Hiroshima and Nagasaki

I was appointed as TA for a class on World War II this semester. Even though modern history is not my field of study, I was pretty stoked about it. In addition to the professor, I found the topic appealing. As a pacifist, my religious and theological conversations do not infrequently concern the "Good War." In addition, a few years ago I became convinced that the US should not have dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I still believe this, but taking this course has given me a broader perspective. (I mean, I'm pretty much an expert now.)

Dr. Jenkins, in contrast to many historians of academia, made the case for the use of the atomic bombs. Two points in particular are worthy of note: (1) the degree of destruction caused by the atomic bombs was not markedly greater than that of more conventional bombing [see pictures below], and (2) according to Jenkins, while "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" took the lives of a quarter million Japanese citizens, they ultimately prevented the deaths of 15 million people (14 million Japanese and 1 million Americans).

To illustrate the first point, simply consider these pictures. One is Tokyo, which was a target of heavy, non-nuclear bombing during the war, and the other is Hiroshima. Can you tell which is which? (Answers at bottom.)

With regard to the number of deaths prevented by the dropping of the atomic bombs, Jenkins claims that the number of American soldiers who would have likely died in an invasion of mainland Japan is often grossly underestimated. Historians are apt to quote General Douglas MacArthur who said he could have done it and only lost 30,000 American soldiers. The Americans had planned Operation Downfall (the invasion of Japan) under the assumption that the would be able to muster 500,000 troops. US intelligence reports initially claimed that the Japanese had 200,000 troops defending Kyushu, the southernmost island of mainland Japan. They later increased the estimate to 600,000. In fact, however, 800,000 Japanese soldiers would have awaited the American invasion attempt. (For reference, the American military had learned that a 3:1 ratio was optimal for amphibious landings.) The notion that not only the invasion, but also occupation, could be achieved with only losing 30,000 American soldiers (and who knows how many Japanese soldiers and civilians) is ludicrous. Furthermore, Jenkins claims, the Japanese cabinet was willing to lose 20 million more lives.

Upon hearing this argument, I asked Dr. Jenkins why, then, Japan surrendered in the wake of the nuclear bombs. He replied that the nuclear bombs came in small packages (wreaking mass destruction was perceived to be a much easier exercise) and the Japanese did not realize that the US did not have a large supply of them.

I find Jenkins' argument, that dropping the atomic bombs on Japan actually saved lives, convincing. Yet, I still don't think the US should have dropped them. It is only an acceptable proposition if one was determined to defeat the Japanese with violence. For many, this was a given after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, but I do not see it that way. (Indeed, my disagreements with US foreign policy far predate December 1941.) But that's another post.

The lesson I learned is not that I will no longer protest the dropping of the atomic bombs. Rather, I have learned that I will no longer protest only the dropping of the atomic bombs. The merciless fire-bombing of Japan by the US (and Germany, particularly by the British) is equally objectionable, in my opinion. To focus solely on the former is to oversimplify. Indeed, I see nowhere to stand between nonviolence and approval of the use of the atomic bombs against Japan.

[Aside: I do not deny the notion that dropping the atomic bombs was intended to send a message to the Russians. I do not think that was the primary intention, however. On a related note, some have suggested that the fire-bombing of Dresden was primarily a message to the Red Army, who was approaching from the east as they marched to Berlin. Given Dresden's relatively small industrial significance, I find this argument persuasive, at least for the time being.]

The picture on the left is Tokyo. The one on the right is Hiroshima.

(Mostly) destructive criticism

I watched Devil tonight at my local dollar theater. It was okay. I keep hoping that Shyamalan will recapture some of the magic of The Sixth Sense. I think I need to bury that dream.

If you're not familiar with the plot at all, it centers around five people who get stuck on an elevator together. One of them might be the devil. The viewer is led to believe this because of the title of the movie; because the narrator (Shyamalan) relates how, when he was a kid, his mother told him stories about the devil; and also because one of the characters, a security guard, relates how, when he was a kid, his mother told him similar stories. (Apparently, every once in a while the devil visits earth to torture the damned before taking their souls. Okay. Oh, and we know this because "Peter 5:8" talks about the devil prowling around like a lion.) The lamest part of the entire film, in my opinion, is the introduction, by the aforementioned security guard, of the possibility that a supernatural element is involved. I saw it coming a mile away. In fact, it was so obvious that I saw it before I bought my ticket and considered just going home. But I paid my four quarters anyway. So, the predictable element: the "believer" is the Hispanic security guard. All the other guys are white and skeptical. (I was surprised, however, that the Hispanic guy never mentioned el Diablo or, less seriously, the chupacabras.) Anyway, overall the film kept my attention, but I felt like I could write something that good (or better if I spoke to someone who actually works for the Philadelphia PD).

Some advice, M. Night: avoid the hokey.

By the way, most TV these days is awful. I saw a commercial for How I Met Your Mother. Third-grade viewing level. Seriously.

Have things changed?

"The nineteenth century had given [the values of liberty, equality, and fraternity] to all, but nationalism had persuaded each citizen that they inhered meaningfully only in the state to which he belonged." - Sir John Keegan, The Second World War

Ricketts Glen State Park

Yesterday I drove a couple of hours to Ricketts Glen State Park near Sweet Valley, PA. One can hike roughly 7 miles and see over 20 waterfalls. A friend and I did. It was a lot of fun, albeit slightly disappointing due to the low volume of water (which is to be expected this time of year). I've uploaded some of my favorite shots.

First, the standard waterfall shots. (Be sure to notice the people standing behind the first waterfall.):

There was also an unnamed waterfall. It wasn't on either of the creeks, so it's volume was really low. Nevertheless, it was one of my favorites. It was very serene, as I think the picture (a partial) demonstrates:

The geology was quite unusual in places. Consider, for example, these "stacks" of rocks:

I had some fun with the camera. This first picture is of a rock and a puddle. I took another one just like it, except that the camera was focused on the reflection of the waterfall (and therefore the rock is out of focus).

Finally, I was amused by an exit for "Jersey Shore" in central Pennsylvania:

Nature Center

Ginny and I went to the Western North Carolina Nature Center at the beginning of July. I've uploaded some pictures, but I thought that these two were particularly deserving of comment.

Check out this turtle's back legs. It's as if he's doing the Superman exercise:

And then there were these two bobcats sleeping. Cute, huh?