I’m certainly not arguing that the Japanese military leadership was some bastion of humanitarian principle.

First let me say, I value all life, and am neither tribalistic nor nationalistic. I can say unequivocally that by any definition of terrorism (Truman’s stated intention was to incur so much devastation and fear amongst the population that they would have to capitulate to the Potsdam Declaration), the use of atomic weapons was without a doubt the most heinous terrorist attack in human history

The extreme estimates on American losses were predicated on Japan waging “total war.” A logistic impossibility for one, but a political improbability for another. The civilian leadership (on behalf of the shame of the citizenry) had already capitulated, and were pressing (with some success) the Emperor to surrender, of which truly the last hold out was a strong cultural and historical concern for the very center of their way of life, the Imperial lineage. This point utterly underscored by our top political scientists and scholars who sought to employ that tradition during reconstruction.

Will you answer my questions, or would you prefer to erect another strawman?

The United States planned on continuing to drop nuclear bombs on Japan until they surrendered. There were at least 7 additional bombs planned for that purpose.

Considering that the magnitude of their indiscriminate destruction became known after just the first one. How exactly would you characterize the plan and position of pursuing perpetual nuclear bombings of Japan? Would eradicating all non-insect life from the Japanese mainland be thoroughly justified for their lack of surrender?

Prior to Hiroshima the civilian leadership of Japan were already attempting to compel the emperor to surrender. The fleets were destroyed, their resources horribly constrained, and their territorial strongholds were collapsing day-by-day. The hold outs to surrender were the military leadership, and they did so largely because the United States had made it crystal clear that the Imperial lineage would not be allowed to stand. It was a condition of every surrender.

Considering that the last hold-out position of the Japanese was to maintain their culture and tradition of Imperial lineage, and that we refused to give on that point, leading ultimately to the dropping of two atomic weapons. How do you characterize the fact that we ultimately allowed the seat of the Emperor to continue, as it was a useful political tool during the reconstruction?

And by the way, the Japanese had been brutal and merciless conquerors of all the countries they invaded. Also, the Japanese military leadership didn’t give two shits about their civilian population or Imperial lineage. They wanted to fight and take as many Americans as possible with them in the hope that Americans would lose their political will to continue to fight and would end the war on more favorable terms to Japan.

Considering that the magnitude of their indiscriminate destruction became known after just the first one. How exactly would you characterize the plan and position of pursuing perpetual nuclear bombings of Japan? Would eradicating all non-insect life from the Japanese mainland be thoroughly justified for their lack of surrender?

Prior to Hiroshima the civilian leadership of Japan were already attempting to compel the emperor to surrender. The fleets were destroyed, their resources horribly constrained, and their territorial strongholds were collapsing day-by-day. The hold outs to surrender were the military leadership, and they did so largely because the United States had made it crystal clear that the Imperial lineage would not be allowed to stand. It was a condition of every surrender.

Considering that the last hold-out position of the Japanese was to maintain their culture and tradition of Imperial lineage, and that we refused to give on that point, leading ultimately to the dropping of two atomic weapons. How do you characterize the fact that we ultimately allowed the seat of the Emperor to continue, as it was a useful political tool during the reconstruction?

There’s also a compelling political reason. It is unlikely that the secrecy lid could have been kept on the A-bomb much longer. This would have especially been the case if the Trinity test in New Mexico had been a success, as it was, and then Truman decided not to use the bomb as soon as possible thereafter. The invasion of Kyushu was scheduled for November 1, and the limited intelligence that was available about the defenses on that island was striking fears in the planners that the Operation Olympic would make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like a day at the park. When the resultant thousands of new gold stars began appearing on the service flags in the windows of American homes and it became known that President Truman had decided against using weapon so shocking in power that it might have ended the war within days, he’s have been lucky to escape Washington with his life.

All his mistakes, well most, arose from listening to the great grand strategic thinkers. Then again how could a man of his background resist? Truman was the most ‘common man’ president, perhaps ever.

“The most racist, nastiest act by this country, after human slavery, was the bombing of Nagasaki. Not of Hiroshima, which might have had some military significance. But Nagasaki was purely blowing away yellow men, women, and children.”

http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0603

One was too many. Two was absolutely vile.

moralists and Monday morning quarterbacks came crawling out of the woodwork

OK, who else would you like to dehumanize today? Language has power. Did you really mean to compare those whose moral conscience is seared by the reality of such mass violent death and suffering to insects?

War will never end as long as we humans make these cost/benefit analyses with human life. This has been addressed here at fdl several times in recent weeks, in criticizing the torture apologists.