Dropping the Bomb

By -
New at LewRockwell.com.

Comments

  1. Anonymous3:17 AM

    Without trying to justify the demand for unconditional surrender, I believe any solution that could achieve the same end with fewer casualties would be preferable.

    Since there was a surrender dialogue in progress, why didn’t Truman give the Japanese a little demonstration of the bomb’s potential, and at the same time threaten a much larger population?

    After a demo of what “little boy” can do, I think the dialogue would have gone like this:

    US: Unconditional Surrender or it’s Tokyo, downtown…
    Japan: You wouldn’t!
    US: Have you seen Dresden?

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah12:30 PM

    Yeah, you know, Eisenhower and MacArthur both thought the bombing was unnecessary -- hardly peaceniks, you know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous3:56 PM

    The decision to drop the bomb had nothing do with the war with Japan. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were used to scare the living crap out of Stalin.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Lee4:16 PM

    Excellent article. Interestingly, at the time, conservatives, including ex-presdient Hoover, the Chicago Tribune, Henry Luce and National Review, criticized Truman for dropping the bomb(s). That's progress for you I guess.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose...
Read more

Against their will / we were taxing against their will / we were young and we were strong and we were taxing against their will

By -
Never one to allow a mistake to go uncompounded by a glaring error, Bob Murphy digs in deeper . He claims that "Taking money from people against their will is not akin to getting on the treadmill; it is akin to killing people against their will." Bob has introduced a largely irrelevant criterion here with his "against their will." Let us start with killing. (No, no, not killing Bob : we still love him despite his obstinacy.) The justice of a killing does not depend at all on whether the "victim" wants to be killed. If I shoot someone who is attempting to set off a nuclear weapon in Times Square, the fact that I killed him "against his will" does not make my killing immoral. And if a friend who is in despair asks me to shoot him in the head, the fact that he wants me to kill him would not make my action moral. Similarly, in taking money from people, the crucial question is whether you are taking it justly or unjustly, not whether they wan...
Read more