The biggest problem with the annual discussion of the Hiroshima bombing is that it is essentially sterile. There is no new scholarship on the attacks, no newly revealed documentation, no new balanced assessment of the options and no new perspectives. Rather just a rehash of the same tired mythologies, out of context quotes, hand wringing, exaggeration and 20/20 hindsight.
The article in the OP is chock full of anti-American cant and works overtime to place the attacks in the context of postwar alleged US military excesses and even throws out accusations of war crimes and mass murder. That, and placing an historical event into a contemporary ethical frame of reference. Hardly an objective foundation for rational and balanced discussion.
The atomic attacks are most certainly of historical importance but on the Internet the subject is flogged to death annually about this time. The same arguments on both sides showcasing the same evidence with vast amounts of acrimony and more than a little BS thrown in to make the desired case.
I would gladly sit down one on one to rationally and reasonably debate the subject; it is worthy of discussion but not on an Internet forum where comprehension is typically lacking, mindsets are fixed, hyperbole rules and Wikipedia is often held to represent the suppository of all knowledge.
|