Sunday, August 14, 2005


My Dad wrote a letter to the editor yesterday, about the debate over whether it was necessary, or moral, to use the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. I talked about this just a few days before with Sugu when he called, because he had been there in Hiroshima during the anniversary; read about it right here.

Sugu thinks it was a mistake. My Dad, like most other people of his generation, thinks it saved more lives than it cost. And probably it saved the lives of both my grandfathers, who fought in Europe and had orders to join the fight in the Pacific (including an invasion of Japan) until Japan surrendered. If we hadn't used the bombs, I probably wouldn't be here. Nor would my Dad, or my Mom. Does that make it right? What exactly was right about anything in that war? We killed just as many or more people firebombing Tokyo and Dresden as we did in Hiroshima. Like my father points out, Japan killed just as many, or more, in Nanking. Millions of people would have died in an invasion of Japan. The Russians would have invaded from the north, as they planned, and Japan would have been cut in half like Germany was. If it survived at all. For my part, I prefer to think of all that was gained from the war, rather than what was lost.

In repsonse to the wildfire discussion sprung up by Caitlin's posts about book sales and reviews (mostly reviews), she lays down the law. You may have to scroll down a bit, to the Saturday post.

No comments: