If North Korea is bad…
Tim Swanson,
May 25, 2009
… for detonating a nuclear bomb comparable to the one dropped at Hiroshima, then what about Truman and the crew of the Enola Gay?
How was Harry’s decision any different than Kim’s? After all, as David Kramer recently noted, if Truman executed 144,000 Japanese civilians by firing squad, his actions would have been described as a mass murderer — which is just what Kim would be branded as.
Time to come clean about this whitewashed travesty.
See also: Nagasaki Mayor Says, ‘Thanks for Putting Us On the Map’
Jon Stewart: Wimp, Wuss, Moral Coward
Andy
May 25th, 2009 at 8:28 am
The only real reason Washington’s hegemonists oppose North Korea having nuclear weapons is because it will be one more country they can’t bully and impose their will upon. Does anyone think Washington would have bombed Serbia for 78 days if that country had had nuclear weapons? When another country acquires nuclear weapons it obtains an insurance policy against Washington’s bullying and interference in its affairs. North Korea no longer has to cry uncle when it locks horns with Washington. This is the same reason Israel doesn’t want other countries in the middle east to have nuclear weapons while hypocritically having its own stockpile. Nuclear weapons give you a free licencse to bully – as long as the countries being bullied don’t have them.
Realist
May 25th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Actually, the crew of the Enola Gay – who must be ranked as some of the greatest heroes of the twentieth century – saved millions of Allied and Japanese lives:
“A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.”
Japan in 1945 was a highly militarised society with little distinction drawn between civilian and military spheres. The whole of the Japanese population were going to be used in the fight against the allied invasion.
You and many other Americans might not be alive today were it not for the geniuses who developed the bomb and the heroes who delivered it.
Kenneth
May 25th, 2009 at 9:04 am
It is sufficient to answer this paltry exercise in question-begging by noting that the Japanese, by this time, were more than prepared to surrender and would have done so had their Emperor been explicitly exempt from prosecution under the terms of the Potsdam Declaration- and that, furthermore, this was known to the American government, which had succeeded in cracking Japanese codes.
Realist
May 25th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Ah yes: the infamous request for immunity for Hirohito the war criminal.
Kenneth
May 25th, 2009 at 10:31 am
I see you’ve not replied to the substance of my argument, a sure admission of intellectual defeat.
Kenneth
May 25th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Additionally, Hirohito was never brought to justice anyway, so the dropping of the bomb was for naught.
sven
May 25th, 2009 at 10:37 am
The comments above by “Realist” mirror the nauseating editorial in the New York Post of August 6, 2001 — which antiwar.com Editorial Director and columnist Justin Raimondo so eloquently debunked in his column dated August 8, 2001. The following excerpt is particularly relevant to the post of “Realist”:
“A panel set up by President Truman to study the Pacific war issued a report, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, in July 1946, which declared,
‘Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.’
The report was suppressed, ignored, and shoved down the Memory Hole.”
Raimondo’s entire column, well worth reading, can be found here:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j080801.html
A. G. Phillbin
May 25th, 2009 at 11:29 am
That’s not actually as clear as it seems, at first glance. Keeping Hirohito on the throne (and thereby exempt from prosecution) was not the only condition that the Japanese presented. Two other conditions were added. One concerned war crimes trials, which were proposed to be placed under the jurisdiction of the Japanese military. The other was that any demobilization of the Japanese military was to be supervised and carried out by – can you guess – the Japanese military! We can only guess how that would work out!
Another problem was that no one could be absolutely certain that the entire Japanese military was on board with any surrender plan that might have been discovered by cracking coded messages. Even AFTER the bombing of Nagasaki, a coup attempt by die hard Japanese officers aimed at imprisoning the Emperor, in order to prevent him from ever reading the surrender order. It very nearly succeeded.
Leaving aside “Realist’s” rather stupid paen to the “heroes” of Enola Gay (the “heroism” of shooting fish in a barrel), it is certainly true that if the US invaded Japan’s home islands, American casualties would have been horrific, and Japanese casualties would have been far worse. The American invaders would undoubtedly have subject the surviving population to one of the most bestial occupations in history, after having fought their way through both military and civilian resistance, and I doubt even MacArthur would have been able to prevent it, assuming he would want to.
Did the US have an alternative to the two atom bombs? Well, they could have dropped one over the ocean, or a sparsely populated area, but given that some Japanese military officers attempted a hard line coup AFTER Nagasaki, who could really say if that would have brought about surrender?
A. G. Phillbin
May 25th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Very true. The US wants an unlimited license to bully, and if possible to corner the bullying market.
wadosy
May 25th, 2009 at 11:51 am
what’s with all this quibbling about the bombs and japan?
we’ve abandoned all moral standards except “might makes right”, and since we are the mightiest military in the world, we can impose our moral standards retroactively.
no sweat, GI.
Andy
May 25th, 2009 at 11:59 am
It was the foolish “unconditional surrender” policy of FDR and his cronies that hobbled any attempt to offer or accept terms from Japan that was the real problem. Ditto with Germany. I would mention Tojo and his clique that began the war were removed in 1944. That was a clear sign that Japan wanted some kind of peace negotiations. This “signal” was missed by the American government.
Sam
May 25th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Glad you found that link to rebut. One interesting thing about those who “profess” that opinion about the bombing is that they are so “certain” about their prognostication. They actually can “see” the future without the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they “know” how that future would be. The interesting thing is that their zeal is the same as a religious zeal. Those who profess religion are “certain” of the past and “certain” of the future. Any questioning of that is heretical. The military has the same trappings as a religion, hieracrchy, garments, icons (medals), etc. For the religionist, it is “faith” and for the militarist it is “honor.” Meanwhile the beautiful hymns are written for the military and the religion, the flock is impressed and the money, oh how the money, just keeps flowing and flowing. Jimmy Swaggart has nothing compared to these guys.
wadosy
May 25th, 2009 at 12:26 pm
i gots to admit that japan puzzles me.
after vietnam, i extended overseas for six months to go to japan, and i developed a deep respect for japanese… especially after the third time i blew up my sansui speakers and the japanese PX people replaced them, showing nothing more than a barely noticeable dissatisfaction… and even then, you had to wonder if the dissatisfaction was for me, or for sansui, who’d guaranteed the speakers against the watts pumped out by the sansui amp.
the girls seemed to have depths of humanity that, looking back…
and now japan seems to be what america was supposed to have become by now, only they’ve done it better than we would have… it’s just too bad that it’s all obsolete.
they seem to be servants of the american empire… i expected better of them…
but it’s still early, and i guess i still have faith in the japanese.
Charles Martel
May 25th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Sort of like those geniuses in Vietnam who had to destroy the village to save it, right?
Ali
May 25th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Realist,
Obviously, you very well understand deep down, what heinous crime America has committed by using the Atomic Bomb against the civilian population of another country. The civilian population of a country that was conclusively defeated in the every inch of the theater of war. The lies you try to perpetrate are clear testimony to the vehemence of the condemnation that America deserves for committing that crime, and for reserving the right and means to commit that crime again.
shocked at stupidity
May 25th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
who are you people? comparing Truman to Kim jong-il you out to be drug out and shot in the foot, since there is obviously nothing in your head. I guess you thought Saddam Hussein was an Abraham lincoln, or wait Slobodan Milosevic was the Jimmy Carter of the Serbs….and Sven all the Japanese had to do was surrender…they didn’t until after the second bomb and the bluff of a third targeted for Tokyo. Ask the Chinese how benevolent there Japanese liberators where.I hope you guys get what you want. A USA that minds its own business and leaves the rest of the world to its own devices.
wadosy
May 25th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
doesnt look like you’re gonna be able to salvage this situation. in fact, it looks like the project’s turned into a cover operation for the final looting of america.
maybe some benevolent world power will have enough charity to nuke us once we’re on our knees.
Andy
May 25th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Even If I were to accept every thing you say here, that would only make the actions of the Enola gay crew an neccesarry evil, not heroic or great. Imagine a hypothetical scenario. A plague is spreading In Miami, Florida. If left unchecked it will kill 20,000,000 Americans. The president can also immediately drop an atomic bomb on the city, wiping out its populace and burning out the plague virus. Say 500,000 Americans die in option two. There is no heroism or greatness here. It may be justifiable but that’s all.
Andy
May 25th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
“A USA that minds its own business and leaves the rest of the world to its own devices”…
That is exactly what I want, at least from the point of view of military intervention in non-vital affairs. That would be the very best thing for the world and America too. A win-win situation. America never should have picked a fight with an unwilling Spain in 1898 or declared war on the central powers in 1917. It led to Versailles, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, WW2, the cold war, Korea, Vietnam. America never should have attacked Iraq. I don’t know why you think American military interventionism is a positive thing for the world. All available evidence indicates to the contrary.
Orville H. Larson
May 25th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
An incisive analysis, Andy. The U.S. Government doesn’t like to pick on countries its own size. (Not that they should pick on ANYONE, mind you.) North Korea has an atomic bomb? They just joined the nuclear club–get used to it.
Harry Truman–the failed haberdasher, the “Senator from Pendergast,” atom-bombed two civilian cities. Japan in August 1945 was militarily finished. Nothing was getting in or out, owing to the USN’s control of the seas. The USAAF was bombing the hell out of ‘em at will.
Another thing: Opinion was not monolithic in favor of using the bomb. Ike, Admiral William D. Leahy, USN and others opposed its use. In any case, Truman went ahead and incinerated two civilian cities.
No war crimes trial for Truman. Unlike the Germans and Japanese, he was on the side that won. That makes all the difference.
subHuman
May 26th, 2009 at 12:47 am
God Bless North Korean Dear Leader for standing up to anglo-american Dear Leader!
The WORLD is not anglo-american + satraps alliance of TERROR!
Lear K
May 26th, 2009 at 6:50 am
Did not Obama pledge not to press Israel on its nuclear weapons?!
Lear K
May 26th, 2009 at 6:57 am
The real question that should be asked,in my humble opnion, Does the US have any right to decide which nation can have nuclear weapons?
Brad Smith
May 26th, 2009 at 8:01 am
Yes that is the real question. I think the answer is pretty obvious. But I’ll state it anyway. The US (the only country in the world that has ever used a nuke on people) has no business telling anyone that they can or can’t have nukes.
Peace!
Andy
May 26th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Morally or ethically absolutely not. If there were a valid geopolitical reason, other then maintaining American hegemony, that would be a different story, although I can’t think of any such reason off the top of my head. Actually given America’s long history of agressive interventionism in other countries affairs, especially in non-strategic places, I would say most countries are quite justified in trying to obtain nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against America. Serbia, Panama, Iraq, even the Rolling Thunder aerial campaign against North Vietnam, I don’t think any of these things would have happened had the countries in question had nuclear weapons.
Obvious Guy Says
May 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
“comparing Truman to Kim jong-il you out to be drug out and shot in the foot, since there is obviously nothing in your head.”
Truman wanted Stalin’s attention – he got it.
The Hermit King wants the world’s attention – he got it.
Neither of them really needed the bomb to achieve what they wished for but resorted to it anyways.
They are the same.
iggy
May 26th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Until Israel is forced to admit to it’s nuclear capabilities and crimes of the past 4 decades, peace will not come, and more and more countries will attempt to become nuclear. Israel is the biggest impediment. Here we are, a country totally broke, and we are still giving billions to Israel to support settler madmen who do not work and spend all their time attacking old men Palestinian farmers who have no way to defend themselves. Not only do the settlers carry machine guns, but they are supported by IDF soldiers. On top of this, we are forced to give Egypt comparable billions so they remain neutral while Israel carries out its genocidal crimes. We have to cut off Israel and Egypt both and force Israel into allowing the IAEA to monitor their nuclear capabilities. Israel should at the very least have to live up to the same IAEA examination that Iran has been living up to the past few years.
iggy
May 26th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
I totally agree with you about Japan. And to think we have occupied their country with dozens of military bases for over 6 decades now! The USA currently has over 1000 bases in other countries! There is no other country that even comes close to us in this regard. Do we really need 1000 bases? I think we would be way better off copying countries like Japan and Germany, who have proven themselves much more worthy than us. They both have achieved amazing things despite both being occupied countries and saddled with paying billions in bogus reparations. Unfairly I should say. But that is what happens to the losers of wars I guess. Germany especially has been hit the hardest with the bogus overpaid “reparations”, which had been paid in full many decades ago, but still continue to be paid to relatives.
Roslyn
May 26th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Hear, hear, Iggy.
Eric
May 27th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Actually, Andy, Pakistan is proof that even having nuclear weapons doesn’t spare a country from being bullied by the US.
In fact, the US’s national interests, prerogatives, and security would be little affected by Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapons capability.
It is only Israel’s capacity to bully Iran that would be severely diminished. It’s bad enough when the US foments war to protect its own crass prerogatives. But the US is fomenting war only to protect Israel’s crass prerogatives – even though such a war could very well be suicidally costly for the US and everyone else on the planet.
Lear K
May 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
“Obama Calls on World to ‘Stand Up To’ North Korea” read the headline. The United States, Obama said, was determined to protect “the peace and security of the world.”
Shades of doublespeak, doublethink, 1984.
North Korea is a small place. China alone could snuff it out in a few minutes. Yet, the president of the US thinks that nothing less than the entire world is a match for North Korea.
We are witnessing the Washington gangsters construct yet another threat like Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, John Walker Lindh, Hamdi, Padilla, Sami Al-Arian, Hamas, Mahkmoud Ahmadinejad, and the hapless detainees demonized by the US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as “the 700 most dangerous terrorists on the face of the earth,” who were tortured for six years at Gitmo only to be quietly released. Just another mistake, sorry.
The military/security complex that rules America, together with the Israel Lobby and the financial banksters, needs a long list of dangerous enemies to keep the taxpayers’ money flowing into its coffers.
The Homeland Security lobby is dependent on endless threats to convince Americans that they must forego civil liberty in order to be safe and secure.
The real question is who is going to stand up to the American and Israeli governments?
Who is going to protect Americans’ and Israelis’ civil liberties, especially those of Israeli dissenters and Israel’s Arab citizens?
Who is going to protect Palestinians, Iraqis, Afghans, Lebanese, Iranians, and Syrians from Americans and Israelis
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05272009.html
Andy
May 27th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
The Israeli tail wags the American dog. None of America’s mideast foreign policies are in its interests. They only serve to benefit Israel. That just shows you what a powerful, organized, well-financed and determined lobby can accomplish in a corrupt and dysfunctional political system.
Andy
May 27th, 2009 at 12:15 pm
When did it become the job of the U.S. to “protect the security of the world”? Why not just protect America? North Korea is not a threat to America. But the military-industrial complex needs something to justify its parasitic existence.
Andy
May 27th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
It would be in the best interests of both Japan and the USA to sever all military ties. Note that I said MILITARY ties. I’m all for cultural, social and economic ties.
Philthyrex
May 28th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Something that I haven’t seen mentioned here or at another similar posting about the “millions of lives saved” by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is this; we didn’t have to invade them and fight until a surrender either! Those numbers are just speculation about an action that wasn’t the only necessary alternative to the slaughter of Japanese civilians by atomic bombs. Japan could never launch a full scale invasion of the US, that is a lot of ocean to cross! Considering the amount of damage that our conventional bombing had already done, described in the horrifying film “The Fog of War”, we could have contained Japan, or at least maintained a vigil of defense of our west coast. Was surrender necessary if they can’t hurt us? Just like Iraq; is it necessary to declare victory if it does us more harm than good? It seems to me foolish pride, our obsession with American military “victory”. Bring ‘em home. Line them up at the borders if you are really that scared of the outside world. Peace, Phil
lacoste
November 21st, 2009 at 5:56 am
Supra Shoes
Supra Cruizer Shoes
Supra Skytop