Was Hiroshima Necessary?

[Tamayo]

What does necessary even mean?

Justifiable.

 

[Hezam]

Anyone who thinks it's just and right he is not different from Nazis who justify the holocost.

 

[Haruspex]

Justifiable is another nebulous thing.

It implicitly presumes that the actors involved operate with guidance from moral values, yet that is often not so. From a 21st century popular moral viewpoint, it's easy to conclude that the indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and the infrastructural and economic damage is difficult to condone, but were all the responsible actors driven by ethical norms?

It's kind of like preaching veganism to an anthropomorphic wolf. Yeah, he'll listen to your sermon and he might even nod in ostensible agreement, but he will keep his eyes on the flock in the distance.

As for the question of the moral debate... well, morality is so subjective that it's altogether pointless to argue a moral point because it will only lead to the idle exchange of scornful words in protection of arbitrarily chosen, vacuous values.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

From a 21st century popular moral viewpoint, it's easy to conclude that the indiscriminate destruction of civilian life and the infrastructural and economic damage is difficult to condone, but were all the responsible actors driven by ethical norms?

Since the 19th century, laws of war making it completely clear not to take the war to civilians have been written out in plain black and white. That is true even if the victors who prosecute war crimes consistently fail to take seriously the intentional murder of civilians by soldiers in war, preferring to always concern themselves with crimes committed on their own soldiers then call it a day.

Its hard to believe that after WWI that the allies did not prosecute Germans for their naval bombardment of British coastal towns. But as far as I know, the events were used for recruitment purposes then essentially forgotten about.

Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is also true of Germany's "rape of Belgium" during WWI, the Zeppelin raids on London, as well as the bombardment of towns and cities on both sides in both World Wars. Yes, it is completely obvious that if you are warring with a man, you don't go kill his wife and children. Its not debatable. Its just something low-life snakes can get away with, aided by people allow them to twist all logic, sense and decency in search of loop holes in the rules. The morals broken by these actions are obvious and pretty much universal.

 

[Haruspex]

Since the 19th century, laws of war making it completely clear not to take the war to civilians have been written out in plain black and white. That is true even if the victors who prosecute war crimes consistently fail to take seriously the intentional murder of civilians by soldiers in war, preferring to always concern themselves with crimes committed on their own soldiers then call it a day.

Its hard to believe that after WWI that the allies did not prosecute Germans for their naval bombardment of British coastal towns. But as far as I know, the events were used for recruitment purposes then essentially forgotten about.

Raid on Scarborough, Hartlepool and Whitby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is also true of Germany's "rape of Belgium" during WWI, the Zeppelin raids on London, as well as the bombardment of towns and cities on both sides in both World Wars. Yes, it is completely obvious that if you are warring with a man, you don't go kill his wife and children. Its not debatable. Its just something low-life snakes can get away with, aided by people allow them to twist all logic, sense and decency in search of loop holes in the rules. The morals broken by these actions are obvious and pretty much universal.

For thousands of years of recorded history humans have been trying to extract guarantees out of each other and out of human-constituted bodies such as the state. Socially binding promises, contracts, political promises, treaties... We've seen it all and it's been made amply clear that the aforesaid guarantees have as much power as the amount of detriment that may be caused to the burdened party in the event that he fails to honours the agreement. Laws are nice and all, but when dealing with states claiming sovereignty, it becomes incredibly difficult to police them.

If there were clear-cut, self-enforcing rules about the killing of civilians, we wouldn't be discussing the matter here - it would be completely irrelevant! Low-life snakes? Twisting all logic and sense? While not expressly stated, I can feel an anthropocentric world view at play. The morals you mentioned are neither obvious nor universal. Normal, perhaps, but that is determined by whether the majority of the members of society espouses something... and that doesn't mean much when it comes to objective truth. Norms differ across societies and societal values change.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

The morals you mentioned are neither obvious nor universal.

Oh, I think they are if one is not simply out to weasel out of them. Self-delusion can make even the simplest truth seem preposterous. Hardly counts as an excuse in my book.

 

[Haruspex]

Oh, I think they are if one is not simply out to weasel out of them. Self-delusion can make even the simplest truth seem preposterous. Hardly counts as an excuse in my book.

Wherefrom do these morals stem? Who made them? Who gave them to us? Who enforces them? Which law of nature prescribes that they be followed? One glace at physics reveals the universe to be an amoral place. If you can't point towards an authoritative source of prescriptive and binding statements, your argument is stillborn.

Oh yeah, a quick remark. Claiming something to be obvious does not make it so.

So, yeah, evidence supporting the existence of universal, prescriptive rules would be kinda to the benefit of your claim.

I mean, the Aztecs thought it was a pretty cool thing to tear out the hearts of living people. You probably think they might have been a tad mistaken, but who's to decide who's right? God? You? An appointed arbiter of arbitrary arbitration? Nature? Nah, there's no one. The large scale destruction of human life -which our species oh so adores, t'would appear- is just a big bundle of factual data completely divorced from the whole polarised morality, black and white, right and wrong, angels and devils collective psychosis that humanity seems to suffer from.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Well I still think a reasonably intelligent mind, capable of logical thought, reasonably dedicated to the question, will come up with the morality that you do not intentionally kill innocent men, women and children for the sole reason that they are from the same country as the men in uniform and politicians you are fighting, and that all excuses are inapplicable. A bit less intelligent and one should be able to recognize the clear truth of that if someone else said it first.

I suppose it may also depend on how much one can divorce himself from his monkey emotions. I think it can be done even without empathy, although empathy (something of a monkey emotion) might lead one to the same conclusion with less intelligence and logic.

Perhaps we can simply agree that most of humanity is not so intelligent, not so capable of logical thought, and not so capable of divorcing themselves from their monkey emotions? Perhaps also not even so empathetic (particularly males, the ones who make war in the first place)? It certainly explains a lot that goes on to me.

 

[nahadef]

Derfel is posting as I'd imagine a young person who recently realised their religion was a sham. It's all well and good to make these statements about the relativity of morality and the thousands of years of human history that show we're not as moral as we'd like to think... But when it comes down to it, if he/she were walking down a darkened street one night, and were accosted by a gang and beaten, I'm sure they would see it as injustice or unfair. Same as if Aztecs tried to rip out their heart. Derfel would not rationalise his own suffering as easily as he does others'.

Just because humans have done terrible things in the past does not mean that we should expect that of them and find it acceptable. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. We live in the world we build, not simply the one we're born into.

 

[Haruspex]

Well I still think a reasonably intelligent mind, capable of logical thought, reasonably dedicated to the question, will come up with the morality that you do not intentionally kill innocent men, women and children for the sole reason that they are from the same country as the men in uniform and politicians you are fighting, and that all excuses are inapplicable. A bit less intelligent and one should be able to recognize the clear truth of that if someone else said it first.

I suppose it may also depend on how much one can divorce himself from his monkey emotions. I think it can be done even without empathy, although empathy (something of a monkey emotion) might lead one to the same conclusion with less intelligence and logic.

Perhaps we can simply agree that most of humanity is not so intelligent, not so capable of logical thought, and not so capable of divorcing themselves from their monkey emotions? Perhaps also not even so empathetic (particularly males, the ones who make war in the first place)? It certainly explains a lot that goes on to me.

You don't need morality to oppose suffering on emotional grounds. I don't think that death and suffering are morally reprehensible, but considering my human biology, I dislike them, so given the opportunity, I would act to minimise them. The discussion doesn't need morality because most agree that death and suffering are undesirable from a human perspective, no need to place that subjective bias on a pedestal.

Derfel is posting as I'd imagine a young person who recently realised their religion was a sham. It's all well and good to make these statements about the relativity of morality and the thousands of years of human history that show we're not as moral as we'd like to think... But when it comes down to it, if he/she were walking down a darkened street one night, and were accosted by a gang and beaten, I'm sure they would see it as injustice or unfair. Same as if Aztecs tried to rip out their heart. Derfel would not rationalise his own suffering as easily as he does others'.

Just because humans have done terrible things in the past does not mean that we should expect that of them and find it acceptable. We need to hold ourselves to higher standards. We live in the world we build, not simply the one we're born into.

Hmm, not really spot on. I haven't had a tragic occurrence in my life, coupled with a grim revelation, to trigger a face-heel-turn, so that's a bit off. I have been cynical since as far as I can remember. While I have never had Aztecs rip my heart out, or even make an attempt, I used to live in the easternmost and poorest county of Hungary, where conflict between Hungarians and the Romani gypsies was frequent and it was not unheard of for one to be assaulted just walking down the street and mugged. It had happened to me multiple times (I wasn't mugged, just beaten up) and, I must admit, for a brief while I felt as if the world had wronged me by allowing such an injustice to occur, but within a couple of hours, I discarded the thought. It's all too easy to think in anthropocentric terms and invariably people will have anthropocentric ideas, but it would be folly not to make use of our mental capacity to rein in our less-than-logical selves.

I agree that we shape much in this world, and I am not siding with aimless destruction and strife, but I simply do not care for the subjective values selectively espoused by people. Condescend to me if you will, but that does not supply your claim with any additional persuasive force.

 

[TokyoTom]

I just read a thing recently that says Osama Bin Laden justified blowing up the World Trade Center on 9/11 because of Hiroshima. Sadako Sasaki's last wish before she died was for peace on Earth. Her brother who is still alive says that time heals all wounds, and he has "forgotten which country dropped the bomb." My main reason I love Japanese people so much is because of their wisdom. I wish I were Canadian. So many people hate my country.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I just read a thing recently that says Osama Bin Laden justified blowing up the World Trade Center on 9/11 because of Hiroshima.

You just dropped a bomb yourself! I am trying to find a difference between the two and not coming up with much of an answer.

 

[Hezam]

I just read a thing recently that says Osama Bin Laden justified blowing up the World Trade Center on 9/11 because of Hiroshima. Sadako Sasaki's last wish before she died was for peace on Earth. Her brother who is still alive says that time heals all wounds, and he has "forgotten which country dropped the bomb." My main reason I love Japanese people so much is because of their wisdom. I wish I were Canadian. So many people hate my country.

It's rude to compare 9/11 to hiroshima and nagasaki, It's two big cities not two towers.
How could someone ask ( Was Hiroshima Necessary? ) !!
What if someone asked ( Was 9/11 Necessary? ) what would you say ?

i love America before WW1...it was the true America.

 

[nahadef]

It's rude to compare 9/11 to hiroshima and nagasaki, It's two big cities not two towers.
How could someone ask ( Was Hiroshima Necessary? ) !!
What if someone asked ( Was 9/11 Necessary? ) what would you say ?

There is a huge difference between an active war (WWII) and a terrorist attack, and I say that as someone who doesn't support the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. It is rude, and more than a little ignorant.

i love America before WW1...it was the true America.

No, you need to do the history. Try starting with the Trail of Tears. There really is no era of America that 100% embodies America's idea of itself.

 

[Hezam]

Man, Trail of Tears reminds me of Fall of Andalus

Fall of Andalus:

Trail of Tears :

 

[Mark of Zorro]

There is a huge difference between an active war (WWII) and a terrorist attack,

Active war? Maybe you mean "an act of war"?

A terror attack is still a terror attack even in the context of war and even when perpetrated by military personnel and elected leaders. Even with more fingers on the trigger, its still a terror attack.

Although I have to say I have issues using the term "terror attack" since both seem to be less about terrorizing innocent people and more about murdering them.

Anyway, if you want war, al-Qaida had been at war with America for a long time. It was al-Qaida responsible for the embassy attacks in 1998 and the bombing of the USS Cole. They even have connections to the 1993 attack on the WTC. It was well known we were at war with al-Qaida at the time. Everyone just chose not to call it a war as it suited them, same as they now call Afghanistan a war even though war has not been declared. Its the same old denial. Same old song and dance.

As for pre-WWI America, I think we need to go back to pre-Spanish-American War times. At least America was isolationist then. But it seems that war got started with an American made false-flag operation, and it ended up with America having a colony in the Philippines and their new government got brutally repressed.

Sure there was no clean moment of American history, but at least they were only butchering people at home for a little more than one hundred years before going global postal.

Learning about the Trail of Tears was the beginning of the end of my American history public school brainwashing. Still took decades to really get rid of it, such is the power of brainwashing. But even knowing of the Trail of Tears most Americans will be brainwashed for life. They view the Trail of Tears as an aberration, rather than the culmination of a murderous pattern of behavior that it truly was.

Anyway, in the grand scheme of principle, the differences between 9/11, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are paltry. Both killed hoards of innocent people to send a message to other people. That is what they boil down to. Its also interesting to note that neither side actually got the message. Both Japan and America act like perfect victims to this day, based on the true victimhood of those who died. Its a sham. Not only is it denial, its fraud.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

I suppose its worth remembering that while America was not meddling with other technical countries until the Spanish-American War, they were stealing the colonies of others and the land of Native American tribes (which could be considered on par with countries, even if not official technical countries.)

 

[Majestic]

I suppose its worth remembering that while America was not meddling with other technical countries until the Spanish-American War, they were stealing the colonies of others and the land of Native American tribes (which could be considered on par with countries, even if not official technical countries.)

Anyway, in the grand scheme of principle, the differences between 9/11, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are paltry. Both killed hoards of innocent people to send a message to other people. That is what they boil down to. Its also interesting to note that neither side actually got the message. Both Japan and America act like perfect victims to this day, based on the true victim-hood of those who died. Its a sham. Not only is it denial, its fraud.

You have to remember that Thomas Jefferson sent US warships into the Mediterranean to stop the "Barbary States" from enslaving US citizens and extracting tribute from the US and European countries, an action that had to be followed up by James Monroe. So one has to be careful about imagining that the US was a pacifist power until the Spanish-American war (shameful as that war was).

I also think its dangerous to be too reductionist about the use of force. When Osama Bin Laden determined that God had ordered the death of innocent Americans, and that Jihad against all Americans was the sacred duty of all Muslims, it was a different moral proposition than the atomic bombing of one warring state by another warring state, even though the end result is that civilians died. The US did not claim that God had commanded them to murder Japanese, and the US did not continue murdering Japanese civilians under divine sanction. The war ended, and the US set about dismantling the religio-fascist one-party state, freeing the slaves who were supporting the Japanese military, feeding the Japanese (who were facing famine conditions in the winter of 1946), rebuilding its infrastructure and establishing a constitutional democracy with safeguards for the rights of minorities and women. As despicable as the targeting of civilians is, these are things worth remembering.

And, for what its worth, I wouldn't think its particularly fraudulent to think the US was collectively victimized as a result of 9/11. Likewise, I think the Japanese have legitimate claim to have been victimized by the dropping of the atomic bombs. Both the US and the Japanese might be accused of overplaying the victim card, but I would think that saying any claims of victimhood are fraudulent is probably overstating the case.

 

[Hezam]

Majestic, Osama Bin Laden was not dumb like Bush, He knew that state against state means Bush is the winner.
And Osama was right, Americans are guilty, How ? Let me tell you, Your government take tax from every single american citizen, Some of that tax money goes to Israel in two ways, A) Cash. B) Weapons. So other people ( palestinians+Arabs ) get killed every single day for over 60 years ago until this moment. So please tell me, Aren't American people guilty ?
In the other hand, If Osama Bin Laden had nuclear weapons and if he used them against the U.S and win like the U.S won against Japan, Would you say what you said above ?
Further more, Didn't Bush said "This Crusade will take while" ?

You want to ask "Do you justify killing all Americans ?"
The answer is NO, i blame who has the control, the Government, Because American people have no vote anymore.

If the US gov was removed already, Israel wouldn't exist at this time. and At least Arab would live like Kings and Princes not like slaves as they are now.

God or president, it doesn't matter who commands, What matters is what you do.

 

[Majestic]

Hello Hezam,

Your argument is confusing, and maybe not as coherent as you think it is. You say that Americans are guilty, but later you say that you don't believe killing them is justifiable. I have to ask, which is it? And you leave the question of Hiroshima in an ambiguous situation.

Osama says in his second fatwa: "in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it."
He didn't say taxpaying Americans. This question of tax-paying is a technicality you have invented, I think. For if you are going to complain about taxes, you must also acknowledge that these taxes went to protect Muslims from genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These taxes went to protect your Muslim brothers in Kuwait, and in Kurdistan, and in the marshlands of southern Iraq, and much more. The US gets severely criticized because it supports the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia with weapons. You cannot pretend that US tax money does not support Islamic nations.

So in answer to your question, no Americans are not all guilty, and to say they all are and they deserve divine punishment in the form of death is the definition of an extremist position. Regarding your question of "what if Osama had an atomic bomb"; I'll repeat that what is important is the situation of internationally recognized war, the motives for the bombing, and the treatment of the defeated after the bombing. So I do think the US dropping of the atomic bomb was morally reprehensible, but less so than the killing of civilians by a non-state entity who decided that God had commanded him to kill any and all Americans for religious reasons. So Osama's attack on the US was morally indefensible, and had he attacked with an atomic bomb it would have been even more so, to a degree I cannot begin to imagine.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Americans are guilty, How ? Let me tell you, Your government take tax from every single american citizen,

I cannot agree with that Hezam. If you don't pay your taxes, you go to jail like Wesley Snipes. All Americans are under duress. That said, I cannot deny that about half of Americans ARE guilty, because it is known that about that number support all the rubbish, crimes and death that the American government and military perpetrate overseas. I wish we could round them up and separate them from those who don't so that everyone knew who to target, but sadly, that is not going to happen. People cry about human shields...well I feel like a human shield for American war lovers and carpetbaggers.

Just let me assure you that not one penny of money I gave up in taxes to the U.S. federal government was given willingly. And I really have not given much.

You want to ask "Do you justify killing all Americans ?"
The answer is NO, i blame who has the control, the Government, Because American people have no vote anymore.

That is more like it. But believe me, I don't care what happens to those who even would have voted alongside the U.S. government over recent wars and ESPECIALLY the cowardly drone murder program.

You have to remember that Thomas Jefferson sent US warships into the Mediterranean to stop the "Barbary States" from enslaving US citizens and extracting tribute from the US and European countries, an action that had to be followed up by James Monroe. So one has to be careful about imagining that the US was a pacifist power until the Spanish-American war (shameful as that war was).

Well, I never said the U.S. was a pacifist power. I said it was (essentially) isolationist.

Speaking of how TJ dealt with the barbary pirates, you got to love TJ. He struggled with the legitimacy, morality and constitutionality of his decisions more than any man I know of save maybe John Adams. But TJ had to fight a real physical battle while Adams only had to prepare. And damned if TJ did not do the right thing in the right way. I sure wish that example had been heeded with regards to al-Qaeda.

As despicable as the targeting of civilians is, these are things worth remembering.

The point of that paragraph is taken. Bombing of cities aside, it was a fine moment for America. I am critical of many things, and cognizant of many ills committed during the war, but I know of no better example in history of one nation helping a former enemy get back on its feet like that.

But I think we also have to consider that we don't know what al-Quaeda and bin Laden would have done if somehow they found America surrendering to them. There is so much I cannot agree with or abide by with any religious leaders, but I am aware its not all fire and brimstone. Religion has had positive and even rational effects on the world despite my belief that it is generally founded in irrationality. I only know Hezam on the net, and while we don't agree on everything, he is a really good guy as far as I can see. We agree on plenty, and I know that his opinions have been shaped by Islam.

Not to say I think being ruled by bin Laden would have been swell, but I just don't know how he would have been in victory. That said, I am glad I never found out!

And, for what its worth, I wouldn't think its particularly fraudulent to think the US was collectively victimized as a result of 9/11. Likewise, I think the Japanese have legitimate claim to have been victimized by the dropping of the atomic bombs. Both the US and the Japanese might be accused of overplaying the victim card, but I would think that saying any claims of victimhood are fraudulent is probably overstating the case.

As I abhor all manifestations of nationalism, I cannot agree. But I appreciate that you are consistent in thinking both America and Japan can claim victimhood, and even more I appreciate that you can say that the Japanese were victims. Those two points are more important than my feelings about nationalism.

 

[Hezam]

Hello Hezam,
Your argument is confusing, and maybe not as coherent as you think it is. You say that Americans are guilty, but later you say that you don't believe killing them is justifiable. I have to ask, which is it? And you leave the question of Hiroshima in an ambiguous situation.

They are guilty for not preventing the gov from bombing other people, That's why i said "Americans have no vote anymore" i know that they are forced to pay tax and that's why they are not to blame, they are not in war with people whom their gov is killing. Osama bin Laden is WRONG with targeting civilians, i dont and i will not justify targeting civilians.

Osama says in his second fatwa: "in compliance with God's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims: The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it."

i know and he can keep his Fatwa for himself, You did not see Muslims attacking Americans like Zombies after his Fatwa, nobody ( sane ) would agree with him.

He didn't say taxpaying Americans. This question of tax-paying is a technicality you have invented,

I didn't say "kill poeple who pay tax" i wanted to tell you that without these tax money the gov wouldn't support criminal systems and wars.

I think. For if you are going to complain about taxes, you must also acknowledge that these taxes went to protect Muslims from genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These taxes went to protect your Muslim brothers in Kuwait, and in Kurdistan, and in the marshlands of southern Iraq, and much more. The US gets severely criticized because it supports the Wahhabi regime in Saudi Arabia with weapons. You cannot pretend that US tax money does not support Islamic nations.

Do you know that the Saudi regime and Kuwait regime are standing against Muslims ? do you know what they really are ? they are along with Iran, are the biggest enemy for Muslims.
and for Bosnia, the US supported them against the communists and after the war ended America started hunting Mujahideen...

So in answer to your question, no Americans are not all guilty, and to say they all are and they deserve divine punishment in the form of death is the definition of an extremist position.

They are lazy, and not brave to force the gov to Stop the killing machines. But this doesn't justify violence against them.

Regarding your question of "what if Osama had an atomic bomb"; I'll repeat that what is important is the situation of internationally recognized war, the motives for the bombing, and the treatment of the defeated after the bombing. So I do think the US dropping of the atomic bomb was morally reprehensible, but less so than the killing of civilians by a non-state entity who decided that God had commanded him to kill any and all Americans for religious reasons. So Osama's attack on the US was morally indefensible, and had he attacked with an atomic bomb it would have been even more so, to a degree I cannot begin to imagine.

It's the same, My point is, it doesn't matter what the motive is, religious or not, dropping a nuclear bomb on civilians weather it's Osama or Bush, it will kill civilians in the end...

 

[Hezam]

Zorro, i completely agree with you, my point is killing civilians is a crime regardless of who or why.

 

[Majestic]

We know that Osama probably wouldn't have been a champion of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, rights for homosexuals, rights of minorities, etc... We know Osama didn't like music, so I fear that the radio would be a dreadfully boring thing. I don't know what he felt about the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Bamiyan, but I fear he probably agreed with it, or at least he didn't care about it. I don't know what he would think about women driving, or women being seen in the company of men who weren't their husbands or their relatives, but I can take a fair guess. I guess the point is that we do know a lot of his philosophy and his worldview, and it seems that one of his complaints wasn't that Wahhabism was too conservative, his complaint was that it wasn't conservative enough. So it doesn't take a very vivid imagination to consider what life would have been like under a bin Laden regime. But maybe this is a point for another thread.

I still reject this concept of collective guilt of Americans, either for the taxes they pay, or for not rebelling against the US government, but I accept that this is a chasm between us that will not be bridged. As for Saudis and Kuwaitis and Iranians being the enemy of Muslims, I think this is probably not the view of Organization of Islamic Cooperation. In Bosnia, the US supported our Islamic brothers and sisters in opposition to the Catholic exteme right. Call them communists if you like, but US taxes saved an Islamic nation from genocide at the hands of Catholics, and continues to get little appreciation for it. Again, perhaps a point for another thread.

 

[Jeremy Andrews]

Hiroshima?

As an American, that's not a moment in our history that I'm particularly proud of. I've heard that the military did not expect the bomb to be quite as powerful as it was. I would like to think that if they had known, they would never have used it. But I can't be sure of that. They might have felt it was revenge for Pearl Harbor, especially with all the war propaganda.

It cannot be denied that the US did horrible things to the Japanese during WWII. There were even internment camps we created for Japanese-Americans. They were alarmingly similar to Hitler's concentration camps for the Jews. But that's off-topic, I suppose.

The entire war was fairly barbaric. The entire thing occurred at a point where morality had not caught up to technology. The concept of a "war crime" was quite new at this point in history; before then, it was all governed by traditions and common sense. The old codes and tactics that once governed battles had become obsolete, battle became bloodier and more mechanical. You no longer had to look your enemy in the eye. People mowed each other down with machine guns, gassed each other, bombed each other, fired at each other for days in trenches. They were led by commanders who were clueless about modern warfare and that also increased casualties. There was so much desperation and death.

Was Hiroshima necessary, though? No, I think the war could have been won without using the atomic bomb. But I have to say, it is understandable that they used it. That doesn't make it right, but think about this way. The whole situation was already ridiculous. A European war never should have involved the US and Japan. It shouldn't have been our fight at all. But the US allied with Britain, and Japan allied with Germany, and both sides had too much pride and too much at stake to back down.

I suspect the commanders of the US forces fell pray to a common human weakness. Aside from a desire for revenge on a people who they felt started the war, there are other factors to consider. I'm sure they reasoned that if the Japanese had developed the atomic bomb first, they would not have hesitated to use it on us. Second, what would you pick if you had to choose between the death of one person you know, and a thousand strangers? Morally, the first choice seems obviously right, but human nature would often drive us to pick the second one, would it not? Finally, the Japanese were regarded as dishonorable people who don't honor their agreements at this time. It was probably felt that if they were able to stand against us again, they would, regardless of any peace agreement. So they reasoned that they had to intimidate Japan so much that they'd never be able to stand against us again.

The use of that weapon was horrible, yes, perhaps even a war crime. But remember that we were the first nation ever tasked with deciding when the use of such a powerful force was appropriate, and it shouldn't be surprising that we made the wrong choice. I just hope we don't make any more decisions like that.

Anyway, I feel that the only real way forward is for both sides to acknowledge their mistakes, and accept peace. If continued anger or a sense of injustice is allowed to cloud everyone's mind, then more lives may be senselessly lost. I see no purpose at all behind anyone else dying. A whole generation has passed since that war, and most of the people alive today had no part in it. I hope that things remain positive between our countries.