I'm a young guy, and all of this happened way before my time... but the ambiguous morality of the bombs' use ("Was there a different way? No, Yes, No, Yes!") does nothing to diminish the tingle in my spine when I read about this man's uncanny ordeal. I'm amazed at Mr. Yamaguchi's gracious attitude towards the Americans. He asks, "How could they do that?" and the article makes it seem like he is more bewildered or curious than angry. I hope this world--and my country, the United States, in particular--never forget the dire consequences of those brutal weapons.
I was intentionally trying to avoid the "was it fair, should they have done it" argument, because it's an infinite loop debate. When I quoted Mr. Yamaguchi as saying, "How could they do that?", I was not echoing his question, but commenting on the state of mind he was in when he asked it.
I am neither smart nor wise enough to comment confidently on whether the bombs ought to have been dropped or not.
What's the benefit in 'not forgetting'? Even when the first one was fresh in the memory, it didn't stop the US from slaughtering another 100,000 civilians with the second, did it?
Here's a thought. I'm not claiming it's true or correct, but it's how I understand things ...
Looking at it from the outside, as a non-participant who has studied (and practised!) game theory and strategic decision making, it seems obvious and clear as to what happened, and the reasons behind it.
When you're on the inside, maybe it's different. Maybe it's hard to divorce feelings from reason, emotion from rationality. Maybe the reasons, although logical and reasonable, don't seem to make sense.
Surely a different viewpoint changes your perception.
Looking at it from the inside, perhaps he can't see what you can see - simply and dispassionately.
Looking at it from the outside, maybe you can't understand how he feels.
The second bomb is more difficult to justify than the first, true, but I do find the morality of the first bomb ambiguous. The article itself indicates that to the Japanese military leaders, surrender was not an option; with civilians considering killing their family when the enemy invades, I don't think that surrender was being considered.
The amorality of the atomic bomb is sometimes attributed to civilian casualties, but soldiers are humans too, and saving soldier lives actually has value. And although some might say that soldiers chose to be in the war voluntarily, this should not be used against soldiers. Otherwise less soldiers will volunteer, making the draft inevitable.
And having soldiers and an army in a large country is a necessity. If such a country has an inadequate army it does not get peace, it gets invaded. I do not like to imagine what would have happened to the US if its army were not stronger than the Japanese army.
If you haven't actually read this, please do. Such a powerful read. Intense, moving, and emotional. If you're having a tough time getting into it, skip to the 2nd picture.
But a must read. Don't just vote up, skim and move on.
