Show Gun

Yesterday was the anniversary of the dropping of the second bomb.

I am a committed pacifist, but I am resolute in my position on two things relating to the use of nuclear weapons on the Empire of Japan - Little Boy ended the Second World War and despite the massive loss of human life - the use of a Nuclear Weapon at such an early stage of the technology's development gave the world a first hand look at the carnage that was wrought, and as such, no responsible government will ever do it again. Imagine what would have happened if the first bomb had not been dropped until (say) 1965? Our civilization would no longer exist.

The use of fat man and little boy actually saved lives. Instead of both sides losing soldiers and civilians for the following three to six years as the Americans slowly beat back the inferior and under-resourced Japanese Navy and Air force, the Americans limited their exposure by swiftly demonstrating their superiority. It is unfortunate that those who died were civilians, but when you wage war - an enemy civilian is worth less than a man with a family in Kansas. That may sound disgusting, but the bottom line is that America did not attack Japan. They brought that shit on themselves.

Revisionists who believe that the use of atomic technology on "civilians" constitutes a war crime are naive and are taking a deliberately narrow view of waging war. Berlin, Dresden, Paris, London, Pearl Harbour, etc all had collateral damage. The Great War was worse. Before the 20th Century, all civilians were also soldiers whenever their King/Queen said so. Waging wars has dramatically changed in my life-time, and I would agree that yes - when looking through today's kaleidoscope- using nukes on cities would be horrific - but that doesn't make it a war crime. It makes it an "effective deterrent."

Where Mr. Truman and I split, however, is where you drop the bomb. I think the Americans should have used an intermediary to get a Japanese Scientist and Diplomat to a deserted island in the Pacific, or to a minor military installation with few/if any civilians. Tell them to watch the island from a secure location at 12:00. After the island is incinerated, tell the diplomat he has 24 hours to secure a surrender, and if it isn't achieved, the same thing will happen to Hiroshima. Tell the Diplomat that any new escalation or advances in that 24 hour period would be met with an immediate incineration of ten cities (even though they couldn't do it because they didn't have enough bombs). With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, we can do anything.

In the real world, it didn't take long for Japan to formally surrender after the second bomb dropped. The result of the surrender was a boom in tourism for P.E.I. and the now famous Article 9 of Japanese constitution. Today, that same article is the object of significant debate in Japan as the populace is openly questioning the value of relying on the Americans for defence from North Korea and, more importantly, China. The last two decades have seen Osaka based Marines involved in disgusting incidents with locals, and a lot of residents want them out. Given recent history, would YOU trust the U.S. military to protect you?

Seriously, many of whom believe the Americans would no longer engage to protect Japanese sovereignty if not because of their blossoming economic interests in China, because it is now a nuclear power with the largest standing army in the world. China has demonstrated military ambitions facing East and South, and might not stop there. There are many people who feel that the U.S. would rather get out of the way leaving the land of the Rising Sun open for an eclipsing wave from the West (puns intended).