The Hiroshima Myth

A very well reasoned article about Hiroshima: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

I don't agree with the entire point of the article. I honestly don't think it was sheer bloodlust or "boys with toys" that led to the use of the bomb.

Beltway-level logic for using the bomb:

• Use it in the event the war had continued. Had the public found out that this bomb had been available while Americans died, whether or not the Japanese had offered conditional surrender, would have been political suicide.
  
• The atomic bomb is the most expensive project ever undertaken in the United States. Again, had the public thought we had a bomb that could have saved American lives and hadn't used it, this price tag would have been political suicide.
  
• He fails to even mention that the United States had immense fear of the Russians coming in to take part of Japan, like had been done with Germany. The US wanted control of Japan and (as he mentions) had to demonstrate US power post-haste.

I'm not saying these reasons are right, but they do make sense in to politicos in Washington. This author is absolutely right that there's no proof American lives were saved by dropping the bomb. However, at the time, the political climate was probably one that would not have allowed the atomic bomb to ever not be used on August 6, 1945.

BTW, he points out events between July 20-26th, 1945. If I recall Richard Rhodes's excellent book "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" correctly, the bombs were already well on their way to Tinian by that time. Trinity fired on July 16. Unless I'm not recalling this right, the mechanisms had already been packed to go and started off as soon as the test was successful.

I guess I don't really have a problem with the US pushing for "unconditional surrender." If the government was representing the will of the people at the time, it's hard for someone who wasn't around to comment on it with a lot of certainty. We've had several conditional surrenders since then and all of them have ended badly -- Iraq part 1 being one example.

Hiroshima was a sad day in a long, bloody war. We all would have preferred it did not happen. But it was war folks. We have to move on.

Though, let me lastly mention that August 9, 1945 seems like more of a day of atrocity. Once we've blown one city to smithereens, how many times did we need to do it to prove the point? This is probably the part that has puzzled me for the longest time. Killing tens of thousands in one day was not enough, we had to do it again 3 days later?

But, again, we have to move on. They were decisions made long before i was born, there's not much I can do about it.