As reminded today by Danny Schechter’s daily mail (from MediaChannel) today is the anniversary of the US dropping the first atomic bomb on Japan.
Interesing quote from Danny’s email:
WAS ITS USE NECESSARY?
The debate over the necessity of using the bomb continues. Many historians say it was aimed more at the Russians in asserting post war supremacy. Many in the US military thought it should not have been used—including leaders like General and then President Eisenhower who said way after the fact “…the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing.” (Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63).
Admiral William Leahy: “It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
“The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.”
So, whether you agree with it or not, let’s all remember the first country to use a WMD.
Speaking of Nuclear Weapons, it always has suprised me how the nuclear-armed countries have tried to enforce a treaty saying all other countries should not produce such weapons. Seems kind of hypocritical, no? I’m not saying I want to see more nuclear weapons in the world – far from it. However, I’m totally not suprised that other countries are giving the “screw-you” attitude to the nuclear-club, and trying to get their own. By definition, creating an “elite” group of countries creates a circle of power. Other countries are obviously going to want to get into that circle.
To those people who might say “Are you saying you’d want to see Kim Jong-Il with nukes?” Of course not, but that thought doesn’t scare me more than that of W. Bush with nukes. I’d bet Bush is already responsible for more deaths than Kim Jong-Il, and that’s only in four years. And then of couse someone will say “Kim Jong-Il is totally unstable.” That may be true, but I haven’t seen him invade any countries lately and kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The argument gets very simple once you rid yourself of the delusional notion that the US is on some sort of moral high-ground.
Also keep in mind, that while Bush is supposedly trying to stop nuclear proliferation (except by Pakistan… Oh wait, was I not supposed to mention that?) he has also stepped up efforts to start building more nuclear weapons here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/05/11/MN16775.DTL