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.
The claim of "perhaps even zero" makes mockery of everything, that line in itself is enough to deem the opinion of the author invalid and insipid.
There were already deaths. The battle was ongoing, WHILE THE PLANES WERE IN THE AIR. More deaths occurred between the bombs dropping and the surrender! That alone automatically makes their claim a lie. To claim that NOT stopping your enemy from murdering your people will magically prevent all deaths is insane.
And I guess the author was a big fan of the abductions and Raping of Nanking, huge fans of rape and kidnapping that author. Like, Japan was a cartoon villain in that war, because their morality was such a different perspective from ours.
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.
The claim of "perhaps even zero" makes mockery of everything, that line in itself is enough to deem the opinion of the author invalid and insipid.
There were already deaths. The battle was ongoing, WHILE THE PLANES WERE IN THE AIR. More deaths occurred between the bombs dropping and the surrender! That alone automatically makes their claim a lie. To claim that NOT stopping your enemy from murdering your people will magically prevent all deaths is insane.
And I guess the author was a big fan of the abductions and Raping of Nanking, huge fans of rape and kidnapping that author. Like, Japan was a cartoon villain in that war, because their morality was such a different perspective from ours.