I both agree with and disagree with the above post. It is
true that the firebombing of Tokyo was every bit as deadly and destructive as the atomic
bombs, yet apparently was not terrible enough to make them surrender. So one could
assume that a blockade might not have worked either, and would, in fact, have been slow
motion death for tens of thousands of Japanese as they starved to death. No morally
better than the bomb.
What if, instead of demonstrating the
bomb on a deserted island, they bombed Mt. Fuji, the largest mountain in japan, visible
to much of the country, and also a great and historical religious symbol to the people
and the Emperor. Perhaps that would have convinced them to surrender, or convinced the
Emperor to allow them to. Of course, we'll never
know.
There is another consideration. Using the bomb
announced to the world that we had it, and it worked. This began a very, very costly
arms race with the Soviets (hundreds of billions that could not be spent on social
needs) and even today we are dealing with the legacy of nuclear weapons spreading to
other countries, and possibly into the hands of terrorists. I'm not sure that was worth
a quicker, easier victory over Japan by using the atomic bombs.
No comments:
Post a Comment