Powered by WebAds

Thursday, August 06, 2015

Hiroshima was right and moral - an Iranian nuclear weapon is not

As you can see above, with today being the 70th anniversary of the US atomic bomb on Hiroshima, part of John Kerry's pitch for the Iran sellout in Asia is 'to prevent another Hiroshima.'

That's wrong on so many levels. As you can see, in the tweet above, I focused on what I saw as an odious comparison between the United States in World War II and Iran. But it's wrong on so many other levels. You see, dropping that atomic bomb on Hiroshima was the right thing to do.

That's not to say that we cannot empathize with the innocents who suffered terribly as a result of that bomb being dropped 70 years ago this morning. It doesn't mean we cannot feel the pain of families who had loved ones snuffed out in a second that morning. But we have to understand that sometimes there is no choice and that the ultimate weapon must be used.
Immediately after Germany surrendered unconditionally, the Allies urged Japan to do likewise, or it would suffer horrible consequences. Yet, Japan stubbornly refused. The most it was willing to do was to surrender conditionally. And what conditions did it demand? That, for one thing, it be allowed to keep China and some of the other lands it had conquered. (Yes, the same China where they had committed war crimes on a scale unheard of in human history, even in German-occupied Europe.)
Yes, you’ve read that correctly: even with their backs against the wall, even with their cities being firebombed and their navy on its knees, the Japanese were STILL deluding themselves that they could keep China and their other takings in mainland Asia. They were STILL refusing to surrender unconditionally as of August 5th, 1945.
It was not until the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the Japanese warlords and Emperor Hirohito finally understood how hopeless their situation was. On August 14th, they communicated to the US government their willingness to surrender unconditionally.
As for the claim that dropping the atomic bombs was immoral, it’s also a lie, for a simple reason: it was the Japanese who started the war in Asia (and against the United States) in the first place. They were the aggressors – not the US. And unlike the US, they committed massive war crimes, on a scale not seen anywhere else in all human history – not even in German-occupied Germany: massive slaying of entire villages, cities, and provinces, burying people alive en masse, and of course, massive rapes and massive use of sex slaves.
Last, but certainly not least, by using nuclear weapons, President Truman made sure that an Allied invasion of the Japanese islands would not have to happen. Before the atomic bomb was used, the Japanese were preparing to defend their main islands to the last man, woman, and child. They were teaching children how to fight and preparing them to strap TNT to their chests and walk up to Allied tanks to blow themselves up near them.
Allied strategists forecast that an invasion of the main Japanese islands would cost up to – or even more than – 1 million killed, wounded, and missing on the Allied side. No one even knew how many Japanese soldiers and civilians would die in such an invasion, but knowing the fanaticism of the Japanese and their willingness to sustain heavy casualties, the Allies assumed such casualties would be numbered in the millions.
Had there been a conventional invasion of the main Japanese islands, there would’ve been a repeat of the bloody battle of Okinawa, but on a much greater scale: massive body counts on both the Allied and the Japanese side.
Both the American and the Japanese people should be eternally grateful to President Truman for saving millions of American and Japanese troops, as well as millions of Japanese civilians. His decision was absolutely the right one – based on what he knew in August 1945, when he made that decision, and based on what we know today.
So what exactly is Mr. Kerry's comparison? Maybe his thought is to ensure that Iran can defend itself against nuclear weapons where Japan could not? Or maybe he just wants to promise that the United States will never use nuclear weapons against Iran no matter what it does? 

The comparison between Hiroshima and Iran is deeply disturbing. Perhaps an intrepid State Department correspondent (hello @APDiplo) could take it up with them.

Labels: , , , ,


At 12:45 AM, Blogger InMemoryOf Yossi said...

Carl, you have to understand that these people do not know history. The progressives have changed history. Christopher Columbus was a monster. They teach history starting AFTER the Civil War!!! Whites are horrible racists, every single last one of us.
And yeah, to them, it was awful to drop the bomb. Just like they don't look 10 years down the line now. As long as there is no nuclear bomb on his watch, Obummer is still the messiah. Doesn't matter he will have enabled it. You keep getting shocked. They no longer shock me, because they are just plain crazy. They bury their heads in their butterfly, lollipop, and unicorn universe where they never run out of other people's money and you can trust an anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semite.
All that pot he smoked stunted his emotional and mental growth. He's still stuck in the '60s. Obummer's explanation is that he is out to destroy American. He's doing an excellent job, and I don't think it will be repairable.
We need Moshiach!!!!!!!!!!


Post a Comment

<< Home