your kids probably aren’t getting taught in any school these days. As for my street cred on this, I did serious research on this as part of a college thesis which one professor recommended become a doctoral thesis (before law school interfered). I did enought research to make a compelling. competing viewpoint.

There were many factors which played into President Harry Truman’s decision to use this weapon of mass destruction. Here are some inconvenient facts:

First: Japan remained in the war despite the surrender of its European theater allies of convenience, Italy and Nazi Germany, in April 1945, and further despite a cascading series of losses in the Pacific theater forcing the universal retreat of its remaining, non-captured troops back from the Japanese Empire’s largest size (at one point, it held part of Australia in addition to much of the Far East and the entire Western Pacific).

Second: Notwithstanding our incredible wartime alliance with “Uncle Joe” Stalin, America had concern that the Soviet Union would try to permanently occupy any and all territories which its military controlled. This explains the Allies’ race in Germany to reach Berlin. This also explained the United States electing to proactively end the war with Japan as soon as possible instead of, for instance, bleeding them through a protracted air war and bombing the cities into utter ruin. Not only would the latter strategy almost certainly have produced even greater civilian casualties, but there was no assurance that Japan couldn’t and wouldn’t simply bunker down in its mainland, perhaps indefinitely. Japan historically was a self-sufficient country, not requiring contact with the outside world for sustenance. Blockading Japan would not be like laying siege to a medieval town, or one of the fictional city-states in Game of Thrones. Heck, we might still be blockading Japan today.

Third: If you’re thinking why the United States simply didn’t invade Japan the same way the Allies attacked at Normandy in June 1944, consider the differences in the enemy. The invasion of the European continent required fighting fellow European soldiers, of whom many (at least) were not terribly unlike the Allies culturally (consider the at least nominally-shared Christian faith), and I would argue, many were fighting more out of fear of their own regimes than a hatred of the British or Americans. But the Japanese were a different kettle of fish entirely.

The Japanese had earned a reputation for particular fierce and brutal fighting. The mentality which bred the kamikaze pilot was also expected to infuse its infantry — if not its citizenry. This was the ferocity encountered by American troops as they engaged in their successful, yet arduous, campaign of “island hopping” in the Pacific as they closed in on the mainland. There was no reason not to expect the same type of last ditch intense defense of the Japanese homeland if and when an invasion was launched. Furthermore, military intelligence reported that the Japanese had implemented a complex civil defense system. The result was the expectation that American soldiers would encounter hand to hand, street by street combat throughout Japan, and likely sustain significant casualties along with civilian casualties.

Fourth: Sustained air bombings of the Japanese homeland throughout 1945 succeeded in leveling some major cities. But they did not induce surrender. Japan’s apparent ability to withstand these bombings supported the belief that an invasion would be needed to end the war. As explained above, an invasion was believed necessary but also was not preferred.

One must understand all of these factors in order to see how the decision to use the atomic bomb could be made for humanitarian purposes with a legitimate strategic objective of ending the war as quickly as possible, minimizing civilian and military casualties to both sides and maximizing the chance of preventing a Soviet invasion and later subjugation of the Japanese home islands.

Of course, had the Japanese not attacked Pearl Harbor while using its diplomats in Washington, DC as decoys, this could all have been prevented.

Conservative corporate lawyer, commentator, blockchain technology patent holder and entrepreneur. Headquartered in a red light district in the middle of a deep blue People's Republic.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

21-year-old with Down Syndrome speaks out to the United Nations

Published

on

21-year-old with Down Syndrome speaks out to the United Nations

Charlotte Helene Fien loves golf. She’s been golfing since she was 6-years-old and would love a job with which she can teach children how to play. Just like so many young adults venturing forth into the world, she has ambitions, dreams, and goals. Some people don’t think she should have had the opportunity to pursue those things. Fein has Down Syndrome.

In response to a Tunisian attorney’s comments during a United Nations Human Rights Committee meeting, Fein has made a video. The lawyer reportedly claimed that abortion is a viable means to prevent a life-long “handicap” like Down Syndrome. As with most “tolerant” leftist arguments on the topic, he felt his superior sense of humanity dictated he needed to do whatever he could to prevent people like Fein from every leaving the womb and becoming part of his world.

Watch the video and share it with anyone who needs to be reminded that people are people regardless of how the United Nations wishes to classify their existence.

Source: Faithwire

‘I’m a Human Being Just Like You’: 21-Year-Old Woman With Down Syndrome Delivers Powerful Rebuke to the UN

http://www.faithwire.com/2017/11/24/im-a-human-being-just-like-you-21-year-old-woman-with-down-syndrome-delivers-powerful-rebuke-to-the-un/Fien responded with a powerful open letter hitting back at these statements and at people who believe that those like her should be “aborted up to birth.” In addition to proclaiming that she is “deeply offended” and feels attacked for who she is, she affirmed her humanity and asked that the attorney think deeper about his proclamations.

“I’m a human being just like you. Our only difference is an extra chromosome,” she wrote. “My extra chromosome makes me far more tolerant than you, sir.”

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Did Joe Arpaio target Jeff Flake’s son with animal cruelty charges?

Published

on

Did Joe Arpaio target Jeff Flakes son with animal cruelty charges

Joe Arpaio doesn’t shy away from controversy and isn’t averse to causing a little mayhem. The latest incident may be even bigger than just whether or not he did wrong as he’s considering running for a Senate seat. The source of his troubles: the son of the man he may hope to replace, Senator Jeff Flake.

In 2014, Arpaio’s Sheriff’s Department looked into Austin Flake’s and his wife’s involvement in the deaths of 21 dogs. It was in a kennel operated by his in-laws. The Flakes were watching the dogs while the proprietors of the kennel were out of town.

Their deaths were due to an air conditioning unit that failed in a small room where the dogs spent the nights. Based on this information, the case against the Flakes was dismissed.

The lawsuit they’ve filed against Arpaio says they were targeted for political reasons to embarrass the Senator. They were put under surveillance and every effort was made to prove they were to blame for the deaths. The lawsuit goes to trial December 5.

Further Reading

Joe Arpaio accused of charging Jeff Flake’s son with animal cruelty to embarrass Arizona senator

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/joe-arpaio-accused-of-charging-jeff-flakes-son-with-animal-cruelty-to-embarrass-arizona-senator/article/2641649Sen. Jeff Flake was a vocal opponent of Arpaio’s handling of immigration issues in Maricopa County, the couple’s legal team said.

Arpaio and Jeffrey Leonard, an attorney representing the county and the former sheriff, declined to comment to the AP on the matter.

The couple previously sought $4 million in a notice of claim document for the suit, according to the AP.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Saudi Crown Prince calls Iran’s leader “The new Hitler of the Middle East”

Published

on

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

 

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, 32, who is also their defense minister, dramatically escalated war tensions with Iran this last week in an interview with the New York Times. He called the Supreme Leader of Iran “the new Hitler of the Middle East.” The two countries have been edging towards military confrontation with an Iranian jet from Yemen attempting to bomb Saudi Arabia. It was shot down, but the tensions escalated precipitously afterward. It’s no secret that Saudi Arabia which is Sunni Muslim and the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran are bitter rivals militarily and politically.

The Prince is now suggesting that Iran’s alleged expansion under Ayatollah Ali Khamenei needs to be confronted and dealt with once and for all. He told the New York Times, “But we learned from Europe that appeasement doesn’t work. We don’t want the new Hitler in Iran to repeat what happened in Europe in the Middle East.” Iran slapped back immediately at the Prince, saying that he was discredited internationally by his “immature” behavior. “No one in the world and in the international arena gives credit to him because of his immature and weak-minded behavior and remarks,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qasemi was quoted as saying.

Qasemi followed up that insult with a threat, “I strongly advise him to think and ponder upon the fate of the famous dictators of the region in the past few years now that he is thinking of considering their policies and behavior as a role model.” And the dance to war continues. Tensions rocketed earlier this month when Lebanon’s Saudi-allied Prime Minister Saad Hariri resigned in a television broadcast from Riyadh, citing the influence of Iran-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon and risks to his life. Hezbollah retaliated by calling the move an act of war that was orchestrated by the Saudis. The Saudis denied it. Hariri has since returned to Lebanon and suspended his resignation.

Amid a consolidation of power in Saudi Arabia, with a so-called crackdown on corruption, a purge of the Royal Family and Salman’s ascension to the throne, war is looming with Iran. The prince, who is expected to succeed his father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, 81, compared Iran and Saudi Arabia’s power struggle in the region to those fighting for Europe in World War II. The Saudis have launched thousands of air strikes in a 2 1/2-year-old war in neighboring Yemen to defeat the Iranian-aligned Houthi movement that seized broad swaths of the country. Everyone knows the Iranians are behind it and are using the Houthis as a proxy in the war. Salman claims that Saudi Arabia is winning the war and 85 percent of Yemen’s territory is now controlled by their allies.

While this may or may not be the case, the Houthis control the major population centers in the country still. The Saudi-led military coalition waging war on them is receiving intelligence and refueling for its warplanes by the United States. Over 10,000 people have died in the fighting to date. The group launched a ballistic missile toward Riyadh’s main airport on Nov. 4th, which Saudi Arabia decried as an act of war by Tehran. Salman proclaimed in May that the kingdom would ensure that future struggles would be waged in Iran.

For his part, Khamenei has referred to the House of Saud as an “accursed tree, ” and Iranian officials have accused the kingdom of spreading terrorism, an accusation it denies. For the record, Iran is the largest sponsor of terror on the planet, but Saudi Arabia is guilty of terrorism as well. Iran is working with Russia to take over Syria. They also basically control Iraq. A stepped-up war involving Saudi Arabia would no doubt draw in the United States on the side of Saudi Arabia and Russia and China on the side of Iran. China is offering to help rebuild Syria. If you were looking for Armageddon, this would suffice nicely.

The New York Times refers to this as the Saudi Arabian Arab Spring. This one is led from the top down and is militarily explosive. It is also a cultural revolution and a reformation of Islam. The Crown Prince stated to the New York Times: “Do not write that we are ‘reinterpreting’ Islam—we are ‘restoring’ Islam to its origins—and our biggest tools are the Prophet’s practices and (daily life in—ed) Saudi Arabia before 1979.” Bin Salman stressed that in the time of the Prophet Muhammad, there were theaters, Jews and Christians in Saudi Arabia and that the country’s first judge was a woman. “So the Prophet was not a Muslim?” asked bin Salman, rhetorically. World War III or reformation… it will be a conflict that eventually involves all major powers in a geopolitical conflict.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.