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.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Foreign Affairs

Capt. Chuck Nash: Iranian regime trying to hold out in hopes Trump is not reelected

Published

on

Capt Chuck Nash Things in Iran are getting worse by the day

Iran’s saber rattling continues as the U.S. military buildup reaches a point in which they can no longer expect to be able to defend themselves if they start a way. Meanwhile, the President lobbed a clear threat to them about their rhetoric and aggression.

Speaking on Fox News, retired U.S. Navy Captain Charles T. Nash said, “Regimes, whether it’s the Soviet Union or the current theocracy in Iran, they won’t stop loosening up until it’s too late, and when they do they know it’s all going to fly apart. The wheels are going to come off.”

Opinion

Iran has a serious problem, and it’s not the United States. Their leadership has been so obtuse during times of economic prosperity that they didn’t use it to help their people become self-sustaining. Now, they’re reliant on a government that doesn’t have the resources to help them, making this an issue that goes beyond oppression. They’re on the verge of financial collapse and the only solution is the one solution they will never consider.

As Nash noted in the video above, they won’t change. They can’t. It goes against their nature to do what’s right by their people if doing so means doing anything the United States, Saudi Arabia, or Israel want. Their pride will be the undoing of their people.

President Trump is the biggest reason they’re failing. At this point, all they can do is hope he loses reelection. If he does, they have a chance of recovering if they’re even able to survive that long. If he wins, they’re toast and they know it. Expect to see them attempt to interfere with our elections any way they can, including expansion of Endless Mayfly.

The defection of Ali Nasisi is most likely a huge blessing for America. As their ambitions appear to be coming to light, the information gleaned from the former Iranian Brigadier General has been invaluable.

Quote

“What they’re trying to do is hold out hope against hope, and if President Trump is reelected, then they’re going to have to figure out what they’re going to do.” – Captain Charles Nash

Final Thoughts

Iran is desperate. Now that their military aggression is on call by the President, they may have to resort to terrorism to achieve their goals of ousting Trump and spreading fear across the world.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Media

Trump hits Fox News, Chris Wallace for Pete Buttigieg town hall

Published

on

Trump hits Fox News in general and Chris Wallace in particular for having Democrats on

President Trump has always been a supporter of Fox News. Some have noted how many of his talking points came from the news network; during the day he quotes Fox & Friends, while in the evening he quotes Sean Hannity and others. But there’s one show host he doesn’t care for and one activity he’s lashed out against at the network.

He doesn’t like Chris Wallace and he isn’t happy when they have Democratic presidential candidates on.

He spoke out last month when the network had Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on for a a town hall with Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum. Though the hosts were critical of Sanders and asked him tough questions, the event was considered a win by many for Sanders as he deflected some issues and turned others in his favor. This peeved the President, but not as much as Wallace did this morning.

The son of famed newsman Mike Wallace had South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg on for a town hall Sunday and proceeded to not only throw him softballs for questions, but at times praise the Democratic candidate. This didn’t sit well with the President.

Opinion

I understand the premise of the news is that it’s supposed to be unbiased. But I also recognize the reality that all news is biased. The President has very few allies in the media and Fox News is the biggest, so when they seem to be helping the opposition, it’s bound to tweak the President.

In a perfect world, the major news networks would be truly fair and balanced. This isn’t a perfect world and the cards are stacked against conservatives. Just as the education system leans left, so too do most mainstream media news outlets.

Chris Wallace sticks out at Fox News as one of the few outspoken detractors of President Trump. It puts them in a pickle because they don’t want to get rid of the popular show host over his political views, but their core audience is comprised almost entirely of Trump supporters. It doesn’t behoove them to have someone so outspoken, especially when the opposition is using his shows a platform to take down the President.

Quote

“Gee, he never speaks well of me – I like Mike Wallace better…and Alfred E. Newman will never be President!” – President Trump

Final Thoughts

In a media atmosphere in which news outlets are picking sides, the President only has one major outlet on his. The days of news outlets simply reporting the news may be behind us. This is a side effect of the polarization in America.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

17 years later, Paul Washer’s shocking message still holds true

Published

on

17 years later Paul Washers shocking message still holds true

In 2002, Pastor Paul Washer delivered a message to around 5,000 young people. It has become one of the fiery Southern Baptist’s mostly widely-heard sermons because in it, we hear a very disturbing reality to most who proclaim to be Christians. Some simply aren’t doing it right.

He’s been criticized for the sermon. Some say he’s making it too complicated. Others say he’s scaring people away from the faith by making it seem too difficult. But this teaching is based on one of the most important teachings of Jesus Christ in all the Bible:

Matthew 7:13-27

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I’ve heard many teach on these verses and I’ve taught myself on the strait and narrow. It’s frightening to some because it was intended to be, and Washer’s declarations to these impressionable young people is clear. But it wasn’t nice. It wasn’t kind. It wasn’t inclusive. It didn’t fit in with today’s version of common pastoral messages.

The need for constant repentance and ongoing belief must never be understated.

Sometimes, the need to be “nice” from the pulpit must be replaced by the true need to be honest. That’s what Washer does in this famous teaching. I strongly encourage everyone to spend an hour hearing it.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending