I disagree.

The discourse is perfectly appropriate in my opinion. I don’t have a strongly held belief on whether the bombs were the right call or not. But I think we should continually revisit our confidence that it was the right decision by reminding ourselves that we knowingly killed women and children to save the lives of Soldiers. (Yes, I understand the counter-arguments—this is a conversation I have had standing at the trinity site talking with knowledgeable historians who agreed with its use).

Would I have made the same decision as Truman? Man, I don’t know. Gun to my head…I think I would have wanted to invade the mainland of Japan first. I might have tried to demonstrate the power of the weapons to the Japanese (an option they discussed at the time). I’m not saying I would never have dropped the bombs, I’m saying I probably would have done a lot more things before dropping them. And I say this knowing it may have cost tens or hundreds of thousands of more American lives in the end with possibly the same result.

Also, what do you do if the Japanese don’t surrender after Nagasaki? Do you make more bombs and keep nuking cities? Do you kill everyone?

What I really object to is the consequentialist ethics espoused here. I’m ardently anti-consequentialist. Once you claim that the ends justify the means, any projected end can be forecasted and any means justified. But Peter and I will likely have to agree to disagree on such deep questions.

I don’t think Peter is wrong to say that it was justified to use the bombs. I disagree with the certainty and the reasoning.

Thanks for the thought provoking post, Peter!