He may have considered the killing of over 140,000 Japanese in the blink of an eye in a civilian city with no military significance the greatest thing in history, but too many what the US did against Hiroshima and days later Nagasaki where another 100,000 died, is amongst the roll call of humanities greatest atrocities where almost a quarter of a million innocent people died instantly.
The Enola Gay pilot said that he had been asked many times if he regretted what his team did that day and he said no and that he was proud to be on the Enola Gay that day which says something about a man directly responsible for probably the greatest number of deaths by a human in so short a time.
I do get that it was war and tales of Japanese brutality and mistreatment of prisoners was widely known but why America chose a civilian city and not used against a military target is open to speculation.
They did not even need to slay so many innocent people, a show of strength on one of the uninhabited islands with a warning that this could be one of your cities next time would have achieved the same reaction from the Japanese if this was their aim.
To drop such a horrific weapon and kill so many civilians when the Japanese were negotiating an end to hostilities stinks of America wanting to impress the Soviets, to lay down a marker that they are the top dogs now and they have the Atomic Bomb to prove it.
The only silver lining is that the devastating accounts from Hiroshima was so shocking and the death toll so huge, that hopefully, nobody will ever be reckless enough to use them ever again.
3 comments:
every target in japan was both civilian and military. they didn't have separate military bases in isolation from cities.
and, the cities had manufacturies that were building war machines.
and, while the a-bomb was terrible, almost as many people were killed by massive fire bombing, it just took several days instead of one brief moment.
war is hell. japan had no mercy on koreans, manchurians, fillipinos, and they started the shit with the US by attacking pearl harbor.
their were no better alternatives. though i will consider alternatives if you suggest them...
it is too easy to criticize without offering a better alternative - and it is done far too often.
it is straight up a political maneuver to undermine the credibility of some targeted person or group. and, for something like decades old history, ridiculously speculative.
'it (sic) is too easy to criticize without offering a better alternative'
I will leave you to find the many better alternatives i and others have offered up on here.
Post a Comment