August 6, 1945 - No Regrets

Once, Larry King saw on older man gazing intently at the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian. He asked the man, "Are you a WW2 vet?" "Yes, I am." "Do you have any regrets that our forces dropped the A-Bomb on Hiroshima?" "Yes, I do." "Please elaborate." "Sure, Mr. King...I regret that we didn't develop and drop that thing 3 years earlier on the #$@&^*# enemy! That woulda saved a lotta lives on both sides!"

My view is the same as one seen on a WW2 poster..."They sowed the wind(Pearl Harbor) and are now reaping the whirlwind".(The incendiary B-29 raids beginning March '45)

 

Not at all the traditional "conservative" view however:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/lawrence1.html

 

I've always believed that if forced to fight, then USE ANYMEANS to win. Victory aint the biggest thing...it's the ONLY thing. There is no substitute for VICTORY.

However, as my dad said, you may be bent-for-leather on killing the enemy when he suddenly surrenders. Then, you must instantly go from kill mode to "fair-treatment" mode; if ya go ahead & bust the cap on an enemy who's clearly surrendering, you're committing MURDER, and even if you're not castigated by your nation, ya can't hide it from GOD.

However, while facing an aggressive enemy intent on wasting you, the end justifies any means.

 

It seems that the counter-liberalism pendulum is swinging to the point where a soldier who kills is thought of as a wimp or liberal if he expresses regret. This concerns me. Soldiers are humans. It is not inappropriate to feel regret for taking a life, even if taking that life was justified.

A soldier should never be belittled because he regretted dropping a bomb or pulling a trigger. A soldier can be regretful or remoreseful over taking the life of an enemy, and still have done the right thing. In fact, I would think this makes him a better soldier than having no regret or remorse at all.

Furthermore, there's nothing wrong with us as a nation showing remorse over dropping the Hiroshima bomb. That doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do, given the circumstances. Remorse as a nation only demonstrates that we don't do things like that unless we have no other moral alternative.

 

I certainly have no remorse over dropping the bomb! They are the ones that created the necessity of doing so.

I DO regret that the decision had to be made to drop it due to others actions, but certainly not the action itself.

Surely you aren't saying that you would like to have seen more use of the bomb since then, are you? That's what it sounds like, but that does not seem a reasonable conclusion; please clarify. Thanks

On the other hand you may be saying that you feel it's a shame that we had to use it, and if so then I agree, but that was dictated by others actions; not aggression on our part.

 

Of the WWII veterans I've known, the topic of the japan's bombings were not a topic of discussion.

I always sensed that it was a very sad event that needed to be done considering the plans Japan had for us.

 

I would have wished that we dropped the bomb on a strictly military target. Civilians on both sides of a conflict are often forced into a support role against their will. Our incendiary raids in Europe did little to impact either morale or production, but it did kill an awful lot of civilians.

As a veteran, I understand that collateral damage is sometimes unavoidable, but it should be minimized, not elevated into a deliberate strategy. In the long run, it feeds enemy propaganda, and reinforces the will of the enemy.

 

I think that was a lesson that came from the strategic area bombing of cities in WWII long before the atom bombs were dropped on the Japanese. The British had first hand information about what happens to the morale of the civilian population when civilians become the deliberate victims of strategic area bombing.

The practice of strategic area bombing of cities was a moral debate in the allied world throughout most of the war. It was only after the horrible raids on Dresden, Pforzheim and Wurzburg, Germany, and on Tokyo, that British and American civilians began to question what their respective air forces were doing in their name. After the war, it took a long time for the allied civilians to comprehend what had happened. Because it was closer to the action, and had experienced strategic area bombing itself, the British came to the realization that what started for them as retaliation had turned into an atrocity.

I just don't think the fact that civilians dwelling in an "enemy" country themselves constitute a legitimate target for strategic area bombing. Patriotic support for a regime that dictatorially rules the country is not justification for murdering that country's civilians, nor is retaliation a motive, either. And not all German or Japanese civilians were wholehearted patriots for their respective governments. In Japan, it was an accepted way of life that most civilians did not believe they could change.

The speculation that the justification for the bombs was to bring an earlier end to the war and save the lives of up to a million American soldiers that might be lost in an invasion of the Japanese homeland is incorrect. The fact is, from evidence that has since come to light, the Japanese had realized that further fighting would be futile. It may have taken an additional six weeks to two months, but the end of the war would have come without a US invasion.

Actually, the issue isn't even that complicated. Nuclear weapons are designed for the purpose of creating an area of complete and total destruction of an area, and the complete disruption of any attempts in the immediate aftermath to repair damage and make the area habitable again. There is no way they could be used without massive "collateral" civilian damage. As such, I think it is a sin to even build them, and I can't fathom the thought that someone who would be willing to drop one of them from an airplane would have no regrets over the murder of innocent civilians in such high numbers.

 

And just what is the basis for this statement?

 

Seems to me that with their oil imports crippled, their Navy virtually non-existent, and the bulk of their remaining forces essentially stranded on the asian mainland, we could have waited it out. Remember also that their experienced veterans were mostly dead already...

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT a liberal by any means. But there are almost always multiple paths available to defeat a potential enemy without the (suicidal) frontal assault.

 

The Japanese woulda fought to the death had not the emperor ordered the surrender. The biggest mistake Truman made was listening to his advisors and not indicating at Potsdam that the emperor would be allowed to remain in office under a shogun.

However, I believe that, if foeced to fight, be it a street fight or a war, nothing matters but victory.

 

However, I believe that, if foeced to fight, be it a street fight or a war, nothing matters but victory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One must maintain some standards of morality, even in wartime. You seem to imply that anything goes, just as long as we win. Ends justify the means? This is the very argument used by Al Qaeda, in killing innocents all over the world today. You also seem to imply that we could not have won the war without the use of a horrendous device. As I implied, you cannot field an effective military without the economic means to sustain it. It was just a matter of time.

I do agree with your statement concerning the Potsdam conference, however.

Tim

 

What rsr said; the fact that the US is the only country to have used a nuclear device (or two) in anger makes all this sabre-rattling over the proliferation of WMDs more thana tad hypocritical (" We can have 'em and use 'em but no-one else can. Nyanya!")

"No regrets"...unless you happened to be one of the tens of thousands of Japanese civilians, including children, killed (especially slowly and horribly) or maimed by those two bombs. I'm sure they regret it quite a bit.

A "necessary evil" it may have been, but let's not lose the "evil" part for the sake of the "necessary"; let's call evil evil, not good.

Yours in Christ

Matt