Obama was in the Japanese Empire today and causing controversy all along the way by visiting the memorial at Hiroshima. Akihito and the Imperial Cabinet were hoping to extract a formal apology for defeating Japan in WW2; but Obama only apologized in every symbolic way conceivable without actually saying those words. Now, the Tojos have never apologized for starting WW2, or any of the atrocities they committed during the war, or given up wartime territorial claims, or renounced the Cult of the Emperor. In fact, the spirit of The Master Race of Asia is very much alive and well among the Imperial leadership. It never actually went away after 1945; the Japanese aristocracy lost face in their defeat and, under the Shinto Code, await the day when they can avenge their disgraced ancestors.
None of this ever discussed in contemporary America, mostly because Japanese Zaibatsus are heavily invested in Wall Street, the American media, academic endowments, and have extensive political lobbies. Like Saudi Arabia and the other Wahhabi sheikdoms, the Japanese Empire's financial clout shields it from criticism in the United States.
Now, the Empire encourages (i.e., bribes) the Academic Mafia over here to engage in considerable historical revisionism about the WW2 Pacific Theater. The US deployment of atomic weapons in August, 1945 is an especially irritating subject to them; being the direct cause of Japanese defeat.
However, some well-meaning writers in Christian circles have criticized the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is nothing new; every major advance in weaponry brings forth the same concerns. In 12th Century Europe, the crossbow was proscribed by Pope Innocent II as a weapon of mass destruction. And similar movements have arisen following the US Civil War and WW1.
One writer, The Thinking Housewife, has taken a position on this subject that has excited some controversy, especially in the Manosphere. Now, we believe that the authoress is sincere, and we admire anybody who takes and defends an unpopular position through commitment to principle. But we certainly cannot agree that the United States has any obligation to apologize and publically repent of the attack. There had been some debate in a previous article, none of which made a successful defense for President Truman's decision.
It should be remembered that war is always the last resort for defense in a civilized society. The fact that we are an uncivilized society today and use the military for immoral purposes is no reflection on the state of society in the 1940s. Pearl Harbor was attacked the day before a peace treaty between the US and Japan---a fact often overlooked by historical revisionists.
She quotes one Mike King, who says: "Because our American egos and Christian morals cannot cope with the reality of American-caused genocide, we fall easy and willing victims to rationalizations for Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
The fallacy in this line of reasoning comes from a lack of understanding the nature of wars and why they are fought and how they are won. Wars are not won by tears and good intentions. The reason why, in more civilized eras, war was a last resort was because leaders understood what war basically is. War is simply a calculus balancing the loss of human life against the number of lives which will be saved. Understood in that context, we see why civilized countries do not desire war. President Truman, defending deployment of the bomb flatly stated that he would have been morally culpable if he allowed Americans to die instead of using it.
Now, it is no argument to claim that this was genocide because there were civilian casualties. The President is obligated to defend and save American lives. If civilians in a hostile country are killed collaterally to that end, then their deaths are justifiable. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not targeted for the purposes of killing civilians, but because they had military significance.
She quotes four points from King; all of which are historically wrong. He claims at first that the war was 'unjust and could have been stopped by Roosevelt or Truman at any time.' We suppose so; the US could have ended the war by surrender at any time. It is difficult to understand how the US, attacked the day before a peace treaty was to be signed, its Pacific territories overrun, Hawaii attacked, the US mainland threatened and heavily infiltrated with Japanese agents was unjust in declaring war.
King argues that Japan was on the verge of surrender through the intervention of the USSR. That was not true; the Japanese were trying to prevent Russia from entering the war. And contrary to what King asserts, the Japanese well knew of the terms agreed upon at Yalta. The Japanese had contingency plans to fall back into their territories in Korea and Manchuria if they lost the mainland; Russian entry into the war would have prevented that maneuver.
King makes the astonishing assumption that Americans targeted civilians whereas Japan restricted itself to military targets alone. The Japanese military's barbarity was well-established before the war: they reduced Korea and Manchuria to slavery; annihilated entire Chinese cities and rounded up and tortured European colonials and missionaries. They suppressed Christianity everywhere they held power. They wantonly murdered prisoners of war, such as the Bataan Death March.
Things like atomic bombs exist because there is evil in the world. President Truman was correct. When there is an armed collision between Civilization and Barbarism, Civilization must use every means at its disposal to defend itself. Truman even warned the Japanese that America had greater weapons and would use them. Hiroshima was destroyed by a single bomb and Japan still refused to surrender. Nagasaki finally brought them to their knees.
Barbarians do not respond to reason, they understand only force. If sacrifices have to be made, then better to sacrifice them than those fighting for freedom. In an ideal world, there would be no war; but that ideal can never be reached until the world becomes wholly civilized. Until then, Civilization needs to be defended both with the weapons necessary to defend it, and leaders willing to use them in its defense.