OP-ED..Justification for HIroshima

   by Dennis Dooley

   December 7, 2014 marked the 73rd anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, which began the war with Japan in earnest.

   August 6 and 9, 1945 the US forces dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, thus ending the war with Japan.

   I have often wished to opine my understanding of this event knowing that many people will disagree with me.

   Many on the anti-nuclear weapons side of this argument say that we should have never used this weapon under any circumstances.

   I wish to refute this argument by saying that the rationale for using this weapon seemed entirely reasonable at the time.

   My father was inducted into the Navy during World War II and was selected to be trained as a cryptographer for Admiral Nimitz' Intelligence Staff decoding Japanese messages during the war.

   As such, he saw much of the intelligence that passed through his view.

   The allies had firebombed much of Japan, killed millions of them and reduced the country to ruins, and still the Japanese were refusing to give in and surrender.

   The leaders of Japan were telling the Japanese that Americans were monsters and wanted to kill and eat them.

   It was estimated that the Japanese would fight to the last man to avoid what they believed would happen to them. 

   Our leaders believed that we were going to win the war, but they estimated that it would cost the lives of a half a million allied lives and as many as two to three million Japanese lives and take six months or more.

   Given this analysis, the idea of sacrificing 200,000 Japanese lives and very little allied lives seemed like a good idea for both sides.

   Of course, we know that after the second bombing at Nagasaki a few days later that Japan surrendered.

   One side note was that there was a Navy officer serving in the same unit as dad who had missionary parents who were caught in Nagasaki at the outbreak of war who were prohibited from leaving.

   Dad often spoke about this officer weeping uncontrollably the night before the bombing, knowing that he could not prevent the bombing and that his relatives would perish.

   I have heard from war protestors that it would have been preferable not to use the atomic bomb, even if the additional cost in lives would have been in the millions.

   These people seem to turn a blind eye to the very high probability that Germany and/or Russia would not have had such reluctance.

   It was believed that Germany was very close to developing the atomic bomb at the time that we used ours

   Try to imagine the horror if Germany had used their bomb before we could use ours.  It would have been a nightmare of unimaginable proportions.

   It is for this reason that I endorse the use of the atomic bomb in spite of the horrific destruction for the greater good.

    Respectfully Submitted,

    Dennis Dooley