An essay I wrote about Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Original, I plan on updating and rewriting some of it)

On August 9, 1945, a second sun blazed to life above Hiroshima, in Japan. Two days later, a similar sight heralded the devastation of Nagasaki. These two explosions were from atomic bombs. They destroyed the cities, and spawned a storm of controversy that still rages today. There are those that say the bombings were horrible atrocities. While hundreds of thousands of people regrettably died, calling the bombings atrocities is incorrect. The atomic bombings were justified because the extenuating circumstances of war require distasteful acts.

In August of 1945, the world had been at war for more than 5 years. The bloody war in Europe had ended a few months before, and Japan was the last country left fighting America and her allies, England, Australia, China, and the USSR. Yet, Japan would not give up. They were in an untenable position in an unwinnable war. Germany had been defeated, Hitler had committed suicide, and Italy had long since joined the Allies. Japan was alone, the last bastion of the Axis, surrounded by enemies, and yet they still refused to surrender. (1) Japan had entered war with China in 1937, before the official start of World War II, seeking to capture resources from Manchuria and some Pacific islands to make Japan into an entirely self-sufficient empire.

One of the principal reasons that the atomic bombings were justified is because more lives would have been lost in an invasion of Japan than were lost during the bombings. During the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not a single American life was lost. Hiroshima had no American or Allied citizens in it. While there was a prisoner of war (POW) camp outside of Nagasaki, no Americans were held there, and only 8 Allied POWs died at the camp as a result of the bombing (7 Dutch prisoners, and one citizen of the British Commonwealth). (1) The science of projecting military casualties is an inexact science, and, while projections are not always accurate (the battle of Iwo Jima had projected light casualties, but ultimately, U.S. casualties outnumbered Japanese.), the American military had several previous invasions that gave them a wealth of data to use to predict what would happen when invading Japan itself.

The US military used the invasion of Saipan as a general reference for projecting casualties of the invasion of Japan. This resulted in a “Saipan Ratio” of 1 dead American soldier and several wounded to kill 7 Japanese soldiers. (2) The Japanese had 900,000 regular military troops on Kyushu, (1, Pg. 203) the island where an invasion of Japan would have begun if it had occurred. Using the “Saipan Ratio,” approximately 128,571 American soldiers would have been killed outright, and over 1 million would have been badly injured, for a total casualty count of over 1,100,000. Compare this to the amount of American casualties in the bombings: 0.

As a result of the bombings more than 200,000 Japanese citizens were instantly killed. (3) Many more have died since from effects of the bomb, such as radiation-induced cancer and other maladies. Yet, the Japanese had deployed 900,000 soldiers on Kyushu (1, Pg. 203) to defend against an American invasion, and Japanese soldiers viewed it as dishonorable to surrender. In the battle of Iwo Jima, 21,000 Japanese soldiers were deployed. Of these, 20,703 were killed, with the rest being captured. That means that approximately 98.5% of the deployed soldiers chose death rather than capture. Using that percentage, the 900,000 Japanese soldiers on Kyushu alone could have suffered 886,500 deaths during an American invasion, more than 4 times the deaths caused by the bombs. This figure only counts the military forces on Kyushu, and does not factor in the tens of millions of civilians across the Japanese Home Islands, or the military forces deployed on the other Home Islands. (1, Pg. 203)

A second justification of the atomic bombings is that they occurred during a time of total war. A total war is a war where a nation completely dedicates itself to the war. Tax revenues are used to finance the war, and all citizens are compelled to serve in the armed forces or otherwise contribute to the effort. Therefore, every enemy citizen killed is one less citizen who can contribute to the enemy offense. This makes enemy cities and “civilians” legitimate targets. If every single person is contributing to the war, they are all enemies, and they are all legitimate targets that can be attacked with utmost expedience. Therefore, the bombings were justified because Japan was fighting a total war against America. Work done in Japan went towards the war, and all citizens would have been called upon to fight in case of an American invasion. For example, a teenaged Japanese schoolgirl was conscripted into the forces detailed to protect the Japanese Home Islands. She was issued an awl (a small, pointed tool usually used for making holes in leather) and told “Even killing one American soldier will do… You must aim for their abdomen.” (1, pg. 189) Therefore, the bombings were justified because even Japanese schoolchildren were conscripted into the Army and told to kill Americans. If everyone is being conscripted, then everyone is a legitimate target.

Now, of course, there are dissenting opinions on every topic. Some say that the bombings were inherently immoral. These detractors include Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard, the two men whose joint letter prompted Franklin D. Roosevelt to investigate the possibility of creating an atomic bomb. Szilard said in an interview:

“Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?” (7)

Basically, Szilard is saying that, were anyone else to have developed and used the bomb, they would be viewed as war criminals and executed. Szilard is incorrect, because, while killing over 200,000 people is, of course, regrettable, World War II was a total war. 200,000 people dying in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a horrific occurrence, of course, but, in a total war, those 200,000 “civilians” in the cities are as legitimate a target as 200,000 enemy soldiers arrayed on a battlefield against an equal force of other fighting troops, because in a total war, those 200,000 “civilians” are 200,000 people that are directly supporting the enemy war machine.

Another detraction of the attacks is that they were militarily unnecessary. Some say that Japan was so utterly defeated by the time the bombs were dropped that blockading all of their ports could have just as easily defeated them and therefore, we did not need the bombs. While, with other countries, this would have worked, it would not with Japan. Japan was entirely dedicated to the war, and they refused to surrender. America needed to show Japan that any further fighting was thoroughly futile. (1)

There are also detractors that say a simple demonstration of the bomb on an outlying, uninhabited island would have had the same effect as destroying 2 Japanese cities. Again, while this would have worked with other countries, it would not work with Japan. Even destroying Hiroshima did not entirely convince the Japanese of the futility of their struggle. They wrote off the destruction of Hiroshima as a fluke. (1) It was not until America destroyed Nagasaki that the Japanese realized that the threat from America was real and could easily destroy the country. Therefore, the bombings were justified because they drove the threat home, as it were, and made the Japanese realize that total destruction was on the horizon if they did not surrender.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are significant subjects because they have had lasting impacts. To this day, the bombings are a very sore subject in Japan. Japan’s top military official, their Defense Minister, was forced to step down in July of 2007 after expressing a belief that the bombings “ended the war and, … couldn’t have been helped.” (5, 6) After he made that statement, he was forced out of office because the Japanese people still, to this day, think the bombings were wrong. The bombings have significance for America, as well. At that point, only America had atomic bombs, and the choice to use them reverberates even until today. Using them unleashed the specter of nuclear war upon the whole world to the point that there are, today, more than 25,000 nuclear weapons around the world. This is significant because of how easy it would be for these weapons to be misused, to the detriment of the entire world.

Less than a week after America destroyed Nagasaki, Emperor Hirohito made a radio announcement to the Japanese people declaring that Japan accepted the Potsdam Declaration, in essence declaring Japan’s surrender to the Allies. (1) If America had not dropped the bombs, that surrender would not have come. It would have taken many months, if not years, for an invasion to subdue Japan, or for a blockade to starve the country into submission. It took only two bombs to finally end World War II. Germany had been defeated a few months earlier, and Japan was the last country to be fighting the war against the allies. The bombings were entirely justified because they eliminated a dangerous enemy and, in a total war, anyone who is affiliated with the enemy is an entirely legitimate target.

Bibliography/reference for in-text citations:
1: Frank, Richard B.. Downfall. New York: Random House, 1999.
2: http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/
3: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mpmenu.htm
4: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=5894
5. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287453,00.html
6. http://www.japannewsreview.com/politics/20070703page_id=283
7. http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

My thoughts on Sarah Palin.

Now, I must warn you before this starts. McCainites, Palinites, you will not like this post, because this post is about how I do not like your candidates. 

I decided to start research for this on Sarah Palin with a simple Google search for Sarah Palin's political experience. Here's what came up: 

SHE HAS NO EXPERIENCE. NONE. ZIP. NADA. NOTHING. She was mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, population 5,469 people as of the 2000 census. To put that in perspective, I ride the subway twice a day on average, taking a total of 3 trains each time. Once to school, and once home. Now, after a little research, it seems that a single subway car can hold about 200 people. 10 cars to a train, so each ride is with about 2,000 people. Three rides a trip, two trips. So, on an average day, I ride the subway with more than twice as many people as Sarah Palin was in charge of in Wasilla.

Then, she got elected governor of Alaska, population 683,478 as of the 2000 census. I live in New York City, population 8,274,527. The mayor of New York City is responsible for approximately 12 times as many people as the governor of Alaska is. She's been governor of Alaska since February of 2007. So she has one and a half years, governing 683,478 people. Yeah. Lotta experience there.

So, since I can't talk about her experience, I'll talk about her positions. Oh boy. [Author's note: grab some popcorn, 'cause awaaaaaay we go.] Let's start with religion. Sarah Palin supports teaching creationism in schools. Public schools. [Author's note: I will be keeping a list, throughout this post, of things that Palin has never heard of. We'll start here.] So, apparently, Sarah Palin has never heard of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It's very obvious to me that she hasn't. In October of 2007, Palin proclaimed "Christian Heritage Week" in Alaska. In addition, she declared November 18-25 of 2007 as "Bible Week" in Alaska. Christian Heritage Week and Bible Week. She also said that her plan to build a gas pipeline in Alaska was "God's will." Yeah. God's will. Someone should mail her a copy of the First Amendment.

Next, sex education. Palin supports abstinence-only sex education, which is, at best, farcical. And do you know what makes it farcical? She has an example of it not working right in her own family. Her daughter, Bristol Palin (who is younger than I am, as far as I know), is 5 months pregnant. If Gov. Palin's precious abstinence only education worked, then Bristol wouldn't be pregnant. 

And now for my next topic, I have another thing Palin hasn't heard of. Freedom of speech. In her tenure as mayor of Wasilla, she tried to ban books from the school library. I shudder to imagine what she'd try to ban if she made it into the second-highest office in the land.

Sarah Palin has also said that she's an opponent of federal earmarks and pork-barrel spending. Good for her, and it's good that her state hasn't accepted any-- wait, what? Her state has gotten $750 million in earmarks and pork-barrel spending? Huh. Oh, and that Bridge to Nowhere? Well, at least she's an opponent of it-- wait, in her 2006 campaign for governor, she supported building it and getting $448 million in earmarks for it? Hmm, she's starting to seem a little shaky to me.

Ahh, and now we come to my favorite bit of this depressing tableau. Sarah Palin's foreign policy experience. Now, I like to think that I'm a pretty creative and funny guy, but I swear, I could not make this up. And I am being entirely serious, and quoting Governor Palin. When Katie Couric asked Palin about her claim that Alaska's proximity to Russia gave her foreign policy experience, Palin said "Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada." Then, when Katie Couric rightly pressed her on exactly HOW that gave her experience, Palin shoved her high-heeled foot further into her mouth: "Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of." Really. "Our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of." I really wish I could say something biting and sarcastic about that quote, but thinking about it makes my brain leak from my ears. 

I truly wish I could go on, but if I do, my brain will punch its way out of my head and flee. I hope that this post has helped Palin fans see through the veil of lies that is her campaign. Also, watch this video. It is Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric. Please, for the love of god, DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS WOMAN.

Some political thoughts.

First, allow me to begin this with some personal history: The first election I remember is the 1996 election, when Bill Clinton won his second term. I recall nothing of the candidates or their candidacies. In fact, I can’t even remember whom the Republicans ran against Clinton. What I do remember is the actual process by which my mother voted. The voting machines were set up in the gym of PS 282, where I was a student at the time. I went into the booth with her and watched as she flipped all of the little switches that represented her votes. The full ballot was cast by throwing a large reddish-orange lever. When it came time for my mom to cast her votes, she allowed me to throw the lever. I had been eying it for the entire time we were in there, and she knew I’d find enjoyment in doing it. As I pushed the lever from the left to the right, I recall being struck by a heavy feeling of importance. I was a fairly fast learner, and realized the importance of what I was doing for my mother. I was casting her vote in an election that determined who would rule the country for the next four years. To me, four years was an almost incomprehensibly long time, given that at the time, I was only five years old.

The next election I can remember, and the first that I can clearly remember, was the landmark election of 2000, when George W. Bush defeated Al Gore. While I was then still only 9, I was, if I do say so myself, a very bright child, and I followed the election intently, because it was infinitely interesting to me (God knows why.). This was before the watershed moment of September 11th, 2001, so I will admit to some naiveté about elections and how the country was run, but I remember listening to all of the candidates and all of their debates and liking what I heard from only a few of those candidates. The one candidate I remember being really impressed by was, I must admit, a Republican senator by the name of John McCain. I must take a moment to defend myself by stating that this was the John McCain of 2000, who was still a maverick and one of the most moderate Republicans in the party, and not the John McCain of 2008, who has become a typical neo-con that would pick an utterly inexperienced Alaskan governor to potentially serve in the second-highest office in the land. But, I digress; back to 2000. I remember a feeling of dread when I heard that George Bush had won the Republican nomination, because I honestly did not like George Bush at all. I was slightly heartened when Al Gore won the Democratic nomination, because while I preferred John McCain’s ideas at the time, Gore had impressed me during the course of the campaign. When Bush was granted the Presidency by the Supreme Court of Florida, I felt let-down by the political process, but at the same time, I had a feeling that is best expressed in the simple words of John Wayne: “I didn’t vote for him, but he’s my President, and I hope he does a good job.” And I felt that way until the events of September 11th, 2001. I doubt that I will ever be able to sufficiently express in words what I felt on that day, and thus I will not attempt to here. But I will expound on what 9/11 did to the political atmosphere of this country.

9/11 enabled the Republicans of our country to stifle dissent with naught but one invocation of the events. And we did what we were compelled to do, because we had been through a national nightmare, and we clung to our President in the hopes that he would deliver us from the darkness of that terrible time. And you know what? He promised to. He took action. He went into Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban and try to kill Osama bin Laden. That was a move that I supported in 2001, and it is a move that I support today. The war in Afghanistan is, to appropriate a Bush term, “the central front in the war on terror.” Or, at least it should be.

However, it isn’t. The Bush administration, and the Republican Party as a whole, likes to portray Iraq as the central front in the war on terror. And, to them, it is. In their war on terror, it is. In the war on terror, it should be Afghanistan. But again, it isn’t. The central front in the war on terror is, sadly, here. The United States of America. The Bush administration’s war on terror is supposedly a war against Al Qaeda, but has now become a war of aggression against a sovereign nation that did nothing against us in 2001. But, even the most important war on terror is not about Al Qaeda, anymore. Al Qaeda is involved, but they sparked this war. They sparked the terrorism. But, they are not, sad to say, the enemy in this war. You might ask who the enemy in this war is? Well, I’ll tell you. The terrorists in this war are in our own country. The terrorists in this war are in our government. The terrorists in this war ARE our government, in point of fact. The Republican Party has become a party of terrorists. The Oxford definition of “terrorist” is “a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.” The definition of “terrorism” is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.” This is what the Republican Party has been doing. They have been using threats of terrorism to hold our country in their thrall for the last 7 years. It is possible that they initially set out with good intentions, but these last seven years have shown that any good intentions have been subverted and superseded by a desire to rule, and rule they have. When Republicans can seriously say that voting for Democrats will put this country on the defense, and that America “will be safer with a Republican president,” they cease to be one of America’s two political parties and instead become a terrorist organization.

And that has happened. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and the other Republican candidates in the 2008 election said that America would not be safe unless they were at the helm of the government. They ran (and are still running) on the platform of “Vote for us, or else.” When that becomes your point of view, you are attempting to subvert the democratic processes that have made our country so great. At that point, you are no longer worthy to hold office in this country. In fact, when you run on that platform, in my opinion you are no longer worthy to LIVE in this country. Running on that platform makes you an enemy of our country, just as much as Osama bin Laden is an enemy of this country. If what I mean by that isn’t clear enough, I will state it bluntly. In my opinion, George W. Bush and John McCain are just as dangerous to this country as Osama bin Laden and his cronies are.

I must admit to some pity for Mr. Bush, however. He seems too deluded to realize that by curtailing our freedoms so that we avoid the terrorists winning, he is in fact helping the terrorists win. The terrorists will win if he continues the way he has. They will win when we volunteer our rights and our freedoms rather than fight for them. The Bush administration has removed more of our rights than Osama bin Laden ever could. The right to habeas corpus? Gone. The right to privacy? Essentially gone. Protection from illegal searches and seizures? Out with the bathwater. Have you ever wondered why Al Qaeda hasn’t struck in this country since 9/11? I’ll tell you why.

They don’t need to. George Bush is doing for them what they could never do on their own. With only 19 hijackers and 4 airplanes, Al Qaeda prompted endeavors to create a police state. They wanted America to live in fear? The Bush administration is serving up fearful Americans. They hate the essential freedoms that make America great? The Bush administration is revoking those freedoms one-by-one, in the name of security. On that subject, Benjamin Franklin said it best. “Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

In summation, I thoroughly encourage everyone who reads this to fight for America. Fight for American freedoms and rights. But don’t, in the name of all that is good and holy, don’t buy into the Republican Party’s lies. If you do what they want you to do, you will not be fighting for America, or our freedoms. You will be fighting for the private agendas of a megalomaniacal former Texan governor. If John McCain wins this year, you will be fighting for the private agendas of a megalomaniacal Arizonan senator. How can you fight for America’s values? I’ll tell you how: Don’t believe them. Don’t give in to them. Don’t fight for them. Here’s what you do: Vote this year, in one of the most important elections of all time. Vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. They love this country, and they are more patriotic than the Republicans. Were the Republicans patriotic, they would not curtail that which makes America great.

PDF 2008 Day 2

Just got myself settled in for day two of PDF 2008. This should be interesting.

Updates to follow.

PDF 2008 #3

I absolutely love politics and the interchange of right and left, so I'm as happy as a pig in feces at the moment.

More PDF

They have a lot of interesting trend graphs about the current political situation and analyzing what people connect with oil, or Obama, or a bunch of other things. 

PDF 2008

My (semi)awesome friend Ryan got me into PDF2008 for today and tomorrow, and it seems very interesting thus far. It's all about the relation between politics and technology, and "rebooting the system" politically. There will be more posts to follow. I feel oddly official right now, sitting here blogging at this political conference.