Thanks for this—unflinching and capacious. You neither rush to condemn nor retreat into abstraction. What you call a paradox—keeping the arsenal without using it—might simply be the moral cost of not being naïve. Your reading of Feynman honors that same tension. He refuses the posture of sage, yet can’t shrug off consequence. The dramatic monologue works—because you let the poetry emerge from his cadence without forcing insight where he offers none. Bob Wilson, by contrast, keeps the conscience alive. His quiet protest doesn’t demand agreement, only attention. It's good to mark this day by listening to those who couldn’t forget.
In a way, nuclear weapons are a microcosmic example of how Original Sin matters and taints everything else. In this case, the original sin with nuclear weapons is developing working ones in the first place. You open Pandoras box or dig too greedily and awaken a Balrog.
That nuclear weapons got used is almost an afterthought in comparison to the problem of initial creation. Creating a situation where evil tools end up getting deployed in a defensive/stable arrangement highlights the fallenness of this world.
In the microbiological sphere, engineering pathogens (a la Demon in the Freezer) are doing similar things, as are to an even greater degree some of the engineering of embryos with more than two parents to name just two examples.
The war c criminals in question were the Bushido maniacs that refused to surrender after the Japanese Empire was clearly defeated. It should never have been necessary to use the Bomb, or even bomb a second Japanese city. The true racism in our society shows up in the moral blindness of those who would excuse the horrors Japanese command had in mind for its elders and its young children on the basis of a cultural relativism that misses the whole point. The Bonb was a mercy to Japanese civilians, compared to what its own government intended for them
I'm by no means a cultural relativist. I think the Japanese culture was insanely barbaric and guilty of numerous heinous crimes. But I'm also a deontologist, which means however you frame the bomb I still can't condone it.
I’m seventy-four years old, born during the Korean conflict. My dad had a congenital heart condition, so neither the marines or the army would take him. (I am thankful for his heart condition.) But my uncle, the youngest of my dad’s older brothers, was in the Philippines waiting on orders to deploy to the home islands. My cousin, who had been born by then, related once that my uncle had no expectations of coming home again. Then Japan surrendered. I wish the bomb had never been developed, but we humans are so good at weapons making. After decades of being propagandized, both for and against the use of this particular weapon, I’m still not sure what I think about it. But God …. Not even a sparrow falls to the ground outside of His will. All I can do is fall on my face before Him, and give Him all my doubts and uncertainties.
In this case I think it means you're evading the question. This was a choice between lesser evils. By any rational standard, once the war plans of the Bushido maniacs (sic - I I mean to invite condemnation) are considered, the question what is the lesser evil isn't even close. It's the Bomb, quite apart from the savings in the Allied lives.
The cultural relativism comes into play by the refusal to put Japanese war policy on basic Kanian terms. They do not get a pass by virtue of Asian descent. The Kamikaze campaign, the refusal to surrender after aerial bombing made the defenselessness of the island Empire obvious, etc, are inexcusable lapses. By any moral standard, the Allies should not have been faced with a choice of lesser evils. The same same principle applies to Nazi resistance during the last year of the war, when they inflicted appalling damage on their own people.
The Allied bomb had a tactical and strategic purpose which the mindless resistance of Japanese command completely lacked. And it succeeded. The war ended with undue loss of life. But it should never have been necessary.
I would refuse the implicit false dichotomy here, that not to use the bomb would have been to commit "evil" simply because of the various other lives lost as a result.
I mentioned the evasion. You're in it four square. The dichotomy isn't false, as much as you would like it to be. Harry Truman has a genuine dilemma. No matter what he does, lives are going to be lost.
Moral dilemmas are dilemmas precisely because there is no good solution, e.g, the overballyhood trolley problem. Fortunately, they don't come along very often, but when they do, it's useless to pretend they don't exist - which is what you were doing as a deontologist. I'm fully aware and familiar with the concept. It's not an exercise in morality. It's an exercise an moral vanity, ducking the real challenge of the dilemma and pretending that your pharisaical neutrality somehow conveys a moral superiority. It doesn't.
Tell me what you would do as Truman, and why. Because that's the test of actual morality. Not some scrupulous, holier than thou, refusal to believe there is no good choice.
It seems that the numbers of dead (which it's being argued are higher in the no bomb scenario than bomb scenario) are doing most of the argumentative work here. In other words you're making a utilitarian argument. I think intent is what does the moral work.
I'm making a Kantian argument. Unfortunately, that does become quantitative in situations as horrendous as the end of World War II.
I'm done myself. What you're doing is using moral jargon to evade the real challenge of ethics, which is always situational. Deontology is a nice word, but the only moral schemata that matters is one that gives guidance in the world of flesh-and-blood.
You did not answer the question of what you'd do in Truman's place. That is not only the major question, it's the only question. Until you're prepared to answer it, your pronouncements about war crimes are hollow and arrogant - in the most fundamental sense, you have no right to them, you haven't earned them.
It is right that we ask these questions, even when the answers are vague or unsatisfactory. There is a school of thought which holds the Japanese were days from surrender, and we knew it. There is a school of thought who believed the Japanese were committed to defending the homeland to the last man. There were a lot of men preparing for an invasion who were very thankful the order never came.
War is hell and it is best that if we can't avoid it, we end it as quickly as possible. Blessings.
I couldn't agree more, but this particular writer decided that the use of the Bomb under all circumstances was a war crime. Not only is the universal an incredibly naive statement, but in the existential reality (which you have to find pretty well above) it was almost certainly the best among the number of bad choices.
I don't fault the author for her considered position. I don't fault another person who would counsel use of the bomb at desparate need. I thank God I will never be called upon to carry the responsibility of deciding.
Only the bomb? Truman made the extreme decision to save [WIKI-est]10 million lives (Japanese and allied troops combined) by dropping the two bombs (which resulted in the immediate and follow-on loss of [WIKI-est]250,000 Japanese lives). What other option? War is a crime!
While an individual can be a deontologist, to preserve a nation it's leaders must be consequentialists.
The issue is simply the fact that if something is inherently immoral, then it's wrong to do no matter how much better an outcome there is for "your side." That's the gating issue here.
While I disagree with Dr. McGrew about the USE of the bomb as inherently immoral, especially as they would have seen it in those particular circumstances and when limiting knowledge to what they knew at that time, I still think its development and creation in the first place is a great evil that left us morally poorer and weaker due to its nature.
Part of why it's important to argue over whether the use THEN was morally justified or not, even though we can't change history, is because other tools are coming or even already here, whether in warfare or other domains of life where once the door is opened, it cannot be shut and there's a pre-X and a post-X time. Sometimes, you won't realize it until afterwards and other times, it's unmistakable that the world is changed.
I think IVF, 3+ parent babies, and future successful artificial wombs are all examples of this. Pre-IVF, conception still happened in a womb even if it was done mechanically (artificial insemination for example). Post-IVF you now have a world of designer babies, embryonic eugenics, and millions of time travelers imprisoned in freezers.
3+ parent babies might well produce healthy children that don't have killer genetic diseases they'd otherwise have, but we're also going to have the consequences of vanity projects like polycule every-lover parent children from each "partner," "add a bit of celebrity" gene hacking that makes child creation more like a meal recipe [a little bit of Musk here and a bit of celebrity there], as well as some really ubermensch fantasy stuff. This just happened, and we won't see the implications for many years.
Artificial wombs could save many lives in an abortion sense of the word by offering a lifesaving alternative and also be used to breed populations of slaves independently of any demographic bomb considerations. Personally, I suspect this development when it comes, combined with more aggressive Euthanasia programs, is how many of the countries facing demographic bombs that have no moral foundation for individual human life will "solve" their issues. This hasn't happened yet, but when it does, that too will be a Before and After.
I know this isn’t the focus of your piece, but some of my thoughts while reading:
I’m not sure of what I think about the bombs dropped onto cities in Japan. My grandfather was a marine on Okinawa, being staged for the land invasion of Japan (an operation which was almost-unanimously expected to have a massive mortality rate for everyone involved). Instead, he eventually returned home and married my grandmother.
At the same time, the phenomenon of war seems far worse when it spills onto the women and children. And, maybe, this is always a deep risk of war as an enterprise.
I’m somewhat less conflicted about having/maintaining weapons as a deterrence. To me, being obviously and competently armed seems to play a legitimate part in the win-win calculus of civilization. Was Peter wrong for being armed (open-carry, albeit in the dark? 🤷♂️) when he went with Jesus to Gethsemane? I suspect he wasn’t.
I think on the issue of war crimes, as understood then, how would Nagasaki be understood differently from the Tokyo or Dresden firebombings? Or would you view them as equivalent, with perhaps a severity kicker for the bomb with radiation effects? I'm using Nagasaki because while they knew Hiroshima's bomb would go off, the extra nasty unintended side effects were essentially unknown. Moreover, the extent of the unique on the ground horror was only known to the Americans post-surrender in both cases, so they're a closer consideration.
I think if the intentional firebombings and nukes are in the same category as war crimes *at the time*, then I can see it being an automatic war crime. Otherwise, I think it's only conceivably a war crime retrospectively, and I'd challenge that case.
---
I might also add that there comes a point where moral options are foreclosed by the evil side's actions and it both becomes critical to act with respect to conscience AND not to justify it. Atomic bombings, Operation Downfall, a Maximum Starvation* blockade, or a conditional surrender that creates a brand new and even more virulent Stab in the Back Mythos for everyone to fight 20 years later all represent horrible options both for the US, Japanese, and those occupied.
It may be excusable or even inexcusable but understandable, while still being morally wrong, but at a certain point, the attempt to justify the aberrant action then creates a precedent that is morally baptized. In law, something is justified when it's otherwise morally wrong but a higher purpose justifies you and you're absolved of blame - the classic example is true self-defense that results in the other's person's death. In law, excuse means the act is still morally wrong but partially or completely excused by mitigating circumstances - such as being forced to rob a bank so your held-hostage children don't get killed or being in a drunk driving accident after being involuntarily intoxicated (slipped a drugged non-alcoholic drink). Maybe that's very morally sloppy reasoning and creates a lot of unintended consequences.
That I think is the real danger of focusing on the body count alone. A much greater evil can come from viewing the bombing as "Good" and "Justified"^ than from viewing it as a dreadful choice on a menu of terrible options you don't regret making because you believe the alternatives were worse as you knew them, even if you'd act differently later having a fuller picture. A combination of humility and a healthy fear of God that any action taken or not taken is fallen and deeply corrupted by sin needing the Cross is I think an important thing to keep in mind.
In Truman's very particular shoes, including his not being at all briefed on or aware of the Bomb prior to his becoming Presidency, I cannot imagine a situation where I would not use the Bomb, especially the Hiroshima one, and also completely understand why he never stated himself as having any regrets about it. I think even in Truman's shoes with what we know now, my position is that it's still a pretty defensible call even if not necessarily a justified one.
But I think it is also an entirely defensible position to say that while Downfall would have been much bloodier, it would NOT have fallen into the category of inherently immoral like the use of a nuke was since it would have just been more of the same nasty warfare and that's the price needed to defeat Japan. Few of us truly would want to go down the rabbit hole of committing grotesque evil on a few if it can stop a lot of other people suffering. We all arguably have some limit somewhere, and if we don't then watch out.
----
*Go look up one of Churchill's mad plans to retaliate against Germany with anthrax via Operation Vegetarian to see just what that might look like if you want to shudder.
^ For that, I'd use the genuinely providential fact that in terms of nuclear capacity, the US wrongly assumed parity or even being behind the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis when in fact the US was far ahead of the Soviets, especially in the unstoppable ICBM and submarine ballistic missile categories. If planners had realized how dramatic the advantage was, especially in terms of ballistic missiles, the US could have "won" a nuclear exchange in a way unthinkable by the 1970s. The US would have probably lost a few dozen cities to a few missiles that worked or a lucky bomber or two while the Soviet Union would have been bombed to oblivion and Europe would be a complete ash heap stuck in the middle.
The 40m people killed in Europe alone as a result of WW2 (including Holocaust victims), places the 78,000 killed by the atom bomb in perspective. (My figure is from Wikipedia). ]
Thanks for this—unflinching and capacious. You neither rush to condemn nor retreat into abstraction. What you call a paradox—keeping the arsenal without using it—might simply be the moral cost of not being naïve. Your reading of Feynman honors that same tension. He refuses the posture of sage, yet can’t shrug off consequence. The dramatic monologue works—because you let the poetry emerge from his cadence without forcing insight where he offers none. Bob Wilson, by contrast, keeps the conscience alive. His quiet protest doesn’t demand agreement, only attention. It's good to mark this day by listening to those who couldn’t forget.
"Don’t look at me,” I said. “You started it!”
But that was it, you see. ‘Cuz once you start
To do an awful thing for all the best
Of reasons, you stop thinking. You just stop.
Except for Bob. I guess he never stopped."
Lots of truth here.
In a way, nuclear weapons are a microcosmic example of how Original Sin matters and taints everything else. In this case, the original sin with nuclear weapons is developing working ones in the first place. You open Pandoras box or dig too greedily and awaken a Balrog.
That nuclear weapons got used is almost an afterthought in comparison to the problem of initial creation. Creating a situation where evil tools end up getting deployed in a defensive/stable arrangement highlights the fallenness of this world.
In the microbiological sphere, engineering pathogens (a la Demon in the Freezer) are doing similar things, as are to an even greater degree some of the engineering of embryos with more than two parents to name just two examples.
Great (and very provocative) comparison to the technology of embryo creation.
Strong words, well spoken. Was the bomb necessary? Before answering that question, I highly recommend reading “Road to Surrender” by Evan Thomas.
I am the mother of 4 sons, 21 to 30 years old. Had I been the mother of 4 sons of fighting age in 1945 I would have been thankful for the atomic bomb.
The war c criminals in question were the Bushido maniacs that refused to surrender after the Japanese Empire was clearly defeated. It should never have been necessary to use the Bomb, or even bomb a second Japanese city. The true racism in our society shows up in the moral blindness of those who would excuse the horrors Japanese command had in mind for its elders and its young children on the basis of a cultural relativism that misses the whole point. The Bonb was a mercy to Japanese civilians, compared to what its own government intended for them
https://open.substack.com/pub/genuinerealist/p/the-dummys-guide-to-creating-false?r=125bht&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
I'm by no means a cultural relativist. I think the Japanese culture was insanely barbaric and guilty of numerous heinous crimes. But I'm also a deontologist, which means however you frame the bomb I still can't condone it.
I’m seventy-four years old, born during the Korean conflict. My dad had a congenital heart condition, so neither the marines or the army would take him. (I am thankful for his heart condition.) But my uncle, the youngest of my dad’s older brothers, was in the Philippines waiting on orders to deploy to the home islands. My cousin, who had been born by then, related once that my uncle had no expectations of coming home again. Then Japan surrendered. I wish the bomb had never been developed, but we humans are so good at weapons making. After decades of being propagandized, both for and against the use of this particular weapon, I’m still not sure what I think about it. But God …. Not even a sparrow falls to the ground outside of His will. All I can do is fall on my face before Him, and give Him all my doubts and uncertainties.
Amen.
In this case I think it means you're evading the question. This was a choice between lesser evils. By any rational standard, once the war plans of the Bushido maniacs (sic - I I mean to invite condemnation) are considered, the question what is the lesser evil isn't even close. It's the Bomb, quite apart from the savings in the Allied lives.
The cultural relativism comes into play by the refusal to put Japanese war policy on basic Kanian terms. They do not get a pass by virtue of Asian descent. The Kamikaze campaign, the refusal to surrender after aerial bombing made the defenselessness of the island Empire obvious, etc, are inexcusable lapses. By any moral standard, the Allies should not have been faced with a choice of lesser evils. The same same principle applies to Nazi resistance during the last year of the war, when they inflicted appalling damage on their own people.
The Allied bomb had a tactical and strategic purpose which the mindless resistance of Japanese command completely lacked. And it succeeded. The war ended with undue loss of life. But it should never have been necessary.
I would refuse the implicit false dichotomy here, that not to use the bomb would have been to commit "evil" simply because of the various other lives lost as a result.
I mentioned the evasion. You're in it four square. The dichotomy isn't false, as much as you would like it to be. Harry Truman has a genuine dilemma. No matter what he does, lives are going to be lost.
Moral dilemmas are dilemmas precisely because there is no good solution, e.g, the overballyhood trolley problem. Fortunately, they don't come along very often, but when they do, it's useless to pretend they don't exist - which is what you were doing as a deontologist. I'm fully aware and familiar with the concept. It's not an exercise in morality. It's an exercise an moral vanity, ducking the real challenge of the dilemma and pretending that your pharisaical neutrality somehow conveys a moral superiority. It doesn't.
Tell me what you would do as Truman, and why. Because that's the test of actual morality. Not some scrupulous, holier than thou, refusal to believe there is no good choice.
It seems that the numbers of dead (which it's being argued are higher in the no bomb scenario than bomb scenario) are doing most of the argumentative work here. In other words you're making a utilitarian argument. I think intent is what does the moral work.
In any case, thanks for reading and commenting!
I'm making a Kantian argument. Unfortunately, that does become quantitative in situations as horrendous as the end of World War II.
I'm done myself. What you're doing is using moral jargon to evade the real challenge of ethics, which is always situational. Deontology is a nice word, but the only moral schemata that matters is one that gives guidance in the world of flesh-and-blood.
You did not answer the question of what you'd do in Truman's place. That is not only the major question, it's the only question. Until you're prepared to answer it, your pronouncements about war crimes are hollow and arrogant - in the most fundamental sense, you have no right to them, you haven't earned them.
It is right that we ask these questions, even when the answers are vague or unsatisfactory. There is a school of thought which holds the Japanese were days from surrender, and we knew it. There is a school of thought who believed the Japanese were committed to defending the homeland to the last man. There were a lot of men preparing for an invasion who were very thankful the order never came.
War is hell and it is best that if we can't avoid it, we end it as quickly as possible. Blessings.
I couldn't agree more, but this particular writer decided that the use of the Bomb under all circumstances was a war crime. Not only is the universal an incredibly naive statement, but in the existential reality (which you have to find pretty well above) it was almost certainly the best among the number of bad choices.
I don't fault the author for her considered position. I don't fault another person who would counsel use of the bomb at desparate need. I thank God I will never be called upon to carry the responsibility of deciding.
I do. She's articulating an attitude of 'holier-than-thou on the basis of an entirely specious (and cynical) ethical scheme.
Grapple with the problem. If you don't, if you dance around it, don't waste everybody's time. And for Gawd's sake, don'y congratulate yourself.
Only the bomb? Truman made the extreme decision to save [WIKI-est]10 million lives (Japanese and allied troops combined) by dropping the two bombs (which resulted in the immediate and follow-on loss of [WIKI-est]250,000 Japanese lives). What other option? War is a crime!
While an individual can be a deontologist, to preserve a nation it's leaders must be consequentialists.
The issue is simply the fact that if something is inherently immoral, then it's wrong to do no matter how much better an outcome there is for "your side." That's the gating issue here.
While I disagree with Dr. McGrew about the USE of the bomb as inherently immoral, especially as they would have seen it in those particular circumstances and when limiting knowledge to what they knew at that time, I still think its development and creation in the first place is a great evil that left us morally poorer and weaker due to its nature.
Part of why it's important to argue over whether the use THEN was morally justified or not, even though we can't change history, is because other tools are coming or even already here, whether in warfare or other domains of life where once the door is opened, it cannot be shut and there's a pre-X and a post-X time. Sometimes, you won't realize it until afterwards and other times, it's unmistakable that the world is changed.
I think IVF, 3+ parent babies, and future successful artificial wombs are all examples of this. Pre-IVF, conception still happened in a womb even if it was done mechanically (artificial insemination for example). Post-IVF you now have a world of designer babies, embryonic eugenics, and millions of time travelers imprisoned in freezers.
3+ parent babies might well produce healthy children that don't have killer genetic diseases they'd otherwise have, but we're also going to have the consequences of vanity projects like polycule every-lover parent children from each "partner," "add a bit of celebrity" gene hacking that makes child creation more like a meal recipe [a little bit of Musk here and a bit of celebrity there], as well as some really ubermensch fantasy stuff. This just happened, and we won't see the implications for many years.
Artificial wombs could save many lives in an abortion sense of the word by offering a lifesaving alternative and also be used to breed populations of slaves independently of any demographic bomb considerations. Personally, I suspect this development when it comes, combined with more aggressive Euthanasia programs, is how many of the countries facing demographic bombs that have no moral foundation for individual human life will "solve" their issues. This hasn't happened yet, but when it does, that too will be a Before and After.
I know this isn’t the focus of your piece, but some of my thoughts while reading:
I’m not sure of what I think about the bombs dropped onto cities in Japan. My grandfather was a marine on Okinawa, being staged for the land invasion of Japan (an operation which was almost-unanimously expected to have a massive mortality rate for everyone involved). Instead, he eventually returned home and married my grandmother.
At the same time, the phenomenon of war seems far worse when it spills onto the women and children. And, maybe, this is always a deep risk of war as an enterprise.
I’m somewhat less conflicted about having/maintaining weapons as a deterrence. To me, being obviously and competently armed seems to play a legitimate part in the win-win calculus of civilization. Was Peter wrong for being armed (open-carry, albeit in the dark? 🤷♂️) when he went with Jesus to Gethsemane? I suspect he wasn’t.
I think on the issue of war crimes, as understood then, how would Nagasaki be understood differently from the Tokyo or Dresden firebombings? Or would you view them as equivalent, with perhaps a severity kicker for the bomb with radiation effects? I'm using Nagasaki because while they knew Hiroshima's bomb would go off, the extra nasty unintended side effects were essentially unknown. Moreover, the extent of the unique on the ground horror was only known to the Americans post-surrender in both cases, so they're a closer consideration.
I think if the intentional firebombings and nukes are in the same category as war crimes *at the time*, then I can see it being an automatic war crime. Otherwise, I think it's only conceivably a war crime retrospectively, and I'd challenge that case.
---
I might also add that there comes a point where moral options are foreclosed by the evil side's actions and it both becomes critical to act with respect to conscience AND not to justify it. Atomic bombings, Operation Downfall, a Maximum Starvation* blockade, or a conditional surrender that creates a brand new and even more virulent Stab in the Back Mythos for everyone to fight 20 years later all represent horrible options both for the US, Japanese, and those occupied.
It may be excusable or even inexcusable but understandable, while still being morally wrong, but at a certain point, the attempt to justify the aberrant action then creates a precedent that is morally baptized. In law, something is justified when it's otherwise morally wrong but a higher purpose justifies you and you're absolved of blame - the classic example is true self-defense that results in the other's person's death. In law, excuse means the act is still morally wrong but partially or completely excused by mitigating circumstances - such as being forced to rob a bank so your held-hostage children don't get killed or being in a drunk driving accident after being involuntarily intoxicated (slipped a drugged non-alcoholic drink). Maybe that's very morally sloppy reasoning and creates a lot of unintended consequences.
That I think is the real danger of focusing on the body count alone. A much greater evil can come from viewing the bombing as "Good" and "Justified"^ than from viewing it as a dreadful choice on a menu of terrible options you don't regret making because you believe the alternatives were worse as you knew them, even if you'd act differently later having a fuller picture. A combination of humility and a healthy fear of God that any action taken or not taken is fallen and deeply corrupted by sin needing the Cross is I think an important thing to keep in mind.
In Truman's very particular shoes, including his not being at all briefed on or aware of the Bomb prior to his becoming Presidency, I cannot imagine a situation where I would not use the Bomb, especially the Hiroshima one, and also completely understand why he never stated himself as having any regrets about it. I think even in Truman's shoes with what we know now, my position is that it's still a pretty defensible call even if not necessarily a justified one.
But I think it is also an entirely defensible position to say that while Downfall would have been much bloodier, it would NOT have fallen into the category of inherently immoral like the use of a nuke was since it would have just been more of the same nasty warfare and that's the price needed to defeat Japan. Few of us truly would want to go down the rabbit hole of committing grotesque evil on a few if it can stop a lot of other people suffering. We all arguably have some limit somewhere, and if we don't then watch out.
----
*Go look up one of Churchill's mad plans to retaliate against Germany with anthrax via Operation Vegetarian to see just what that might look like if you want to shudder.
^ For that, I'd use the genuinely providential fact that in terms of nuclear capacity, the US wrongly assumed parity or even being behind the Soviets in the Cuban Missile Crisis when in fact the US was far ahead of the Soviets, especially in the unstoppable ICBM and submarine ballistic missile categories. If planners had realized how dramatic the advantage was, especially in terms of ballistic missiles, the US could have "won" a nuclear exchange in a way unthinkable by the 1970s. The US would have probably lost a few dozen cities to a few missiles that worked or a lucky bomber or two while the Soviet Union would have been bombed to oblivion and Europe would be a complete ash heap stuck in the middle.
The 40m people killed in Europe alone as a result of WW2 (including Holocaust victims), places the 78,000 killed by the atom bomb in perspective. (My figure is from Wikipedia). ]
Interested readers can read/watch a defense of the use of the nuclear bomb in this Power Line article. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2025/08/why-we-dropped-the-bomb-2.php