An Important Anniversary

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Houston Chronicle on Saturday, August 6, 2005, the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. I think I have met its author, but it has been quite some time since.

Even in 1945 there was a small minority who believed that an estimated 1 million American military casualties to subdue the militarist Japanese political system was preferable to the use of atomic weapons.

However, if war is to be fought, there is only one "best" strategy: We pound the enemy so far into the dirt that every member of their ruling political system is irrevocably removed from power for breaking the peace.

Only unconditional surrender held any promise of preventing the Japanese from grasping for empire again.

The Japanese reformed themselves under the tutelage of U.S. Army Gen. Douglas MacArthur, but it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore that the Japanese were guilty of crimes as evil as anything the Nazis perpetrated. Admittedly the scale was smaller, but the intent of the evil was not that different. The Japanese had no concern for any segment of humanity that was not Japanese, and mercy was considered a weakness of character.

There is no valid rationalization for the opinion that another 100,000 American military and perhaps upwards of 1 million Japanese would have to die so that 200,000 others could avoid atomic deaths. Because of the bombs "Fat Man" and "Little Boy," at least 100,000 Americans came home alive, and an estimated 900,000 came home whole.

Is our country and the world not a better place because these members of the Greatest Generation lived? Are these Americans less important than the Japanese bomb victims because they were able to survive?

The cruel and unusual nature of the bomb victims' suffering is not a compelling reason to condemn President Harry S. Truman's decision to end the war. Considerably more than 200,000 civilians and prisoners of war suffered cruel and inhumane treatment when the Japanese military refused to observe any humanitarian concerns for any of their enemy (in or out of uniform). Regrettably, the Japanese ruling class earned both of those bombs.

That the populations of two cities (including their women, children and old men) bore the brunt of their leaders' punishment is a striking example of how cruel the fortunes of war can be when you're on the wrong side or the losing side -- even if you're a noncombatant.

Here's the good news: It is very possible that you or I exist, have friends or a spouse because 200,000 Japanese died horrible nuclear deaths in August 1945.

M. MEANS Missouri City

I completely agree with this and was glad to see it actually get published in the Chron.

One point needs further elaboration, and Don over at Anger Management does this when he discusses the fates of innocents in war.

When a man's government steps beyond its proper bounds, when it violates his liberty, it is his responsibility to secure his liberty (either by working to change the government or by leaving the country). If he doesn't, or can't, he has to endure the consequences (just as he must endure the consequences if he won't or can't feed himself).

The citizen of an aggressor nation may very well be innocent (although usually he isn't), but he cannot ask the innocent nation (or its soldiers) to bear the painful consequences of the actions his government initiated -– since he is responsible for his government.

This is why nothing overrides the principle that a nation defending itself may use whatever means necessary to destroy its enemy as quickly as possible with as few casualties on its side as possible. And it is that principle that makes the use of the atomic bomb to end World War II one of the most profoundly moral acts of the 20th Century.

I am glad that Harry Truman made the decision he did, difficult though it was.

-- CAV