History, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary, War Commentary

Hiroshima

55 Comments

I agree with Glenn:

All this talk about the Hiroshima bombing being a war crime is just virtue-signaling, mostly by people who would regretfully acknowledge the unfortunate necessity of obliterating, say, Texas…

[Update a while later]

No, Brian Williams, we did not use atomic bombs against Japan “in anger.”

As I said, second-guessing historically ignorant moral midgets.

[Update Saturday morning]

Hiroshima as gun control:

It is instructive to consider that if president Obama had been transported to 1945 nobody in the audience would have understood what he was talking about. By the same token Harry Truman would be scarcely comprehended if sent into the 2016 future to address the modern Democratic electorate. That is because these men, separated by 70 years, saw the arrow of causality as working in a manner opposite to the other.

To the World War 2 generation threats to mankind came from ideologies which once allowed to spread would automatically find the things necessary to effect destruction. The Atomic Bomb was incidental. An ideology on the loose in the 21st century would invent something else far more deadly. To that way of thinking a creed which vowed to destroy “the American way of life” would be seen as a menace with the same fervor that moderns would regard it as harmless. The ideas would be central, the things secondary.

Who is right time will tell. Truman’s record now speaks for itself. His legacy, the Pax Americana also known as the Long Peace, has prevented a general war for three generations, the length of living human memory. Some will say his achievement was accidental. By contrast the record of the man who now promises a world without nuclear weapons — his synonym for peace — has only just embarked on his plan.

It has been far from auspicious; according to a former secretary of defense the world is today closer to a nuclear conflict than at any time since the height of the Cold War. From the South China Sea to Ukraine, to the Middle East, the shadow of war is everywhere one looks. Perhaps one should give it time, as socialism and other sure-fire schemes should be given time, and we will not be disappointed.

It is ironic to consider that today’s generation perhaps has more blind faith than the men who 70 years ago defeated Hitler and Tojo. Moderns know what’s going to happen much more than people in the past. They read it in a book. They saw it on social media. They know it will be specified in talking points memos. We forget sometimes that by contrast the World War 2 generation had no certitude of triumph. They did not even know the Atomic Bomb was going to work or that they would perfect it before Hitler did. They could not have seen it as evil with the same retrospective certainty that Obama can. At each step of the way these young men won victory — can the word still be used without embarrassment? — with none of the certainty which today’s generation possess in such abundance.

RTWT.

But it’s worth noting (as he does not) that traditional Islam (and sharia) is a creed which vows to destroy the American Way of Life. You may not be interested in ideology, but ideology is very much interested in you.

55 thoughts on “Hiroshima”

  1. IMHO, this issue is a superb example of the core problem with most leftists; they look at issues in isolation. With Hiroshima, they look and see only the bombing, and ignore that in the real world that had it not occurred, other things would.

    A reasoned difference of opinion is one thing, but their approach is, quite literally, divorced from reality.

  2. I suppose what bothers me is that I’ve seen this movie before. He’ll figure out a way to be an embarrassment. I guess it’s more entertaining to watch than golf though.

    1. Ok, he hasn’t embarrassed himself yet. Chalk up one win for managing expectations.

  3. So if Obama wanted a world without nuclear weapons, can we start pointing out what a failure Clinton’s deal with North Korea was, and thus how much a failure Obama’s deal with Iran will be?

    1. In Barrycade’s world it’s ok for tin pot dictators and homicidal madmen to have a few bombs. It’s civilized superpowers who hold such an arsenal as a last resort that he has a problem with.

  4. I see the term “virtue signaling” used more and more. I never use the expression, and I have a question: when is a published political opinion not a case of virtue signaling?

    How about this: when a speaker genuinely hopes to change someone’s mind, it isn’t “virtue signaling” and when the speaker is just speaking to the converted, it is? Is that a fair formulation to describe how you folks who use this expression are using it?

    1. Virtue signaling is when you promote a policy to either massage your own ego, or to convince someone else that you are virtuous, even though the policy might actually screw over the people you’re ostensibly concerned about. Like espousing an increase in the minimum wage.

      1. Wouldn’t the speaker have to believe that the policy might actually screw over someone? If they actually believe the policy would be helpful for everyone, surely they aren’t (just) virtue signaling.

        Here’s the related question I was wondering about: “Know what would have been more evil than dropping the bomb? Not dropping the bomb.” Why isn’t this an example of virtue signaling?

        You’re criticizing Obama, you’re not trying to change anyone’s mind , you’re neglecting more nuanced answers such using the first bomb (of admittedly a very limited number of them) as a demonstration, so what are you doing?

        I mean, obviously, you’re exercising your right to free speech, and you’re entertaining your readers, including me, but if I dismissed what you had to say as “virtue signaling”, why would I be wrong?

        1. Because my statement is based on actual history, and knowledge of the realistic alternatives, and horrific consequences of having to invade. Obama is simply pandering to the blame-America firsters, as usual, because he is one.

          1. I assume you already know all the arguments in favor and against a demonstration bomb, but just in case, here is a reasoned discussion of it:

            http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/03/06/to-demonstrate-or-not-to-demonstrate/

            and

            http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/08/16/the-third-cores-revenge/

            Excerpt:

            A third plutonium bomb would have been ready by August 17th or 18th (they originally thought the 24th, but it got pushed up), so one could imagine a situation in which things were delayed by a week or so and there would have been no real difference even if one bomb was expended on a demonstration. If they had been willing to wait a few more weeks, they could have turned the Little Boy bomb’s fuel into several “composite” core implosion bombs, as Oppenheimer had suggested to Groves after Trinity. I only bring the above up because people sometimes get confused about their weapon availability and the timing issue. They made choices on this that constrained their options. They had reasons for doing it, but it was not as if the way things happened was set in stone. (The invasion of Japan was not scheduled until November 1st.)

          2. There’s no reason to think that a demonstration bomb would have had any effect, given that it took two city bombs to finally get them to surrender. It’s very easy (and morally lazy) to second-guess them from seven decades on, but they had the information they had access to.

          3. Indeed. Hiroshima did not cause the Japanese to surrender. Further, Tokyo was already fire bombed many times. B-29s could fly over Japan without fear of being met with AAA or fighters. None of that, prior to Nagasaki, was sufficient to bring Japan to a surrender. A demonstration is a nice idea from an arm chair general wishing for unicorns decades after the events.

          4. Bob,

            Remembering that Japanese required Nagasaki to finally be convinced and much of Tokyo had been destroyed with bombing why would anyone think a demonstration bomb would have been effective?

            Virtue signaling is easily detected as follows: The person virtue signaling is usually making a pathetic attempt at demonstrating introspection by criticizing an opinion held in a group he belongs to but he himself he does not have.

            So when Obama goes to the Middle East and apologize for Bush, he is not “apologizing” in any adult sense of the word. Only a fool thinks so. He is making a back-handed criticism of political opponents. Can you see the difference?

            You apologize for your *own* actions. A virtue signaler apologizes for actions he doesn’t agree with.

            It is a form of childish, intellectual weakness.

          5. Leland,

            Among many other distinguished names, Eisenhower, Nimitz, and, amazingly, Curtis LeMay all disagree with you.

            The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons .

            —Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy

            The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.

            — Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet

            The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all.

            — Major General Curtis LeMay, XXI Bomber Command, September 1945

            No one here has mentioned the short time frame between Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and no one here has mentioned the Soviet declaration of war. But this debate has been played out thousands of times, so I won’t go on unless Rand indicates a desire for the discussion.

          6. Right. LeMay had no dog in that fight at all.

            Yes, Japan sued for peace. On their terms, with the threat to kill millions more if they didn’t get them. But I guess that’s OK, because no country’s any worse than any other, right? As Obama said, sure, the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.

            Here’s the bottom line, Bob. When I hear the ignorant dorm-room bong philosopher who has helped engender so much economic misery, particularly for young people, and loss of freedom in the Republic for the past seven years tell me that I need to have a “moral awakening,” can you guess what my two-word response is?

            Hint: The first word starts with “F.”

          7. Cherry picking quotes from people who wanted to assure those under their command that their sacrifices had not been in vain is hardly convincing.

          8. Bob, you lying moron.

            Among many other distinguished names, Eisenhower, Nimitz, and, amazingly, Curtis LeMay all disagree with you.

            The study you pulled quotes from came to the conclusion the war could be won 5 months later without using the atomic bomb. Now I realize your an idiot, but no where did I or anyone else say the war couldn’t be won. So you can stop burning your straw men, which is the generic logical fallacy at the heart of virtue signaling.

          9. Bob-1:
            “I assume you already know all the arguments in favor and against a demonstration bomb, …”

            One of the arguments against it was no one was absolutely sure the airplane-dropped bomb would work. If it fizzled, then the Japanese would have thanked us for the show and the popcorn and would have told us they were getting back to the business of fighting maniacally to the last Japanese citizen.

        2. “Know what would have been more evil than dropping the bomb? Not dropping the bomb.”

          If that’s virtue signaling, what exactly do you think the virtue is? Speaking the truth? Or do you perceive acting in a way that preserves human life as not virtuous?

          1. Everyone wants preserve innocent human life. That’s the virtue. Rand thinks dropping both bombs had that virtue, while I think a demonstration bomb would have done a better job. I think people ought to be able to discuss policies and criticize each other’s ideas without denigrating each other’s comments as “signaling”. It is disrespectful and doesn’t advance a substantive discussion of the issues.

          2. Also, waiting for an invasion in November would probably have cost millions more dead Chinese. The most humane thing to do (as was the case with bombing strategic targets rather than, say, rail lines going into Auschwitz) was to end the war as surely and quickly as possible.

          3. Everyone wants preserve innocent human life.
            Then take it seriously enough to recognize that “wants preserve” is juvenile.

          4. When I was young and callow, I once got into a discussion with a black friend about race relations. My fatal mistake (actually, I should say epiphany) was brought on when I started in on the old “look, I know what it’s like to feel marginalized…”. “No, you don’t!” was the instant retort. “You do NOT know what it is like to be black in America. You do not have the experience, living day in and day out with people looking at you suspiciously, or condescending to you, or all kinds of other things. You do not know.”

            She was right. I did not know. I do not know. I cannot know. I’ve learned the hard way in life the wisdom of the old saying, “You can’t really understand another person’s experience until you’ve walked a mile in their shoes.”

            You do not know, Bob. You do not know what it was like to live in a whole freaking world at war, with mad men threatening to take over the Earth, with golden stars going up in the windows in your neighborhood, with gory mayhem being the order of the day, day in and day out, for years. You do not know.

            So, before you judge them from your comfy chair, try to have a little time for humility, consider the possibility that your solution might have only prolonged the agony, and that you are in no position to judge.

          6. No. You cannot know vicariously, because you can always cherry pick your sources. In the race dialogues, such people are called “Uncle Toms”.

          7. I think the shock of the bomb was necessary convince enough of the rulers in Japan to accept the American surrender terms, and even after the bombs some plotted a coup in order to continue the war effort

            .Compare it to the situation in Germany where the German high command ordered the fighting to continue even after the war was long lost, even with fighting in the streets of Berlin, even after the Soviet flag was raised over the Reichstag.

            Demonstrations of the bomb may well have convinced the Japanese leadership that the American’s didn’t have the stomach to use their horror weapon, (??) and then it might have taken 3 bombs to convince them they were wrong, (?) we don’t know.

            Second guessing 70 years down the track with the benefit of hindsight and no personal experience of things as they were then is arrogant.

    2. “Virtue signaling” is a play on “status signaling”. It’s not about having a political opinion or virtue, but instead about exhibiting one’s status by an ostentatious, but hypocritical or counterproductive display of virtue. When displayed by a speaker, the audience need not be friendly.

      Sincere faux martyrdom is a classic example of virtue signalling, say where someone takes a principled, but grossly ignorant stand on some issue like racism or war. They’re too clueless to be persuasive, but linger in a thread for a while because that’s what right-minded people do in the face of disagreement by the barbarians.

      1. Its like the words Eskimo or Redskin. Liberals take a word and decide they don’t like the people who use it, so the word must be bad somehow. This NPR article is an example of virtue signaling http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/04/24/475129558/why-you-probably-shouldnt-say-eskimo

        They make up crazy histories for the word based on stereotypes they have for outgroups. Reading the comments was interesting. Many people saying that nothing was necessarily wrong with the word but since they didn’t like the people who used it, they couldn’t use the word.

  7. The same people upset with us dropping the bomb, buy into all the other socialist propaganda, from where this criticism arose, and with radical Islamist propaganda.

    It is designed to make America weak, and many people like that, even some Americans. Less American soldiers dying isn’t a good excuse, they want American soldiers to die.

      1. Nimitz and Leahy were both strong proponents of the blockade strategy (which would of course have been a Navy-led policy), with the postwar politics of defense uppermost in their minds. They (correctly) understood that if the war was won from the air, then the air forces (there was not yet an independent air force, remember) would be very powerful, and would have a call on much of the limited postwar defense resources available. LeMay did not want the efforts of his air forces to be overlooked in the context of winning the war (as it turns out, he was right to be concerned, though my sympathies for him are limited at best), and Eisenhower was hardly in any position to evaluate the situation at all.

        We know in hindsight that the Japanese not only didn’t surrender after Hiroshima, but that hardliners (the so-called Crimson Dawn group) actually attempted another coup to prevent surrender following the dropping of the bomb on Nagasaki, and came disturbingly close to getting away with it. So the notion that a demonstration bomb (which almost certainly would have been dismissed by the Japanese leadership the same way that they dismissed Hiroshima) would have had any impact at all is simply risible on its face.

        But let us assume that the shock of a demonstration would have caused them to negotiate….what then? A negotiated settlement would have had to include (from the Japanese point of view) some sort of amnesty for many of the political leaders (or do you think that Tojo would have surrendered himself to the gentle mercies of the allies?), as well as some sort of postwar retention of some territories (Korea, certainly, likely parts of China as well), and other demands that the Allies were not going to accept. This would have consumed weeks, perhaps months, all the time more soldiers and civilians would be dying as the war dragged on. There certainly would have been no cease-fire (the Japanese were not trusted as a result of Pearl Harbor, and their more recent atrocities had led to a situation where there was very little stomach for giving them an opportunity to drag the war out further), and the Japanese agricultural system had collapsed sufficiently that roughly 10000/week in Japan were dying from disease, starvation, and other ancillary effects of the war. Hence a 3 month delay would have actually killed more people in Japan alone than died from Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together.

        Nuclear bombs, while dramatic, are hardly different in any material sense than what was done to every other large Japanese city in 1944/45, i.e. destructing by blast and fire. Pretending that these represent some special evil, or that we can wish away the horror of their use by appealing to some fanciful ‘alternative’ is almost a perfect example of virtue signalling.

        1. To save a lot of people time, a review of bob’s Wikipedia article, you’ll find it has a bibliography full of your typical progressives. It is nothing but an editorial that started in 2007. Reading the history of the editorial is like reading about time travelling to kill Hitler.

          And bob, claiming that others disagree with us, that couldn’t possibly know us; that’s virtue signaling. You disagree with us, but are pretending that you stand with others that don’t know you either. Now, either you are too stupid to understand this, you are dishonest to not care, or both. I see no reason to consider the two options mutually exclusive. If you want to be civilized in your debate, you’ll have to start by being honest.

        2. Sorry, I meant to agree with f1b0nacc1 final paragraph and overall comment.

          By the way, here’s a counter article to bob’s, written 10 years before his. Lots of good information here including a note that Spaatz wanted to drop a third bomb on Tokyo.

      2. There is a difference between being against and being upset. One is a disagreement over a tactic and the other is a value judgement.

        Those on the left, Democrats, socialists, and Islamists, are making a value judgement. They say it was a war crime or a crime unique in infamy. It is referred to as a great evil and that Americans are evil.

        It started with soviet propaganda and then was adopted by Democrats in the USA, sometimes called Democrat Socialists, and by their ideological allies, radical Islamists.

  8. No, Brian Williams, we did not use atomic bombs against Japan “in anger.”

    To give Williams the benefit of a doubt he may have been using “in anger” as a common euphemism for “in battle” as in “The Falklands war was the first time the Vulcan dropped bombs in anger” or “The Falklands was was the first time a nuclear submarine fired a torpedo in anger”. It’s a fairly common expression; I’ve come across it in print numerous times.

    1. He may have been, but given his history, I have no inclination to grant him the benefit of the doubt. He has probably written about being at ground zero in Hiroshima.

  9. I am not sure whether or not to take you seriously, but I will reply.

    I am going to vote for Donald Trump this November. I am not proud of that fact, and do not believe that it shows any special virtue on my part. He is not Hillary Clinton, who I believe would be far worse, and thus must be opposed. I happen to live in a state where my vote will actually matter, so I will hold my nose and cast a vote in favor of this repellent individual.

    I share Rand’s contempt for Trump, but understand that Hillary is objectively worse and far more dangerous. This is called accepting a trade-off, and it is something adults do, no matter how ugly and unpleasant it is. That isn’t virtue signalling, as if anything I am condemned by ‘real conservatives’ and those libertarians with whom I would normally find a more suitable match.

    The fools on the Left who believe that ‘sending a message’ is more important than getting results are virtue signalling. I am simply doing what is necessary to get a result, and accepting the ugly message. That is called being an adult.

    Many good and reasonable people will find my actions wrong or even wicked, but I firmly believe that I am acting properly.

    Any more questions?

    1. “The fools on the Left who believe that ‘sending a message’ is more important than getting results are virtue signalling.”

      They don’t really believe that. Witness how fast they dumped their sexual harassment code when WJC was the perpetrator.

      But, they very much want YOU to believe it.

    2. Joe T: Virtue signaling is easily detected as follows: The person virtue signaling is usually making a pathetic attempt at demonstrating introspection by criticizing an opinion held in a group he belongs to but he himself he does not have.

      f1b0nacc1: share Rand’s contempt for Trump, but understand that Hillary is objectively worse and far more dangerous. This is called accepting a trade-off, and it is something adults do, no matter how ugly and unpleasant it is. That isn’t virtue signalling, as if anything I am condemned by ‘real conservatives’ and those libertarians with whom I would normally find a more suitable match.

      F1b0nacc1, you met Joe’s criteria pretty well. Aren’t you signaling your virtue with this comment, telling everyone how you’ve got to do what am adult’s got to do, no matter how ugly or unpleasant?

      1. By the way, I’m not picking you – I found your comment interesting. I just think this business of labeling your opponent’s comments as “virtue signaling” is corrosive.

        In the words of House Speaker Paul Ryan:

        “In a confident America, we also have a basic faith in one another. We question each other’s ideas—vigorously—but we don’t question each other’s motives. ”
        http://time.com/4269260/paul-ryan-speech-donald-trump-politics-transcript/

        1. Sadly, Paul Ryan’s confident America doesn’t exist. The Democrats and the Left, by whom we’re told that Republicans want to kill people and starve children, and that Mitt Romney gave a woman cancer and had “binders full of women,” have destroyed it.

        2. You are welcome to disagree about what is and isn’t virtue signaling, but to deny it exists is as absurd as to deny racism does. When someone makes speeches about climate, but flies to give them in a private jet, or lectures us from his private yacht, that is virtue signaling. And when someone says they care about the climate and carbon, but opposes nuclear power, that is virtue signaling. And when someone says they care about education, but support the teachers’ unions and oppose school choice, that is virtue signaling.

          1. Rand, I’m not denying it exists. In addition to trying to pin down the definition, I’m sharing my opinion that it isn’t desirable to accuse other people of it, even when you feel sure that’s what they are doing.

          2. You are welcome to share whatever opinion you want, but if people aren’t called out on their odious rhetoric, there’s no hope of ending it.

            But I get that you have no interest in ending their odious rhetoric. It’s the only thing that allows your odious ideology to survive.

      3. Bob-1,

        If f1b0nacc1 had delivered a speech on the upsetting nature of Trump and how Americans don’t realize the danger he represents and if only Americans were smarter they wouldn’t have supported him to, say, a group of European journalists, that would be in line with my definition of virtue signaling. He’s expressing an opinion he has to people who share the opinion in order to convince them that he’s one of the good ones.

        A person who does that is demonstrating tribal credentials not making an argument.

        Saying, “I don’t like Trump but I’m going to vote for him because the other option is worse and I know many of you with whom I usually share opinions don’t agree,” is a qualitatively different thing.

        As for the corrosion you lament, I can’t help but think you have not been paying attention to the arguments coming from the left or you are not being sincere.

        1. Joe,

          This is no longer a conversation about politics, just logic.

          I was following your definition. F1b0nacc1 demonstrated his introspectiveness by criticizing and disagreeing with an opinion held by a group he says he identifies as his own. That meets your criteria. Maybe you should revise it.

          “As for the corrosion you lament, I can’t help but think you have not been paying attention to the arguments coming from the left or you are not being sincere.”

          That’s another example of bad reasoning. Another logical option is that I’m being sincere, and I think “the left” is horribly corrosive in terms of criticizing motives instead criticizing policies. I do think this. But since I wasn’t talking to progressives, I didn’t mention it before now.

          1. Sure Bob.

            Look for my amended notes in “Airtight Definitions for Concern Trolls Who Won’t Play Witless Word Games With Them in Blog Comments” coming soon to Amazon.

            Good luck with your crusade to eliminate divisive discourse by complaining on non left-leaning blogs that it is uncivil to name a common incivility used by the left.

          3. Random Wikipedia link:

            “The simple truth, Noam Chomsky, is that you were unable to abide by the ethical maxim you had imposed. You had the right to say: my worst enemy has the right to be free, on condition that he not ask for my death or that of my brothers. You did not have the right to say: my worst enemy is a comrade, or a “relatively apolitical sort of liberal.” You did not have the right to take a falsifier of history and to recast him in the colors of truth.“

  10. There would not be a Pax Americana if Obama was around during WWII and he has actively sought to dismantle it. Obama holds America’s meddling up as the worst of all evils, despite the unprecedented global benefits.

    Would any of Obama’s and the Democrat’s favorite Democratic Socialist countries have been able to fund their welfare states if they were not subsidized by the USA? Nope.

    It is totally messed up how Obama uses the effects of the Pax Americana to hide his disastrous foreign policies. Its a lot like him taking credit for low gas prices.

Comments are closed.