<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Phil et. al.<BR>
<BR>
In no way do I intend to excuse or downplay any human rights abuses, Japanese or otherwise. <BR>
<BR>
The meaning of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki transcend WWII, the Japanese or the USA. They are now a symbol of the use of a kind of weapon that if used widely in a world war could be devastating for all humanity. This is part of the reason for the focus on the nuclear bombings of Japan in WWII, the only case of nuclear weapons used in war, which just passed the 60th year since Hiroshima was bombed, August 6, 1945. <BR>
<BR>
The horrific effects of those little fire crackers (compared to the monstrous megatonnage H-Bombs we have now), both in burning peoples eyes out of their sockets and the skin alive off their body, or the long agonizing death from radiation poisoning, should not be forgotten or downplayed or pushed aside because of other human rights abuses.<BR>
<BR>
I have heard numerous reports in the media over the years about the Japanese human rights abuses in WWII. Spielberg made a film (Empire of the Sun) about the Japanese occupation of China that reveals what monsters the Japanese were, though the film does not reveal the full horror of what the Japanese did in China in WWII. Yes, the Nanking massacre is not given the emphasis it deserves.<BR>
<BR>
But what about the Turkish genocide (1915-18) against the Armenians, or the Turkish human rights abuses against the Kurds in recent years that almost no one in the USA hears about? <BR>
<BR>
We could make a long list of human rights abuses, current and past, that do not or are not getting the attention they deserve.<BR>
<BR>
This is no reason to overlook the horror of the nuclear bombing of Japan, or the effort to ensure nuclear weapons are not used again.<BR>
<BR>
Just because the Japanese were sadistic monsters in WWII does not justify the unnecessary killing of innocent Japanese civilians, men, women and children. The bombing of Dresden when Germany in WWII was nearly defeated is another possible example of this. <BR>
<BR>
There are good arguments that the USA did not need to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons and kill 200,000 people to win WWII to avoid other unavoidable horrendous consequences. Or that at least that the way it was done showed a callous disregard for the precautions and planning that should have been taken to avoid a high death toll of innocents being slaughtered. Why were targets chosen in Japan that had not been bombed extensively in the past in WWII? If these targets were so militarily important, they would have already been bombed a lot. Why was the nuclear bomb at Hiroshima targeted at the city center? They wanted to observe the bombs effects on a more untouched target to assess the bombs capabilities. In other words, weapons testing on a mainly civilian target. Read below at bottom.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, I could go on arguing this debate, but the evidence I provided speaks for itself.<BR>
The web links I offered provide extensive documentation to poke holes in the standard theories you hear about how we had no choice but to use nuclear weapons against Japan or face horrendous continuing casualties, and that the surrender of Japan was mainly due to the nuclear bombings. <BR>
<BR>
Consider, also, that nuclear weapons result in the use of a poison as a weapon that can kill those not killed by the physical impact and heat of the blast, and so nuclear weapons can be described as the use of a poisonous biological weapon... <BR>
<BR>
Weren't you condemning the Japanese for use of these sorts of weapons?<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm">http://www.doug-long.com/letter.htm</A><BR>
<BR>
Testifying before a House subcommittee on March 10, 1995, you promised that when you finally unveiled the Enola Gay exhibit, "I am just going to report the facts."[1] <BR>
<BR>
Unfortunately, the Enola Gay exhibit contains a text which goes far beyond the facts. The critical label at the heart of the exhibit makes the following assertions:<BR>
<BR>
* The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki "destroyed much of the two cities and caused many tens of thousands of deaths." This substantially understates the widely accepted figure that at least 200,000 men, women and children were killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Official Japanese records calculate a figure of more than 200,000 deaths--the vast majority of victims being women, children and elderly men.)[2] <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
* In a 16 minute video film in which the crew of the Enola Gay are allowed to speak at length about why they believe the atomic bombings were justified, pilot Col. Paul Tibbits asserts that Hiroshima was "definitely a military objective." Nowhere in the exhibit is this false assertion balanced by contrary information. Hiroshima was chosen as a target precisely because it had been very low on the previous spring's campaign of conventional bombing, and therefore was a pristine target on which to measure the destructive powers of the atomic bomb.[11] Defining Hiroshima as a "military" target is analogous to calling San Francisco a "military" target because it has a port and contains the Presidio. James Conant, a member of the Interim Committee that advised President Truman, defined the target for the bomb as a "vital war plant employing a large number of workers and closely surrounded by workers' houses."[12] There were indeed military factories in Hiroshima, but they lay on the outskirts of the city. Nevertheless, the Enola Gay bombardier's instructions were to target the bomb on the center of this civilian city. <BR>
-----------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Vision2020 Post by Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></HTML>