The bombing of Hiroshima was the least-worst option, and a lesson for us on Gaza
As we reach the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, we will get the usual takes of people saying it was 'right' to use atomic weapons and those who say it was 'wrong' and therefore constitutes a war crime by U.S. forces. Some people will say the bombing of Hiroshima was a necessary evil, but I think they tend to focus on the word 'necessary' and not the word 'evil.'
As a Marine veteran, my view is that bombing people is always wrong, but that wars do happen and you always have to pursue the least-worst option when it comes to civilians. This is a lesson the U.S. has ignored throughout the years and Israel is currently ignoring. But when we examine how the atomic bombings of Japan came to be, we should realize that President Harry Turman was convinced it was the fastest way to stop the worst man-made calamity in history and acted to save lives. Hence it was not right, but it was the least-worst option.
Anyone who studied World War II, as I did at both Ohio State and Harvard, as well as reading countless books like many of you, has learned one shocking truth at some point — that both the German and Japanese governments knew they were going to lose the war years before they actually lost.
The Nazis, after being beaten at Stalingrad, tried to gain the initiative at Kursk and failed. After that, they knew they were in a defensive war of attrition and they didn't have the numbers to win.
The Japanese knew that a quick victory against the U.S. was needed, as they would not be able to keep up with our ability to churn out planes and ships while drafting millions of men to wage war.
The Nazis' quick victory in Russia didn't happen. The Japanese lost sea and air superiority and realized that the island-hopping strategy of the Americans would bring them right to Japan's doorstep.
Instead of finding an out, both governments doubled down and increased the killing. The Germans continued a war of annihilation, including mass killings of Jews. The Japanese took up a horrific strategy of killing everyone to horrify the Americans into quitting.
So the U.S. and its allies did something that changed the face of the war, embracing the meaning of the term 'total war.' We didn't just bomb civilians because they were next to bases or factories. We bombed them to make them 'submit.' We killed millions of people, thinking at some point they would give up.
As we failed to learn until many decades and numerous wars later, people don't take your side when you bomb them. So, both the Germans and Japanese supported their governments even more and allowed them more control over their lives, even if it meant more destruction.
In the Pacific, that left the U.S. government in a really bad spot with nothing but terrible options. They could invade Japan, which would cost millions of lives. They could blockade Japan, which was on the brink of mass starvation, also costing millions of lives. They could continue the fire-bombings they had been doing in places like Tokyo and Dresden, killing hundreds of thousands. They could give up on unconditional surrender, which could have left the Japanese under the emperor and the military autocracy that had led them into this war of obliteration.
Truman didn't think dropping the bomb was good, but it was the least-worst option. It achieved the horrific effects it intended, and the Japanese realized they could not sacrifice millions to kill thousands of Americans. And that brings us to today.
I am not saying we need to drop a nuclear weapon on Gaza or any place. What I am saying is that time and time again, we should have learned from Hiroshima that you must pursue the least-worst option, so that you don't end up making a decision like that again.
We didn't understand that the fire bombings of Tokyo and Dresden actually pushed people to support their governments even more. In North Korea, we destroyed 85 percent of all buildings and up to 20 percent of the population, then wondered why North Koreans embraced the Kim family.
In Vietnam, we bombed villages with napalm and then were baffled when the Vietnamese joined or helped the Vietcong.
And in Gaza, Israel is bombing and starving civilians and wondering how Hamas still has a stranglehold on the population. Look, wars happen. It's a bit naïve to think that humans won't be fighting each other for something until the end of time. It is in our nature, unfortunately. And even more unfortunately, it seems that we always convince ourselves that the solution to ending wars is to ramp up killing to include civilians while ignoring it is the worst thing we can do.
Gaza doesn't need any more bombs, much less a nuclear one. But we also need to learn that civilians will never respond positively to being bombed, starved or machine gunned. They will always side with those who don't bomb, starve or machine gun them, even if they are the people that put them in that position like the leadership of the Nazis, the Japanese, North Koreans or Hamas.
The lesson we should have learned from Hiroshima is that we should always embrace the least-worst option, but also that we should never let things get to the point where dropping a nuclear weapon becomes the least-worst option.
.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
9 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Former FBI and CIA Director William H. Webster dies at 101
WASHINGTON — William H. Webster, the former FBI and CIA director whose troubleshooting skills and integrity helped restore public confidence in those federal agencies, has died, his family announced Friday. He was 101. Webster led the FBI from 1978 to 1987 and the CIA from 1987 to 1991, the only person to guide the nation's top law-enforcement agency and its primary intelligence-gathering organization. By the time he came to Washington, at age 53, Webster had practiced law for nearly 20 years, had served a stint as a federal prosecutor and had spent almost nine years on the federal bench in his native St. Louis. Those who opposed him in court or disagreed with his rulings acknowledged that his honesty was beyond question. 'Every director of the CIA or the FBI should be prepared to resign in the event that he is asked to do something that he knows is wrong,' Webster said after he agreed to lead the spy agency. President Jimmy Carter selected Webster, a Republican, for a 10-year term as FBI chief as the bureau sought to improve an image tarnished by revelations of domestic spying, internal corruption and other abuses of power. Demanding but fair of his agents, he was generally credited with developing its ability to handle new challenges such as terrorism. President Ronald Reagan chose Webster to replace CIA chief William J. Casey, who had been criticized for being too political, ignoring Congress and playing a part in the arms-for-hostages scandal known as Iran-Contra. Webster, again in the role of outsider with no political agenda, quickly sought to ease tensions with Congress. He reported regularly on the CIA's activities to lawmakers charged with intelligence oversight and avoided the appearance of trying to shape policy. Retiring from federal service in 1991, he joined a Washington law firm but still served on a variety of policy-related boards and commissions. In 2002, the Securities and Exchange Commission selected Webster, on a partisan vote, to lead a board created by Congress to oversee the accounting profession in the wake of scandals involving Enron and other corporations. Before the board's first meeting, however, Webster resigned amid questions about his role as head of the audit committee of U.S. Technologies, a company itself accused of fraud. The controversy over his role in Webster's appointment contributed to the resignation of SEC Chair Harvey Pitt. William Hedgcock Webster was born on March 6, 1924, in St. Louis. He was raised in the suburb of Webster Groves, Missouri, his father the owner of ranch and farm land and the operator of small businesses. He served as a Navy lieutenant during World War II and returned to active duty for two years during the Korean War. He graduated from Amherst College with a bachelor's degree in 1947 and earned a law degree from Washington University Law School in St. Louis in 1949. Webster practiced law with a St. Louis firm until 1960, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed him U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. He resigned the following year after President John F. Kennedy's election and then spent most of the 1960s in private practice. Appointed by President Richard Nixon to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in 1971, Webster established a reputation as a moderate jurist. Nixon elevated Webster to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1973. 'I think of myself as operating from a position of restraint but being ready to take any judicial actions necessary to achieve the ends of justice,' Webster said as he closed his judicial career to join the FBI. Critics, however, faulted him for a tendency to favor the prosecution in criminal cases. Liberals and conservatives commended Webster for an even-handed record on civil rights, even though he was a member of St. Louis social organizations that excluded minorities. He contended that he would not belong to any club that actively practiced racism. As FBI director, he brought more Black people and women into the bureau. Replacing Clarence M. Kelley, Webster focused the FBI's efforts on organized crime, white-collar offenders and drug enforcement. Highlighting attention to political corruption was the Abscam sting, in which officials offered bribes to bureau employees posing as Middle Eastern businessmen. Eleven people, including six members of Congress, were convicted. Webster also stepped up the FBI's anti-terrorism and counterintelligence activities, which helped prepare him for the CIA post. Some who questioned his appointment as director of central intelligence contended that his lack of operational experience and foreign affairs experience was a detriment. Webster was credited with building morale within the CIA and beginning its shift from a Cold War stance. The agency was accused, some claimed unfairly, of not anticipating how quickly the Soviet Union and its Eastern bloc would crumble and not doing more in advance of Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait in 1991. It was commended for the intelligence it provided during the Gulf War. Over a nine-year period that included Webster's term, CIA officer Aldrich Ames sold secrets to the Soviet Union and compromised dozens of operations before he was arrested and sentenced to life in prison without parole in 1994. Webster and other CIA chiefs were criticized for failing to detect Ames' activities. In retirement, Webster served on a presidential panel on homeland security after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and was a member of a commission investigating security lapses at the FBI. Webster, a Christian Scientist who did not smoke, seldom drank and enjoyed playing tennis and reading history, married Drusilla Lane Webster in 1950; they raised two daughters and one son. Following her death from cancer in 1984, he married Lynda Jo Clugston in 1990. Webster is survived by his second wife, three children from his first marriage and their spouses, seven grandchildren and spouses and 12 great-grandchildren. A memorial service will be held in Washington on Sept. 18.
New York Times
10 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Officials Press Case Against Harvard, and Add a New Investigation
The White House stepped up pressure against Harvard Friday, adding a new investigation into the university's patents and renewing a host of claims that the university is unfit to host international students. The two sides have been working to resolve their differences in recent weeks, but a court motion filed by the government on Friday in a dispute over international students suggested there is still deep acrimony. The motion accuses Harvard of failure to control crime, and claims that Harvard's leadership has 'shown itself to be incapable of properly hosting, monitoring, disciplining, and reporting on its foreign student arguing.' On the same day, Commerce Secretary Howard W. Lutnick sent a letter to Alan M. Garber, Harvard's president, claiming that the university had not lived up to its obligations surrounding federally funded patents, which are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. According to the letter, the agency will begin a comprehensive review of Harvard's compliance with federal law. In the court case, the Justice Department was asking a judge to throw out one of two pending lawsuits filed by Harvard against the administration, this one involving the right of the nation's oldest university's right to host international students. Earlier in the year, Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, moved to end Harvard's right to host the students. Harvard sued. When Judge Allison Burroughs of federal court in Boston temporarily blocked the administration action, the White House countered in June by issuing a proclamation blocking international students that invoked a different provision of law. Judge Burroughs, who has expressed skepticism of the Trump administration's crusade against Harvard from the bench and also in written orders, also blocked that effort, issuing a preliminary injunction. On Friday, the government moved to dismiss the lawsuit entirely. (The government's motion on Friday applied only to the case involving international students. It has no effect on the university's lawsuit against the administration about research funding cuts, a case that focuses heavily on constitutional and procedural concerns.) The government's effort could have disrupted the lives of about 5,000 international students attending Harvard last spring, another 2,000 recent graduates, as well as a new cohort of students who plan to arrive this fall. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard,' the lawsuit said. The university has accused the government of retaliating against it for its refusal to bend to the White House's efforts to control the university's 'governance, curriculum and the ideology of faculty and students.' In its filing Friday, the administration denied that contention. Instead, it listed a number of accusations it has made in previous filings and statements about the school, including that violent crime has increased on campus. Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the administration's claims, but the university's student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, has reported that the campus police responded to nearly twice as many crimes on campus in 2023 as in 2021, mostly over reports of stolen electric bikes and scooters. There was no evidence that international students were involved in the crimes. In a separate move on Friday, the administration added to its pressure campaign against Harvard when the Commerce Department said it would investigate whether the university was complying with federal laws and regulations around intellectual property that emerge from government-backed research. The investigation is expected to examine whether Harvard complied with myriad requirements related to how the university procures and maintains patents for its ideas and research. In his letter to Dr. Garber, Mr. Lutnick said that his department 'places immense value on the groundbreaking scientific and technological advancements from the government's partnerships with institutions like Harvard.' But, Mr. Lutnick warned, Harvard was also required to follow rules designed to maximize 'the benefits to the American public.' Mr. Lutnick did not include any evidence showing that Harvard, whose researchers generally secure scores of patents each year, had violated the law, but he said that the Commerce Department thought that the university had 'failed to live up to its obligations to the American taxpayer.' Patents can be extraordinarily lucrative for research universities, with their collective values climbing far into the millions of dollars. But if a university does not follow an array of regulatory requirements, the government can essentially dilute or strip a school of its financial stake. Mr. Lutnick said the government was 'initiating' that process. His department asked Harvard to provide a range of records to the government by Sept. 5. In a statement on Friday, Harvard blasted the Commerce Department's letter as 'unprecedented' and 'yet another retaliatory effort targeting Harvard for defending its rights and freedom.' 'Technologies and patents developed at Harvard are lifesaving and industry-redefining,' the university said, adding that it was 'fully committed' to complying with federal law. Michael C. Bender contributed reporting.
Bloomberg
10 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Administration Threatens to Seize Valuable Harvard Patents
The Trump administration threatened to assume ownership of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of patents from Harvard University, accusing the Ivy League college of failing to comply with the law on federal research grants. In a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber on Friday, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said the university is failing its obligations to US taxpayers, paving the way for a process that could result in the government seizing its patents under the Bayh-Dole Act.
