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.

Advertisement

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Immigration

As predicted, Trump offers DACA amnesty in exchange for border wall

Published

on

As predicted Trump offers DACA amnesty in exchange for border wall

Throughout Trump’s first two years in office, I’ve been one of only a handful of conservative voices shouting from the rooftops that the New York liberal’s promise to fix America’s out-of-control illegal immigration problem was nothing but a lie.

As a candidate, Trump promised to build a “big beautiful powerful wall” on our southern border at Mexico’s expense, and he promised to overturn Obama’s unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order that allowed illegals to stay in America indefinitely. Unfortunately, the “wall” has become an “artistically designed” barrier of some sort funded by the U.S. taxpayer, and DACA is not only still in effect, it’s on its way to becoming permanent.

While the reality of Trump’s broken promises dealing with illegal immigration have been crystal clear to those not drinking the orange Kool-Aid, his inevitable betrayal on the issue has been brought sharply into focus since last summer.

In May 2018, as Trump and the GOP were looking for ways to save their jobs ahead of the midterms, the House Freedom Caucus joined hands with Democrats to push for a “fix” to DACA.

In June 2018, Paul Ryan proposed a plan that would allow DREAMers to legally stay in the country and be put on the pathway to citizenship in exchange for $23 billion for building a border wall.

Following their September 2018 budget betraying funding everything from Planned Parenthood to DACA and sanctuary cities, rumors began spreading around Washington that Trump was ready to cut an immigration deal with Democrats in light of the reality that the Democrats were about to retake the House in the midterms.

The Democrats did retake the House, and in the days since their victory, Trump and the GOP have been laying the foundation for their inevitable immigration betrayal. With the help of Trump’s son-in-law and advisor Jared Kushner, trading DACA amnesty for a border wall is now the official position of the Trump administration and the GOP-controlled Senate.

So, it came as no surprise when Trump proposed a deal over the weekend to end to his manufactured government shutdown by offering Democrats a three-year extension of DACA in exchange for $5 billion for border security funding — an idea originally conceived by Sen. Lindsey Graham.

Three years? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence, but that’s just enough time to kick the can down the road until after his 2020 election … assuming there is one. And just in case there are any doubts about the motivation behind this three-year timeframe, consider this: Mitch McConnell, who has refused to let the Senate vote on the shutdown, has endorsed Trump’s offer and will hold vote on it this week.

Mickey is also up for re-election in 2020.

For now, Democrats are rejecting Trump’s offer, but it’s only a matter of time before they get what they want. After all, Trump and the GOP want the same thing.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Is Israel on the brink of war?

Published

on

Is Israel on the brink of war

Israel and Iran continue to trade threats and missile attacks over Syria as the latest round targeted Iranian Quds forces near Damascus. The IDF, which has confirmed attacks recently, went so far as to announce the attacks on Twitter.

This attack was in response to a missile launched from Syria by Iranian Quds Forces into the Golan Heights. The missile was intercepted by the Iron Dome, which was captured on camera by skiers on Mt. Hermon.

The overnight attacks on Syria resulted in many missiles and guided bombs being shot down, but enough made it through to damage Quds training grounds, weapons depots, and kill at least 11 people. There are no reports of how many of Iran’s elite forces were killed, though British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said only two of the dead were Syrians.

Israel, in rare move, announces attacks on Iranian targets in Syria, delivers warning

https://www.foxnews.com/world/israel-attacks-iran-forces-in-syria-military-confirmsIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently confirmed that Israel had struck hundreds of targets in Syria linked to Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah militant group, including a weapons facility two weeks ago.

Iran and Hezbollah are allied with the Syrian government in the civil war.

Iran has begun its loudest saber-rattling in some time as they send clear threats of war and the destruction of Israel through state television.

“The young people in the air force are fully ready and impatient to confront the Zionist regime and eliminate it from the Earth,” IRIAF Brigadier General Aziz Nasirzadeh said following the strike.

Iran says ready for war with Israel that will ‘lead to its destruction’

https://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Iran-We-are-ready-for-a-war-that-will-lead-to-the-destruction-of-Israel-578108The commander of the Iranian Air Force warned on Monday that Iran was prepared for a decisive war with Israel, “which will bring an end to the IDF’s attacks on Syria.” “Our armed forces are prepared for a war that will bring the crushing destruction of Israel,” he said, according to media reports.

“We are ready for the day when we will see the end of Israel.”

My Take

Americans are often unaware of the importance of Syria to Iran. For years, it’s been assumed the only reason Iran hasn’t attacked Israel, especially when they were at the height of their power during the latter years of President Obama’s administration, is they have no clear path to reach Israel. Iraq, Syria, and Jordan are between Iran and the tiny Jewish state, making it nearly impossible for them to have any real reach into the heart of Israel.

This is why they are so intent on having an embedded military presence in Syria. It’s why Israel is doing everything in its power to prevent them from getting a serious foothold there.

Iran’s military is strong and somewhat sophisticated, but it’s still no match for Israel. However, Iran could take advantage of Israel’s small size if they can get enough missiles and launchers into Syria. Doing so would allow them to use Syrians as cover, a strategy currently in use by anti-Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon.

As long as Iran continues to pursue entrenchment in Syria, war is on the near horizon. Israeli strikes may be a catalyst for war, but they’re necessary if they have any hopes of preventing Iran from taking over their Syrian neighbors wholesale.


Subscribe on YouTube

Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

What really separates Tom Brady from every other player on the field

Published

on

What really separates Tom Brady from every other player on the field

Every season, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady gains more people who believe he’s the greatest of all time. It has been a long road for him because he didn’t have the pedigree that other potential GOATs had. He wasn’t the #1 pick in the NFL draft like John Elway or Terry Bradshaw. He was drafted in the 6th round. He didn’t come in with lots of fanfare. His first starting job came as a result of Drew Bledsoe’s injury. He doesn’t have a flashy style like Brett Favre, a complex system like Peyton Manning, or a cannon for an arm like Aaron Rodgers.

He just wins.

The key to his winning ways may have nothing to do with his strong skills, good supporting cast, or excellent game plans. It may just come down to hard work and good ol’ fashioned competitiveness. His mental toughness has been likened to Larry Bird’s or Evander Holyfield’s, two greats in their sports who made up for physical deficiencies by constantly improving mentally even when they weren’t at the top physically.

“Every quarterback can throw a ball; every running back can run; every receiver is fast; but that mental toughness that you talk about translates into competitiveness.”

Football is more than just a physical sport. As Tom Brady has demonstrated, mental toughness may be even more important than 40-yard-dash times or arm strength.


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report