Are We Still Arguing About This? Part I

Last weekend being the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima's bombing, there've been a number of editorials, pro and con, in the papers.

The LA Times recently featured one by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. They accept many of the revisionist anti-bomb arguments. Some of their claims seem based on selective sifting of the evidence. When they state Truman "quite plainly" droppped the bomb to send the Soviets a message, I'd call this conjecture at best.

To me, a central question is what could and did we expect from the Japanese back then. It's very hard to put our minds back into that period, but I think that's what must be done to properly judge what happened.

Bird and Sherwin quote J. Robert Oppenheimer who said, after the fact, the Japanese were "an essentially defeated enemy." Okay, I have a suggestion. If you are essentially defeated, SURRENDER IMMEDIATELY! It's not the duty of the other side to read your damn mind. Every second you wait you're asking for trouble. Once you know you've lost, it's your duty to make it clear--otherwise, don't be surprised if the war continues.