Keep in mind that those who condemn the atomic bombing are not interested in
the Japanese, except as stage props--innocent victims useful for swaying
opinion; the more maimed (and in more horrific ways) and the more killed, the
better. Thus the relentless exagerating of deaths. They really do want more
to have been killed than really were, because that makes the "crime" even more
heinous.
What is really "on trial" for these people is the US, which they see as the
greatest force for evil in the world. The US is not "bad" ...("bad" being a
catch-all for all sorts of perjoratives: evil, racist, sexist, speciest,
fascist, imperialist, capitalist, money-worshipping, rich, oppressive, selfish,
polluting, loud-mouthed, arrogant, over-tipping, global-warming-increasing
meanies)... the US is not "bad" _because_ it dropped the bomb; the US dropping
the bomb is Exhibit A in the pile of evidence adduced to demonstrate the
wickedness of the US.
Thus, arguments about casualties in a projected invasion are pooh-poohed, and
even the need for an invasion is questioned: we could have negotiated an end to
the war.
(The question of the morality of leaving militarists in power in Japan is
brushed aside, of course; it's all about Amerikkka.)
The mindset is not, of course, confined to Hiroshima. You can see it in
discussions of the US attack on Iraq today. What the Sadam regime did to
deserve or provoke the attack are irrelevant, the suffering of the Iraqi people
under him is a red herring dragged across the path to divert attention from the
true, malignant motives of the US. You can also see the same mindset in
discussions of the Vietnam War, the Cold War and.... It is _only_ US motives
and actions that are to be criticized. The alleged and doubtless wildly
exaggerated crimes of those the US has opposed are never an issue to be taken
seriously.
So debaters talk past each other. One side says, "What the US did was bad. It
did what it did because itis a bad country." The other side says, "The US felt
compelled to do what it did by circumstance, to end a much greater evil."
The response to that is: "Did not!" Which gets the retort: "Did too!"
repeated endlessly.
Of course, had Truman held back the bomb and invaded, making of Japan a super
Okinawa, today's anti-bomb crowd would be excoriating the US for having had the
means to quickly "end the killing" and not doing so--because it wanted the
opportunity to conduct a genocidal extermination campaign against the Japanese
people and firmly eliminate the possibility that Japan could ever become an
economic rival in the future.
Damned if you do and ....


Chris Mark