Will Obama Apologize for Hiroshima?

Weekly Standard ^

[Sub-Driver]

Will Obama Apologize for Hiroshima?

A knotty question -- he's due to visit the blast site come November and loves to say "I'm sorry." On the other hand, the twin Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings served as a legitimate conclusion to a war that Japan initiated -- with a recent poll showing that 61% of Americans support Truman's decision to employ the atomic arsenal, an approval rating that soars in the Greatest Generation demographic. Though Obama groveling at ground-zero would undoubtedly draw the ire of most Americans above the age of 65, one WWII vet in particular -- Morris Jepson one of the two surviving members of the Enola Gay and the man who armed the "Little Boy" bomb -- pulls no punches on The One's apology-saturated foreign policy. Check out his interview with Japan's Mainichi Daily News:

Mainichi: If you have a chance to meet Obama, would you advise him not to go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

J: I would say that's his business because he is going to do what he wants to do.

Mainichi: You understand what he said about the moral responsibility of using the atomic bombs. If he visits Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he may apologize to Hiroshima's citizens. If he apologizes, what would you feel?

J: I would be indignant.

M: Yes, because it saved a lot of Japanese lives, too. Because the invasion could have killed thousands and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of the Japanese and Americans, and dropping the bomb ended the war. That saved a lot of people. I think the Japanese should realize that, that it saved a lot of them. You know a lot more people were killed with firebombing ... than were killed at Hiroshima. So if you think about that, that bomb was really not so bad. It was just part of the war, right? I mean, that the way we feel about it.

J: No, I think the statement that you quoted from Obama's speech is ... saying that the U.S. is guilty of using those weapons.

Mainichi: Moral responsibility?

J: That's called guilt. Isn't that guilt?

Mainichi: You think the U.S. President should not make such remarks?

J: Definitely not, no.

[Captain Kirk]

The same way it relates to using firebombs to do the same thing

Quite true. Is that argument for using the atomic bombs. If so, please tell me why INTENTIONAL use of terror by TARGETING of civilians via fire bombing and/or atomic bombs is justified under the traditional rules of war because.....

[Dr. Bogus Pachysandra]

FUBAMA!

[Retired Greyhound]

I’ve always believed the Nagasaki bomb was overkill, so to speak.

I think the Hiroshima bomb made the point.

[Charlespg]

Would you have dropped the bomb on Berlin to stop the Holocaust ?

Thousands of funny little yellow and brown people being killed by Japanese fascists don't matter matter to you do they ? /s

[Oldsailor]

You are just wrong and apparently one of the so called revisionists. But after all, those of us who are old enough to have been there, are also old enough to not count for anything now.

[cvq3842]

I’m very proud of, and grateful for, men like your grandfather!

[Retired Greyhound]

Well, had we firebombed Vietnam, Iraq and, now, Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, rather than trying to surgically target the enemy, we may have ultimatley saved more lives by ending the war sooner.

If the U.S. would disregard politics and unleash her military might, the enenmy would crumble quickly.

[Prophet in the wilderness]

When I see any American politician apologize for a war act that America has done in self defense or a means to end a war, I see them giving away America's Greatness and Sovereignty,
We are seeing America being destroyed and dismantled piece by piece and given to the wolves right before our eyes...

[EyeGuy]

As the Filipinos and others who suffered under the vicious Japanese have said:

“Why only two?”

[domenad]

The bombing of civilian centers was a common and accepted use of warfare at the time. London took V2 rockets, Dresden took firebombs, Nagasaki and Hiroshima got the special distinction of being the first and only nuclear casualties. That’s how wars were conducted back then. I, for one, am glad we did it better than they did.

[Captain Kirk]

Well, had we firebombed Vietnam, Iraq and, now, Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, rather than trying to surgically target the enemy, we may have ultimatley saved more lives by ending the war sooner.

Okay...if you think we should play that game (e.g. throw out the ancient rules of war) what possible objection can we make when the enemy chooses to do the same against our civilian populations? I am sure many our enemies would also advocate the view that they can achieve faster victory and "save lives of soldiers" by targeting American babies and little old ladies.

[WayneS]

INTENTIONAL use of terror by TARGETING of civilians via fire bombing and/or atomic bombs is justified under the traditional rules of war because.....

...it destroys the enemy's will to fight. It is that simple.

Humane? No.

Necessary when dealing with a fanatical regime which considers every one else to be sub-human? Absolutely.

Look where our attempts at "humane" war have gotten us. North Korea is still a threat to world peace and we ended up going back into Iraq. No thanks. I prefer that our military take care of all threats to our nation as quickly and efficiently as possible.

PS - What, pray tell, are the "traditional" "rules" of war?

[nina0113]

I think the Hiroshima bomb made the point.

Apparently not, as they still didn't surrender until after the second one.

[Retired Greyhound]

I don’t favor targeting civilians. We typically don’t do that. But I think we have too much regard for civilians at the expense of waging an effective war in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s part of war.

The difference between us and the jihadists is that they DO target civilians. We don’t.

[BlueLancer]

And what enemies, pray tell, would not have used those same methods on us in the first place? Soviet doctrine was to open an assault with tactical nuclear strikes and chemical/biological weapons attacks, and this was to be in the middle of western Europe. The North Koreas and Chinese weren't .. and aren't .. noted for their adherence to the Geneva Conventions, nor were the Imperial Japanese. The Germans started the "strategic-type" bombing against Poland, England, Belgium, Holland, and France. And, certainly, the Muslims aren't bashful about killing any and all who are in their way without any thoughts of your so-called rules of war. And striking and killing civilians is the be-all-and-end-all of the Islamic way of war.

The Japanese, in particular, have nothing to whine about when it comes to violating "rules of war".

[wolfpat]

Your premise is wrong. Hiroshima was a military center, and Nagasaki was an industrial one. The civilians who were killed were collateral damage, unavoidable when using nuclear weapons.

Note also that before WWII, wars had been increasing in size and people killed. The use of the atomic bomb has made war escalation unthinkable.

[DustyMoment]

Crap!!! DON’T give the First Moron any ideas!!!

[tanknetter]

In what way does this relate to INTENTIONALLY incinerating thousands of Japanese babies, little old ladies, and Christians (Nagakasi was the historic center of Japanese Christianity).

Nagasaki was also a major industrial center. The Japanese superbattleship Musashi was built there, for instance. It was as legitimate a target as every other Japanese city we bombed, possibly even more than most given it's industrial capacity.

[Servant of the Cross]

< channeling Harry S. Truman from the grave (and lots of Col. "You Can't Handle the Truth" Jessup) < / channeling>

Apologize?! Son, we live in a world of evil men. And this country has to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, you amateur and poseur? I had a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Hirohito and you curse the U.S. armed forces. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of a government-funded pampered life, never having worked for anything on your own. And my decision, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saved lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

[DustyMoment]

In what way does this relate to INTENTIONALLY incinerating thousands of Japanese babies, little old ladies, and Christians (Nagakasi was the historic center of Japanese Christianity).

This is going to sound cold, cruel and heartless but, here goes . . . . .

NO ONE is happy that innocent people were killed in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki but, to save hundreds of thousands more lives by avoiding an invasion of Japan, dropping those bombs was necessary. Japan had already suffered very high losses of its fighting men and, had an invasion been necessary, the invading force would take VERY heavy casualties as would more of the Japanese civilians.

An invading force would have had to literally fight its way across Japan house by house and the war would have lasted as much as 3 more years. The Japanese were a very tough opponent that was well trained, well equipped, clever, extremely intelligent and dedicated to their cause. There was no way they were going to capitulate except by the use of extreme force, showing them the absolute horrors that war could bring.

I don't doubt that, were he still alive today, President Truman would be having sleepness nights wondering if he made the right decision. Some 60+ years afterward, it's easy to judge things we weren't there for but, by the same token, we haven't walked an inch in Truman's shoes. Until/unless we ever do, judging whether or not it was the right decision is left to God and each individual to decide for themselves.