I have to leave for work in five minutes and I'm not even out of my PJs yet, but I simply cannot pass up this entry without saying something.
First of all - HAPPY BIRTHDAY! :)
Second of all - I hate shorts too. Skirts are so much better. :)
And third...
I don't know about the idea that we warned the Japanese civilians in advance. I can't dispute or support that without further research. What I know is this: When Truman announced to the world that we'd dropped the bomb on a *military base*, it was a lie that conveniently omitted 75,000 civilians. And two days later, when we dropped the SECOND bomb on Nagasaki, we brought that conveniently omitted number up to well into the six digits.
Someone (and I'm not going to say who, because I don't want the name to influence people with preconceptions when the words are so astute) once said: When people say that dropping the bomb was what we had to do in order to end the war *faster*, then you can ask them: "If killing 100,000 American children would have ended the war faster, would that have been an acceptable price? And if not, why was killing 100,000 Japanese children acceptable?"
I completely agree that a strong leader should put the good of his country before the good of his career. There are a lot of world leaders whose willingness to act without hesitation has 'impressed' me, even when I don't agree with their actions. I just don't happen to think that a willingness to kill first and embrace law and peace second is a healthy course of action to choose. Yes, there are times when you have to be swift, decisive, and willing to do the ugly deed for the greater good. But I think when the "ugly deed" involves so very much death, you might want to stop and reconsider whether it's actually for the *greater* good, or your own satisfaction.
Anyway, enough spamming. I just remember reading personal accounts of Hiroshima too, and it makes me sad to see that letter. :(
no subject
First of all - HAPPY BIRTHDAY! :)
Second of all - I hate shorts too. Skirts are so much better. :)
And third...
I don't know about the idea that we warned the Japanese civilians in advance. I can't dispute or support that without further research. What I know is this: When Truman announced to the world that we'd dropped the bomb on a *military base*, it was a lie that conveniently omitted 75,000 civilians. And two days later, when we dropped the SECOND bomb on Nagasaki, we brought that conveniently omitted number up to well into the six digits.
Someone (and I'm not going to say who, because I don't want the name to influence people with preconceptions when the words are so astute) once said: When people say that dropping the bomb was what we had to do in order to end the war *faster*, then you can ask them: "If killing 100,000 American children would have ended the war faster, would that have been an acceptable price? And if not, why was killing 100,000 Japanese children acceptable?"
I completely agree that a strong leader should put the good of his country before the good of his career. There are a lot of world leaders whose willingness to act without hesitation has 'impressed' me, even when I don't agree with their actions. I just don't happen to think that a willingness to kill first and embrace law and peace second is a healthy course of action to choose. Yes, there are times when you have to be swift, decisive, and willing to do the ugly deed for the greater good. But I think when the "ugly deed" involves so very much death, you might want to stop and reconsider whether it's actually for the *greater* good, or your own satisfaction.
Anyway, enough spamming. I just remember reading personal accounts of Hiroshima too, and it makes me sad to see that letter. :(