[Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)

Thu Feb 19 22:45:07 PST 2009

Sue,

It was necessary to drop the bomb for several reasons. 

1) It brought a quick end to the war
2) It kept the rest of Japan intact
3) It gave us an unconditional surrender, which is what the Allies swore to do
4) It limited Casualties on both sides of the war
5) It showed Russia that we have the bomb, and will use it, so back out of Germany and Western Europe. 
6) The aftermath of the A-Bomb, its horrible impact on people, helped Senator Benston-D Texas, convince the Senate to block General MacArthur's attempts to end the Korean War by dropping 50 A-Bombs on China. 
7) It has prevented anyone from using a nuclear bomb again

So, I have read the arguments. I don't think your friend, Hershey, had any greater insight than Truman or his advisers. Hershey was just 31, Truman was President, he had more information and a bigger picture of the issues at the time. 

The consequences of not dropping the bomb would have been worse. Hard to believe, but it would have been. 

Best Regards,

Donovan

--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com> wrote:
From: Sue Hovey <suehovey at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential Rankings (2009)
To: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com, vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2009, 8:10 PM

Donovan, 

For an interesting and opposing view, you might 
take a look at John Hershey's Hiroshima, the Aftermath, 
published in the 1980s.  It's one thing to have had to make that call, as 
Truman did, for a nation weary of war, and quite another to quote as fact today 
the idea that the dropping of the atom bombs was necessary to save 
a million lives.

Sue H. 

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: 
  Donovan Arnold 
  To: vision2020 at moscow.com ; Kenneth Marcy 

  Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 4:27 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Presidential 
  Rankings (2009)

      People that were against the dropping of the atom bombs 
        on Japan in WWII were obviously ignorant of the larger number of 
        causalities it would have cost both Japan and the US in its place, and 
        were insensitive to massive suffering and loss of life that the US and 
        others had already endured. 

Truman only had two options. 1) To 
        kill one million more people, both Japanese and Americans, or 2) Kill 
        100,000 Japanese that started the war and end it. 

To me, the 
        choice is obvious. I am sure Truman would have dropped 12 billion roses 
        instead if it ended the war, but it wouldn't, so he did what had to do 
        to end the war. And dropping the bomb barely did end the war as Japan 
        still didn't want to surrender initially after that. 

Best 
        Regards.

Donovan

--- On Thu, 2/19/09, Kenneth Marcy 
        <kmmos1 at verizon.net> wrote:

        From: 
          Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] 
          Presidential Rankings (2009)
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Date: 
          Thursday, February 19, 2009, 12:45 PM

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 14:03:26 Kai Eiselein wrote:
> Sooooo, would this apply to those who condemn the use of nuclear bombs on
> Japan?

Yes. I think that the Allies, and the Americans specifically, were war-weary 
from large social and industrial reorganizations to support a war effort then 
beyond all those previous. The prospect of any necessity of taking a land war 
from the Allies into Asia implied such huge additional losses that any way to 
end the Nipponese war, and prevent its spread more generally to Asia, was 
seen as a useful effort.

More so than any subsequent major conflict, World War II was seen
 as a just 
war; the Allied cause was worth winning for good reasons, and all efforts 
toward that end were justified.

Yes, the atomic destruction was horrific, no doubt about it, and on sight of 
the test blast, the decision makers all knew it. Oppenheimer said in New 
Mexico "I am become death." And the chain of command, from Groves up
to 
Marshall and then to Truman, presumably had some idea of the much larger 
magnitude of the atom bombs, so the decision to use them was in service of 
ending the Nipponese war sooner rather than later.

> Or the fire bombing of Germany?

Without reviewing the technical details, I will just say that after the U.S. 
joined the Allied cause then underway, there was a strong determination to 
see the war effort through to a victorious decision. No one doubted the 
justness of the Allied cause, nor did anyone doubt that the awful destruction 
was beneath the
 dignified preferences of civil societies. However, the Axis 
aggression had to be stopped, and the prosecution of the European efforts 
continued until that goal was reached. Whether the goal could have been 
achieved more optimally with less destruction was a judgment call; second 
guessing and arm-chair quarterbacking more than half a century later won't 
change their determination then to get the job done with what was available.

> Or, the actions Europeans took in the Americas after stumbling upon the
> contintents?

Considering that Europeans first began attempting permanent North American 
settlements centuries ago, it is even more important for us not to impose our 
mind-set on their attitudes and motivations. Some of the earliest were 
explorers, somewhat later they were escaping religious differences. Yes, they 
had racist attitudes. Yes, they felt their technologies and their
 old-world 
civilization gave them a sense of entitlement to what they saw before them. 
There was no North American parliament with proportional representation of 
the indigenous peoples, and if anyone had been so foolish as to suggest one, 
they would have been laughed, or worse, out of the colony.

>From our contemporary understandings we can easily and glibly say that the 
Europeans should have accepted the natives as human equals. But not all of 
them were willing to accept the "savages" as fully human. They did
not have 
the advantage of knowing about Darwinian science, Mendelian genetics, and 
contemporary molecular biology that illustrates our closer human kinship than 
their observations of skin color, physiognomy, and social culture allowed. 
Even today not all of us have learned these lessons sufficiently well, so who 
are we to suggest that those early colonists were incompletely
 informed?

> After all, there are those who do the same in those instances.
> My comment wasn't so much anti-war as it was historical fact. For some
> reason Vietnam and Kennedy are kept conspicuously separated in history
> textbooks, even though Kennedy's actions led the U.S. directly into
the
> Vietnam war.

Yes, it is true that many Americans are a soft-hearted bunch, preferring 
polite conversation and gentle reminiscences of how nice the Kennedy family 
looked, how cute and adorable the children were, and on and on. Oh my, 
wouldn't it be fun to sail with Jack and the boys, or ride English 
side-saddle with Jackie and the ladies? How wonderful we could feel about 
ourselves, fantasizing ourselves into a far-away Camelot!

As the older generations fade into memory, younger generations of historians 
will probably have sharper things to say about how close we came to a Soviet

American war near Cuba, and how lucky we were for back-channel communication 
between the nonagenarian English Lord Russell and Nikita Khrushchev, and some 
other fortunate military command communications incidents that forestalled 
active engagement.

> On another note, it was Kennedy who signed legislation allowing U.S.
> companies to set up shop in foriegn countries without having to pay U.S.
> income taxes on their profits from those units. The idea was that by
> bringing jobs into countries that were at risk of falling to the commies,
> it would make communism less appealing. It was a logical move.

There probably were multiple reasons for allowing tax-free foreign commerce by 
American organizations. Profits likely were a part of it, as was the 
opportunity to extend the de facto American intelligence network abroad, but 
outside of the usual military and diplomatic channels. And I would
 not be 
surprised to learn that the administration found it convenient to allow 
certain organizations to operate profitably without any necessity for their 
books to be examined by anyone in an official sphere. The darker corners of 
commercial activity can benefit more than just capitalists, as many have 
noted since then.

> Unfortunately, an unintended consequence has been the wholesale migration
> of U.S. companies abroad.

Companies have been operating for profit internationally since ancient trading 
times, so international business is nothing new. Consequences, unintended or 
not, can be changed if the courage and collective will are marshalled to 
change laws and behaviors to more desirable patterns. This is a question of 
needed leadership, not of the horses irrevocably having escaped the barn.

> How much howling from big biz do you think there would be if the law was
> repealed
 and they had to pay taxes on their foreign income?

How much howling is there over any contentious tax issue? Capital gains, for 
example? Too often, the lobbyists and the committee chairmen decide their 
answer,  and that's that. Powerless citizens may howl all they wish, to 
little avail. Powerful interests need not howl at all; they pay their agents 
and their will is carried out via gallons of ink printed on paper mountains.

Fundamental tax reform, as opposed to rearrangement of regulations, is 
relatively rare in the United States. For example, the US does not have a 
national property tax on large holdings of private property, specifically 
land. Why do not corporations and individuals who own millions of acres of 
land pay no federal property taxes on those large holdings? Exemptions for a 
few thousand acres of actively farmed, or recently fallowed, land could 
easily be arranged, so working farm
 families would be exempted. So, for the 
remaining land hoarders, why should they not pay some small rate of property 
tax to help offset the government expenses of their national defense and 
liberties preservation? Jefferson bought the Louisiana Purchase from the 
French to enlarge the United States. Don't we all have an obligation to 
periodically re-examine who owns what land, and to re-evaluate how to keep 
that land optimally productive, financially and environmentally?

Ken

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
               http://www.fsr.net                       
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

  =======================================================
 List 
  services made available by First Step Internet, 
 serving the 
  communities of the Palouse since 1994.   

  http://www.fsr.net                       

  mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090219/c27c1be0/attachment-0001.html 