Dare I say that the U.S. atomic bombing of Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, Japan, were, are, and, will continue to be, a controversial issue. If you were to ask me of my opinion on the matter, I (who, like many of you, wasn’t around when THAT decision was made), off the top of my head, would say that I would have preferred a different course of action.
I think that, as we consider this, we ought to attempt to see THAT decision in the context in which it occurred. The U.S., undeniably, had attempted to avoid entering the war, and only entered the war when definitively U.S. interests were attacked. Japan’s primary ally in the war, Germany, had been defeated, at a cost of millions of lives, after an all-too-successful assault upon her neighbors in Europe. Japan’s assaults against the U.S. had also been turned back, likewise, at a cost of numerous military casualties. Military experts assured our government leaders that a successful invasion of the Japanese islands (one alternative considered to bring the Japanese to surrender) would be long, costly, and difficult. Let’s be clear here … the Japanese were beaten (though today we might have talked about the threat of Japanese terrorism … remember the kamikazi’s?), and Germany was beaten. On the other hand, the specter of a Soviet threat was growing (it is widely accepted that the dropping of the bombs was as much to intimidate the Soviets, as it was for any other purpose). It is in the midst of this highly-charged political context that the decision to drop atomic bombs on (2) Japanese cities, each connected, in some way, with the Japanese war effort, was made. The documents say that Truman initially specified that only military targets would be considered, but somehow that resolution was lost/modified, so that the highly civilly populated cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were ultimately targeted, resulting in a massive loss in civilian life.
Fast-forward to September 11-13, 2001. Terrorist attacks on the U.S. destroy/damage significant landmarks in key American cities. It is estimated that the number of American casualties will exceed 10,000. All U.S. air-travel is grounded for a period of no less than (2) days. American citizens stage a massive rescue/recuperation effort for victims of the attacks. The president promises Americans that justice will be meted out to those responsible, and thousands are assigned the task of ferreting out the truth.
I predict that the action ultimately taken by the U.S. government, in response to the terrorist attacks, will be measured, and will be focused toward eliminating the threat of further terrorism in the world.
Hopefully, the measures taken will be more effective than the, apparently, ineffective measures we’ve taken in response to terrorism in the past. I was shocked to learn that the (6) individuals convicted of the original bombing of the World Trade Center in ’93 (6 killed, 1000 wounded), are each currently serving life-sentences. Of course, (1) of (2) convicted participants in the more recent Oklahoma City bombing has been executed, and the state of Oklahoma is gearing up to try the other participant, Terry Nichols, with the death penalty as a goal. As regards this latest act of terrorism on U.S. soil, the current investigative activity by the Federal Government suggests that the accordance of recompense ONLY to those actually guilty (whether of the crime OR of harboring the criminals), rather than mounting a more broad response, even in regard to those dancing in the streets, is yet a guiding principal.
Do I see moral progress?
JustAThought
