pjbogart wrote:Actually, I think the real question is: "Even if we are to assume that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the 'right' things to do, is it necessary for you to dance on their graves 70 years later?"
How many of us would not be posting on this forum today had the invasion of Japan gone forward?
My father was in the Pacific in 1945. Merchant Marine but supply ships got sunk too. Had his ship gone near Japan before August 1945 instead of after the surrender, they would most likely have been exposed to attack.
The Japanese had 12,000+ planes, all planned for kamikaze use more under construction. They had 18,000 pilots and could train more in hours (6 hours to fully train a kamikaze pilot). At Okinawa, one in 9 kamikazes scored a hit. In an invasion, because the ships would have been much closer, it was forecast that 1-6 would score.
They also had 900,000 men in the army in Japan, most of them in the area where the invasion was planned. That doesn't count the civilians who would have fought to their deaths. Would you be happier to have American troops machine gunning hordes of 10 year olds armed with spears? Or napalming them?
So I am glad the war ended when it did. I don't have a problem with how we ended it. Not even the least moral qualm.
Sorry you don't seem to agree.
I am not "dancing on graves" but in the same we we remember D-Day, the fall of Berlin and other victories, I have no problem remembering Hiroshima and Nagasaki as ending the war, saving hundreds of thousands of US lives and perhaps as many as a million net Japanese lives.