Interesting read.

I don’t understand the “after the fact” debate about the use of atomic weapons against Japan, since conventional bombing raids killed “millions” of people in WWII.  There were firebombing raids that killed many more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.  The 2-day Allied firebombing of Dresden killed over 150,000.  They say the winds were over 200 miles per hour in the city! A 1-day raid against Tokyo in 1945 killed over 100,000.  I understand that people were shocked that so many could be killed with one bomb, but those people were just as dead as if an atomic weapon had been dropped.  What’s the difference then if it’s one bomb or several thousand tons of bombs?  The carnage and the horror are the same.

The author makes one little mistake in his analysis of the decision to release atomic weapons against Japan.  He says that Truman ordered no further release of atomic weapons after Nagasaki.  That was a good order because there WERE NO nuclear weapons to release until several months later.  There were shells of the bombs, but none had the core available for installation.  That’s pretty significant because Truman would have had to consider what to do if the Japanese didn’t surrender after witnessing the demonstrations of the weapons.  If we “blew our wad” with the demonstrations, there would have been no weapons to release operationally.

I agree with the author’s conclusion that the weapons probably saved lives on both sides.  That is why our current military strategy is that of the use of overwhelming force.  The intent is to destroy an opponent’s ability and will to fight as quickly as possible, which would end major hostilities faster (with presumably fewer casualties) than if limited force was applied.  I know…MB is a warmonger!