Letters to the Editor: Readers debate the ‘moral necessity' of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings

Los Angeles Times

a day ago

To the editor: Acknowledging that the war crimes of imperial Japan were informed by a ruthlessness akin to Nazi Germany does not explain (or justify) the choice of densely populated cities as targets for demonstrating the strategic superiority of the United States ('Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a moral necessity,' Aug. 8). Consider the 'targeting' of Uraga (near present-day Tokyo) by Adm. Matthew Perry in 1853. With orders from Washington to persuade the Tokugawa government to open its Pacific ports to trade with the West, he chose to direct the cannons of his warships to fire blanks rather than real ordnance toward the city.
While not dismissing the moral questions that attend 'gunboat diplomacy,' we can appreciate that Perry supported and eventually accomplished an American objective without descending into brutality. The same cannot be said for the strategic missions of the Enola Gay and Bockscar Superfortress bomber planes in 1945.
Paul Humphreys, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Contributing writer Josh Hammer's argument for the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on Japan skipped lightly over the real reason. It wasn't until the 1990s that the U.S. released its files on how much it knew about Japanese preparations for the American invasion. The Japanese knew where and when, had drawn 15 army divisions there and all males ages 15-60 and females 17-40 joined the 2.4 million civilians on the Kyushu peninsula based on the slogan 'The glorious death of 100 million.' Plus, all Allied prisoners of war (up to 100,000) were to be executed. The Japanese plan was not to defeat their invaders, but to make it so bloody that American public support would wane and they'd negotiate a favorable peace.
The pros and cons of dropping the bomb used to be a standard school essay assignment, but by 1995 its necessity was public information and the question became moot, morals aside.
Joel Athey, Valley Village
..
To the editor: At the time, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower attempted to persuade President Truman that using the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was not a moral necessity. His reasons: 'First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.'
I am very concerned about what are likely to be labeled as 'moral necessities' in the next decade. Was Hiroshima supposed to be a moment of glory for us?
Steve Wood, Ventura
..
To the editor: The atomic bombs may have saved 'countless' lives, but if Truman had dropped one on a remote island nearby as a demonstration, it might have saved another 200,000-plus lives.
Dean Van Eimeren, Long Beach