Opinion VIP

No Apologies: Sorry, But It's Okay to Celebrate the 75th Anniversary of Us Nuking Japan.

|
Posted: Aug 07, 2020 11:30 PM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
No Apologies: Sorry, But It's Okay to Celebrate the 75th Anniversary of Us Nuking Japan.

Source: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum/U.S. Army via AP

This month on August 6 and 9, it will be the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For some people, and you know who these people are, it is a controversial subject. It is one that I'm surprised hasn't bubbled up with the renewed push by the Left to either erase or historically misinterpret our history. I'm actually a bit shocked we haven't had a meltdown from the Left regarding this action.

We started with the Confederacy and its statues, and then we moved onto President Ulysses S. Grant, the Founding Fathers, and even President Abraham Lincoln. This was never about statues. You all know this, so I'm a bit surprised that the woke legions have not gone on a prolonged and vocal tear about how the racist USA nuked a bunch of Japanese people, and how it was unnecessary or something.

Let's cut the s*** here: it was absolutely necessary, and it saved lives. It was the best option. If you wanted to end the war quickly and in a way with the fewest losses, dropping nukes on the Japanese was the best option. Period. The numbers do not lie.

Let's take the higher end of the death tolls from both bombings. It ends with some 225,000 people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That's still fewer people killed than the Allied casualty estimates for the invasion of the home islands—Operation Downfall—which was estimated at 500,000 men minimum. Oh, and Japanese estimates were bound to soar into the millions. So, let's just say at least 1.5 million Allied and Japanese casualties. Is that more or less than 225,000? And you all know that this is the bare minimum. If we ever pulled the trigger on invading Kyushu, you know the death toll would have been much higher. The war would have continued for many more months, with more dead and more injured on both sides, all of this while having weapons that could end the war within days—and not using them. I think that would be a scandal. It would surely be one today. The president of the United States having a weapon system that could end a war quickly, save lives, and not exercise that option because it might look bad or something. It would be political suicide.

We've all read that the only thing merciful about war is a quick end. Well, this was the most merciful option. It was the headshot to one of the most brutal wars we've ever fought; there's a reason why there aren't many World War II movies in the modern era about the Pacific Theater. It's too brutal. Whereas there is a clear good vs. evil narrative that you can lay down in the European theater with Nazi Germany, it was just outright slaughter in the Pacific. No mercy. Movie studios tend to shy away from this front of World War II, where Americans were just as nasty, dishing out righteous punishment against the Japanese. We dehumanize them. Folks, how do you think Dr. Seuss got his start in cartoons? That's another figure that has thus far escaped the lefty political correctness mob. This is war. You dehumanize your enemy and then you kill him. Even if we decided to starve out the Japanese, is that a better option? Either way, you're avoiding a decision that could deliver a quick end to this war. Prolonging the suffering of your enemy who was clearly beaten at this point, one could argue, is immoral. Is it because of the bomb itself?

I remember in college, I took an ethics and conflict class, and this obviously came up. Most of the class was obviously against it, but somehow we're not aware that we had already burned the rest of the island to ash. Tokyo was firebombed by the US Air Force, where at least 100,000 men, women, and children, nearly half of those killed in the atomic bombings, were basically cooked to death. Is there equal outrage over that? Personally, I have no qualms with what Curtis LeMay doled out to Japan in the closing months of the war. It's what happens when you try to take on America. It usually ends poorly for whoever thinks they can, I don't know, push us out of the Pacific c. 1941. 

The Battle of Okinawa was a good gauge as to how the Japanese would react to an invasion. The battle was one of the most vicious ever fought in American history and the bloodiest of the entire Pacific Theater. Virtually the entire Japanese garrison, over 75,000 men, was wiped out. Over 100,000 civilians were killed, with many committing suicide as American forces slowly took control of the island.

Sorry, it's not a "complicated legacy." It's one of victory—our victory over the Japanese and the end of World War II, mankind's most destructive conflict. We won. And we used the most merciful option to end this war quickly. Celebrating the end of World War II is nothing to be ashamed about. So, yesterday and on August 9, let's celebrate the end of World War II.  Political correctness be damned.