the number of American deaths prevented by the two bombs would almost certainly not have exceeded 20,000 and would probably have been much lower, perhaps even zero,”
I like and respect Japan today. In some ways, I even respect it more than the US, at least when comparing the modern state of both nations. I think it's too bad that many Japanese civilians died, both in the atomic bombs and in the more conventional bombing campaigns. But, that is a war. One that Japan started. In a war, a leader's first duty is not to the civilians of the enemy nation, nor are those lives even equal to the lives of his own people. If the bombs saved even 20,000 American lives then, as the American president with a duty to protect Americans, Truman was right to drop them. As for the statement that it may have saved zero American lives, I assume that's predicated on the idea that Japan could have been brought to the negotiating table to end the war at essentially any moment if we hasn't demanded surrender terms that were quite so steep. That's an idea I've heard before, and I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not well developed in this article. In fact, it's a claim so drastic and also so unsupported that it makes me suspect the quality of the entire rest of the reasoning presented.
Indiana farmers from a 12 sibling family all living within 10 miles of each other. I'd spend summers there learning about how easy it is to maul yourself with farm equipment. Most of the men were missing at least a finger, some a hand. That's when I decided to be anything other than a farmer. That's a no shitter.
I had a number of relatives who were pretty much subsistence farmers from Arkansas join the Navy because they thought it was exciting and had never seen an ocean. They all served in the Pacific. Amazingly, they all made it back home. They didn't talk about it much but they did say the Japs were "pretty serious" when it came to a fight.
I like and respect Japan today. In some ways, I even respect it more than the US, at least when comparing the modern state of both nations. I think it's too bad that many Japanese civilians died, both in the atomic bombs and in the more conventional bombing campaigns. But, that is a war. One that Japan started. In a war, a leader's first duty is not to the civilians of the enemy nation, nor are those lives even equal to the lives of his own people. If the bombs saved even 20,000 American lives then, as the American president with a duty to protect Americans, Truman was right to drop them. As for the statement that it may have saved zero American lives, I assume that's predicated on the idea that Japan could have been brought to the negotiating table to end the war at essentially any moment if we hasn't demanded surrender terms that were quite so steep. That's an idea I've heard before, and I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's certainly not well developed in this article. In fact, it's a claim so drastic and also so unsupported that it makes me suspect the quality of the entire rest of the reasoning presented.
I had a bunch of relatives that were in the Pacific Theater who were very concerned about surviving the invasion of Japan.
They were white men, did they actually matter? /s
Indiana farmers from a 12 sibling family all living within 10 miles of each other. I'd spend summers there learning about how easy it is to maul yourself with farm equipment. Most of the men were missing at least a finger, some a hand. That's when I decided to be anything other than a farmer. That's a no shitter.
Edit: grammar.
I had a number of relatives who were pretty much subsistence farmers from Arkansas join the Navy because they thought it was exciting and had never seen an ocean. They all served in the Pacific. Amazingly, they all made it back home. They didn't talk about it much but they did say the Japs were "pretty serious" when it came to a fight.