Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
Ahhhh.. the cotton candy appro…
#30 – biovenger, I don’t usually say this to people but … you’re an idiot being strangled by ideology . AT THE TIME, in 1945, just what was so morally wrong about atomic weapons? Answer, nada, it was just another weapon.
Genocide? How about firebombing Tokyo, several times. More deaths there, by suffocation or burning to death or other grisly ways.
“End to a war” – how about, let’s blockade Japan so nothing gets in or out. Keep up the bombings so that they can’t rebuild, can’t grow or import enough food. Yeah, that’s it, let them STARVE to death, that’s real humane.
“If you approve of this…” – FYI that’s a non-sequitor. The one doesn’t have anything to do with the other.
Now here’s a thought for you (and at least try to consider it). What if the bombs hadn’t been dropped? Do you think they would have just been dismantled and thrown away? Or maybe, just maybe, they might have been used during the Berlin Blockade, or at some other crisis point in recent human history. Perhaps the knowledge of having seen what these bombs could do kept them from being used again. And so far, they haven’t.
And for those who say the war was already over, no, it wasn’t. It was ALMOST over, but the Japanese hadn’t surrendered yet.
Until that happened, it wasn’t over, not by a long shot.
#21-24. The debate on the necessity of the bombs will not be resolved here, but (1) it should be remembered that even after the a-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were officers in the Japanese Army who attempted a coup to prevent a surrender. Even if the Allies had guaranteed that Japan could keep their emperor, selling surrender to the Japanese Army would have been very hard, if not impossible; and (2) blockade and conventional bombing would hardly have been a humane alternative. There is nothing particularly virtuous about starving a whole nation to death or burning them with napalm.
Truman made the right call.
Political and historical considerations aside, this is amazing imagery.
#23 – Wow, how dumb can you get?
I used Tojo’s name in reference to a military act, so my statement stands.
As for the “institution”, they wanted to maintain the Emperor as the leader of the country… if you can’t tell the difference between that and the “for show” monarchy they have now then you’ve got some serious problems.
The bomb had a parachute.
Yeah, my problem is with people like you who know zip about history, then try to post intelligently. What are you 12?
#37, Mark,
You are showing an extreme lack of historical knowledge. As pointed out above, war is hell. To reflect 60 years later, using today’s mores is just plain wrong. Harry Truman, President of the United States had to make a decision. His options were:
One, risk more American and allied lives in an invasion of the Japanese homeland. The previous six months had seen the loss of many American lives. An invasion would mean more fighting to the death.
Two, starve the Japanese into surrender at the horrendous cost of a blockade. After long years of fighting, to continue keeping Americans encircling Japan would be expensive.
Three, starve the Japanese civilians. The Japanese civilians were peasants. They didn’t have a voice. Any food would have gone to soldiers fighting for Japan. Not only would the civilians have starved, diseases such as typhoid, typhus, influenza, and others would have ravaged the weakened population.
Four, allow the Soviets to accept the Japanese surrender. As the next 35 years showed, this was already an unacceptable end. We were on the Soviet’s side only as long as they fought a common enemy. Once that deed was done, they reverted to an untrustworthy foe.
Five, demonstrate to the Japanese leadership that Japan would be defeated in an ignominious, decisive manner. A weapon so powerful that the deepest bunkers couldn’t protect them. A weapon from which there was no defense. Something to convince Tojo, the real leader in Japan, the time had come to quit.
In the best interest of the United States and it’s allies, Truman chose the least expensive, fastest, and easiest options. That was to drop the atomic bomb and show Japan, as well as Stalin in the USSR, that the Western Allies wanted this to stop. Truman’s choice worked.
We can never know if any of the other options would have worked. But we know the “A” bomb did. I don’t know about you. My father fought in WWII. He lost his older brother in France. I am glad that my own father’s life wasn’t wasted fighting the last few months taking the Japanese homeland.
The canard about “civilians” is just plain bull. It almost always has been and probably always will. Where do you think the soldiers come from? Where do you think the war munitions come from? Where do you think the financing for the war comes from? Just because they don’t hold a gun doesn’t mean they aren’t part of the war effort.
#14
Your ignorance about history is clear. The Japanese made it known publicly that they would fight to the last person. They backed that claim on Iwo Jima and Okinawa and they spent the early part of 1945 entrenching the island and training the population for an invasion.
The bomb was used to finish the war once and for all with no conditions. The best way to save lives in a war is to end it as quickly and as decisively as possible.
Read that link you sent one more time.
I wonder how they came to that conclusion. It couldn’t possibly be because no one trusted the Japanese after the way they started the war?
#22
When will people learn that air superiority and aerial bombardment does not guarantee victory (although it helps)? Do people no longer read history books? Aerial bombardment did not subdue the British in World War II and it did not win the war in Vietnam. At the end of the day the only way to subdue a population is with ground troops. An invasion of Japan would have been extraordinarily costly in terms of manpower, equipment and lives.
> opting instead for Naval blockade and attrition to take effect.
So, let’s drag the war out for another 10 or 15 years and slowly starve the population (not to mention the cost of maintaining a blockade during the Cold War) instead of dropping a couple of bombs and finishing it. Oh and by the way, in the middle of all that of course the Japanese would have been waging a guerilla war.
#30
You clearly do not know a damn thing about war or history. There is no question wars are things to be avoided. So much so that beyond avoiding them in the first place, the way to save the most lives is to end it as quickly and as decisively as possible. The way to win a war is to break your opponent’s will to continue fighting.